1AC
The United States federal government should expand US-Russian cooperative
exploration of the Arctic Ocean.
Advantage 1 is Russia
Science cooperation in the arctic is insufficient – expanding it is key to overall USRussian arctic cooperation
Benton 1-22-14 [David, Presidential appointment to the Arctic Research Commission, International
Cooperation Works, http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=3020#top]
We cooperate very well in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. And an example of this success is that we have the longest
maritime boundary between any two nations in the world. And we have very little conflict along that boundary. We have very good cooperation between Russian
border guards and the United States coast guards in terms of enforcement and search and rescue operations. And our fishery managers exchange data and information
on a regular basis. That all works fairly well. However,
where we have a gap, in my view, is in the Arctic, in the area of the Northern
not had a reason until recent times to start thinking
about how to cooperate, because of the ice there was little activity. Now that region is opening up. I believe that the United States
and Russia should look at some bilateral arrangements that would deal with enforcement, with science, and cooperation or at least
coordination in terms of our management activities for things like fisheries. The first step in the relationship that will have to be built over time, in my
mind, is science. We have good projects that we are cooperating on. But they’re very specific. What we
don’t have, in my view, is an institutional arrangement that would have long-lasting durability over
decades, and we need that. And we should do that bilaterally in our shared boundary. It should be a
Russia and United States -led, reciprocal scientific cooperation agreement that helps us on a regular
basis to plan and coordinate our research activities, share resources and achieve the joint interests that we
have in that region. The second thing is the working relationship between the Russian border guards and the United States Coast Guard. That’s a pretty
Bering Sea and north into the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean. We’ve
solid good working relationship that should extend and continue. It’s working very well in the Bering Sea and the North Pacific and should continue and work its way
up to the Arctic Ocean as well, and we should look for opportunities to strengthen that relationship as well. And what’s your assessment of these opportunities? And
opportunities are there. And I think that we
have the chance to make things happen over the next few years. And yes, I believe that if we start
cooperating on science and enforcement, other kinds of opportunities will present themselves, so the
relationship will strengthen. If we don’t seize those opportunities, then we’ll face a situation where
one side does one thing, the other side does another thing, and because one does not talk to the other, we won’t know if
we’re helping or hurting.
do you think that if Russia and the US start cooperating in the Arctic, the others will follow? I think the
And, science cooperation is both necessary and sufficient to solve US-Russia
conflicts
Berkman 6/23/14
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stability-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-science-diplomacy
Paul Arthur Berkman is a research professor at the Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the
University of California, Santa Barbara.
High north, low tensions” has been the mantra of diplomats, as coined by former Norwegian foreign minister Jonas
Gahr Støre. After all, the Cold War is over and cooperation has been evolving in productive directions ever since
for the North Polar region. Lessons of the Arctic, such as those from the Antarctic, reveal science as a tool of
diplomacy that creates bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. It is well known that science is
necessary for Earth system monitoring and assessment, especially as an essential gauge of change over time and space.
Science also is a frequent determinant of public policy agendas and institutions, often for early warning about
future events. However, even more than an immediate source of insight, invention, and commercial enterprise, science
provides
continuity in our global society with its evolving foundation of prior knowledge. These and other features of science diplomacy,1 as
a field of human endeavor, are relevant to our global future in the Arctic. Building on the East-West breakthrough in the 1986 Reykjavik Summit,
with his Murmansk speech in October 1987, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev envisioned a shared path where “the community and
interrelationship of the interests of our entire world is felt in the northern part of the globe, in the Arctic, perhaps more than anywhere else.”
Recognizing that “scientific exploration of the Arctic is of immense importance for the whole of mankind,”
Gorbachev called for creation of a “joint Arctic Research Council.” Emerging from his Murmansk speech, the International Arctic Science
Committee was founded in 1990, followed by the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991, which revealed a “common future” among
Arctic countries and peoples. Also involving the eight Arctic states,2 the Barents-Euro Arctic Council and Standing Committee of the Conference
of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region were formed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Eventually established in 1996, the
Arctic Council
breathed life into a circumpolar community of the eight states and six indigenous peoples’ organizations inhabiting the
region north of the Arctic Circle. “As a high level forum,” the Arctic Council has become central in an institutional arena for the high north that
includes the above organizations along with many others, starting with the 1920 Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. With its
forty-two signatories, this treaty still stands as a beacon of peaceful development in the high north. Together, the
six scientific working
groups of the Arctic Council are facilitating knowledge discovery and contributing to informed
decisions about “common Arctic issues” of sustainable development and environmental protection. As a direct
consequence of the Arctic Council, pan-Arctic agreements are being signed by all Arctic states, beginning with
the 2011 search and rescue agreement and 2013 marine oil pollution response agreement. Interests of twelve non-Arctic states, including China
and India, also are being accommodated as they are brought in as observers to the Arctic Council. Moreover, the so-called Arctic Five3 coastal
states are reaching territorial agreements. As noted in their 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large
areas of the Arctic Ocean”are being addressed cooperatively under the Law of the Sea, particularly with regard to “outer limits of the continental
shelf.” This commitment includes the United States, even though it has not yet ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea. Highlighting the cooperation, Russia and Norway signed an agreement in 2010 about Barents Sea resources, ending a dispute that had
escaped their resolution for the previous four decades. Winds
Are Changing The current crisis related to Ukraine
has introduced global geopolitics into the Arctic unlike any world event since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within
weeks of the Crimea annexation, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was linking the Arctic, Russia, and
Ukraine, suggesting in a March 2014 speech in Montreal that “we need a united front,” as reported by the Globe and Mail. The following
month, Canada, the current chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted the Arctic Council meeting in Moscow. Lines are being redrawn, which the
May/June 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs reflected with its articles related to “The Return of Geopolitics.” Such
political posturing
risks fueling the long-dormant “burning security issues” that Gorbachev warned of in the Arctic. Perhaps the world was
arriving at this security intersection in any case, but for different reasons. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where
the boundary conditions of the system are being altered. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where the boundary
conditions of the system are being altered. In fact—with the Arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else on Earth—the Arctic Ocean is
undergoing the largest environmental state-change on our planet. The surface of this maritime region surrounding the North Pole is being
transformed from a sea-ice cap that has persisted for millennia (perhaps even hundreds of millennia) to a system with sea ice retreating and
advancing seasonally. Rather than projecting out to the mid-twenty-first century, it is clear that the Arctic Ocean already has crossed a threshold
with open water during the summer and first-year sea ice during the winter covering more than 50 percent of its area. Of greater significance, the
volume of Arctic sea ice has decreased more than 70 percent since the late 1970s. With increasing accessibility in the Arctic Ocean,
countries, along with multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, are preparing to exploit the
region’s enormous energy reserves, estimated to contain 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its
undiscovered oil. Fisheries are opening to commercial harvesting without regulation, especially in areas of the high seas lacking any regional
fisheries management organization. Arctic
shipping routes are being established to supplement trade through the Panama and
is
now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Like removing the ceiling to a room, the
Suez Canals. It is not a matter of waiting decades or even years for the Arctic Ocean to be completely ice-free during the summer. There
fundamental shift in the surface boundary of the Arctic Ocean has created a new natural system with different dynamics than anything previously
experienced by humans in the region. There is now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Separate from the Ukraine
situation, the
environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean is introducing inherent risks of political,
economic, and cultural instabilities—which are at the heart of every security dialogue. Exposing security risks in
the Arctic may be a good thing, but only if accompanied by inclusive solutions that both promote
cooperation and prevent conflict. Achieving International Stability Leaving loose the elephant in the room, questions about
conflict in the Arctic Ocean remain unattended. As a consequence, the associated community of states and peoples lacks a shared understanding
of expectations, capabilities, interests, and wills to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. “Matters related to military security” are off the
table for the Arctic Council. The council avoids even general considerations of security in the Arctic Ocean, as reflected by elimination of the
security chapter from its second Arctic Human Development Report, which is due in 2014. “Matters related to military security” are off the table
for the Arctic Council. With all Arctic coastal states except Russia as members, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the only
northern Atlantic organization without a remit in the Arctic Ocean. This position seems reasonable as long as NATO is seen by Russia as the
“main external threat of war,” as stated in the 2010 Military Doctrine of Russia. These positions made sense immediately after the Cold War, but
decades of cooperation have followed and there now is capacity to project peace into the future for the Arctic Ocean. “Not all military capabilities
are designed for force,”4 as affirmed for the Arctic Ocean in 2010 by then NATO supreme allied commander, Admiral James Stavridis.
Illustrating this point, in association with the Arctic Council, meetings among the chiefs of defense from all Arctic states began in 2012 with
regard to their shared emergency responses in the Arctic Ocean. An opportunity to think about the Arctic more holistically is further revealed by
the NATO Advanced Research Workshop “Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean,” which the author chaired with Russian co-directorship
in 2010 at the University of Cambridge. That workshop became the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding security issues in
the Arctic Ocean. Global
recognition of the need for international stability is a necessary first step toward
lasting peace in the maritime region bounded by North America, Europe, and Asia at the top of the Earth, where the interests of
the entire international community are increasingly focused. The next step will involve implementing an inclusive
venue for ongoing dialogue to prevent conflict as well as promote cooperation in the Arctic Ocean. Cultivating
Common Interests International stability is inextricably linked to sustainable development, which already is acknowledged as a common Arctic
issue to balance economic prosperity, environmental protection and social equity, taking into consideration the needs of present and future
generations. Even more basic to stability in the Arctic Ocean is balancing national interests and common interests. Although peace is the most
basic foundation for international stability, the term was consciously rejected as a common Arctic issue when the Arctic Council was established.
The fear then, as now, was that peace implies demilitarization. It was only in 2009 that this term even began to appear in Arctic Council
ministerial declarations. Still, “peace” is not used among all Arctic states in their national security policies for the Arctic. In fact, it remains to be
seen whether Canada, in contrast to its Arctic foreign policies, will include “peace” in the 2015 Arctic Council ministerial declaration. If the
Arctic states are too timid or nationalistic to openly discuss balance, stability, and peace when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate
when conflicts arise? The path forward is reflected by the Arctic states’ commitment to the Law of the Sea, which includes zones within as well
as beyond sovereign jurisdictions. Even if continental shelf extensions were conferred all the way to the North Pole—unambiguously in the
overlying water column—high seas still would exist beyond sovereign jurisdictions, where more than 160 nations have rights and responsibilities
under international law. Implications
of the high seas surrounding the North Pole are just now entering
front stage. At their February 2014 meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, the Arctic Five took the initiative “to prevent unregulated fishing in the
central Arctic Ocean.” Whatever the international outcomes from this meeting, lessons will resonate from the high seas of the Arctic Ocean
outward across our civilization on a planetary scale. Statesmanship Is Required At
the moment, there is neither a forum nor
leadership to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. To prepare for the 2016 Arctic heads of state meeting that is
being considered in the United States on the twentieth anniversary of the Arctic Council, President Barack Obama has the option to
inspire stability and peace for the Arctic across the twenty-first century and beyond. Turning back the calendar only a few
months to winter 2014 (remember the Sochi Olympics), Russia was seen in a different light. Since 2010, the Russian Geographical Society had
been convening the “Arctic Forum for Dialogue,” first in Moscow then in Arkhangelsk in 2011 and in Salekhard in 2013. Each of these
international gatherings in Russia involved scientists and diplomats as well as government administrators, commercial operators, advocates from
nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples. Most prominent in the Arctic forums were the head-of-state presentations, stimulated by
participation of Vladimir Putin initially as prime minister and most recently as president of the Russian Federation. President Ólafur Ragnar
Grímsson of Iceland, as the elder statesman of the Arctic, participated in all three forums. Prince Albert II of Monaco presented in 2010 and 2011.
With invitations extended to all Arctic heads of state, President Sauli Niinistö of Finland also participated in 2013. As a common interest, these
heads of state all spoke of stability and peace in the Arctic, even if only for their national benefit. In each forum, it also was clear that the level of
trust and cooperation in the Arctic had matured since the Cold War, signaling that international relationships in the Arctic are open and strong
enough to deal with the more difficult issues of preventing conflict. To build on the earlier head-of-state engagements for the Arctic, Obama has
the opportunity to convene a meeting with all other Arctic heads of state and act as a statesman who puts out the brushfires of the moment while
planting seeds of hope and inspiration for the future.5 The
challenge is to create a process of ongoing and inclusive
dialogue about Arctic issues that have so far eluded shared consideration. With the Arctic, Obama must
be brave enough to share the ‘coin of peace,’ promoting cooperation on one side and preventing conflict on the other. Historic
perspectives and the roles of science diplomacy will help provide direction. However, to bear fruit in the interests of
humankind, the political will for lasting stability and peace in the Arctic must come from all Arctic
heads of state. At the end of the day, peace must be established explicitly as a common interest among all states and peoples in the Arctic
Ocean. As Gorbachev imagined a generation ago, “Let the North Pole be a Pole of Peace.”
Continued competition in the Arctic makes war imminent
Goldenberg 5-14 [Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Climate change poses growing threat of
conflict in the Arctic, report finds, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/14/climatechange-arctic-security-threat-report]
Climate change poses a growing security threat and could cause conflict in the Arctic, a group of retired
American generals and admirals said on Tuesday. In a new report, the former military officers said the Pentagon had been caught out by the rapid
changes under way in the Arctic because of the melting of the sea ice. “Things
are accelerating in the Arctic faster than
we had looked at," said General Paul Kern, the chairman of the Centre for Naval Analysis Corporation's
military advisory board, which produced the report. “The changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged.” The
prospect of an ice-free Arctic by mid-century had set off a scramble for shipping lanes by Russia and
China especially, and for access to oil and other resources. “As the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it
represents a lot of opportunites for Russia,” he said. Oil companies were also moving into the Arctic. "We think things are
accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at seven years ago," he said, saying the situation had the potential to
"spark conflict there". The CNA report deepens concern about the security risks posed by climate change. In March, the United
Nations' IPCC, in a landmark report, also warned that growing competition for resources in a world under climate
change could lead to conflict. The report from the retired generals goes further, however, upgrading the
climate risk from a “threat multipler” to a “conflict catalyst”.
US-Russian Arctic conflict goes nuclear
Cohen 10 Ariel [Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies] “From Russian Competition to Natural Resources Access: Recasting U.S. Arctic Policy” The Heritage
Foundation 6/15/10 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/from-russian-competition-to-natural-resources-access-recasting-us-arcticpolicy ]
To advance its position, Russia has undertaken a three-year mission to map the Arctic.[26] The Kremlin is also moving rapidly to establish a
comprehensive sea, ground, and air presence. Under Putin, Russia focused on the Arctic as a major natural resources base. The Russian
national leadership
insists that the state, not the private sector, must take the lead in developing the vast
region. The Kremlin published its Arctic doctrine in March 2009.[27] The main goal is to transform the Arctic into Russia’s strategic resource
base and make Russia a leading Arctic power by 2020. Russian Militarization of the Arctic. The military is an important
dimension of Moscow’s Arctic push. The policy calls for creating “general purpose military formations drawn from the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation” as well as “other troops and military formations [most importantly, border units] in the Arctic zone of the
Russian Federation, capable of ensuring security under various military and political circumstances.”[28] These formations will be drawn from
the armed forces and from the “power ministries” (e.g., the Federal Security Service, Border Guard Service, and Internal Ministry). Above all, the
Russia views the High North as a major staging
area for a potential nuclear confrontation with the United 1States and has steadily expanded its
military presence in the Arctic since 2007. This has included resuming air patrols over the Arctic, including strategic bomber
flights.[29] During 2007 alone, Russian bombers penetrated Alaska’s 12-mile air defense zone 18 times.[30] The Russian Navy is
expanding its presence in the Arctic for the first time since the end of the Cold War, increasing the
operational radius of the Northern Fleet’s submarines. Russia is also reorienting its military strategy to meet threats
to the country’s interests in the Arctic, particularly with regard to its continental shelf.[31] Russia is
also modernizing its Northern Fleet. During 2008 and 2009, Russian icebreakers regularly patrolled in the Arctic. Russia has the
policy calls for a coast guard to patrol Russia’s Arctic waters and estuaries.
world’s largest polar-capable icebreaker flotilla, with 24 icebreakers. Seven are nuclear, including the 50 Years of Victory, the largest icebreaker
in the world.[32] Russia plans to build new nuclear-powered icebreakers starting in 2015.[33] Moscow clearly views a strong icebreaker fleet as a
key to the region’s economic development. Russia ’s Commercial Presence. Russia’s energy rush to the Arctic continues apace. On May 12,
2009, President Dmitry Medvedev approved Russia’s security strategy.[34] This document views Russia’s natural resources in the Arctic as a
base for both economic development and geopolitical influence. Paragraph 11 identifies potential battlegrounds where conflicts
over
energy may occur: “The attention of international politics in the long-term will be concentrated on controlling the sources of energy
resources in the Middle East, on the shelf of the Barents Sea and other parts of the Arctic, in the Caspian Basin and in Central Asia.” The
document seriously considers the use of military force to resolve competition for energy near Russia’s borders or those of its allies: “In
case
of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a
decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be
changed.”[35] In August 2008, Medvedev signed a law that allows “the government to allocate strategic oil and gas deposits on the continental
shelf without auctions.” The law restricts participation to companies with five years’ experience in a region’s continental shelf and in which the
government controls at least a 50 percent stake. This effectively allows only state-controlled Gazprom and Rosneft to participate.[36] However,
when the global financial crisis ensued, Russia backtracked and began to seek foreign investors for Arctic gas development.
Independently – Arctic collaboration spills-over to broader relations and
cooperation
The Center for Climate and Security ’13 [a nonprofit policy institute with a distinguished Advisory
Board of senior retired military leaders and security professionals, “The United States and Russia in a
Changing Arctic”, http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/08/16/the-united-states-and-russia-in-a-changingarctic/]
It is important to pay close attention to the Russian point of view on the Arctic as ice melts, and sea lanes
open up. The United States will assume the presidency of the Arctic Council in 2015, and though that seems far away, serious
preparations for how to deal with the changing Arctic landscape will need to happen now. That
includes being prepared to deal with claims issues, sea lane problems, policing questions, and possible strains on cooperation emerging from both
the economic and climatic landscape. For example, both the United States and Russia face a greater need for ice breakers, as the navigable area of the Arctic increases, leading to an increase in
traffic, a greater need for policing, and a possible increase in search and rescue (or SAR) operations. But in a climate of fiscal austerity, finding the funds for such expensive ships is very difficult.
A lack of such capacities for the U.S and Russia in the Arctic could lead to a largely unregulated Arctic space, and a greater likelihood of human and environmental disasters occurring. Though
being prepared to keep cooperation between them on track, in the face
could go a long way, and not just in keeping the Arctic safe. The need for closer cooperation in a
melting north might also lead to improvements in other areas of diplomacy, such as over Syria,
Egypt, humanitarian intervention, international climate negotiations, and many others. U.S. ratification of the
such issues are not at all likely to lead to open conflict between Arctic nations,
of rapid changes,
the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which is supported by a broad consensus of stakeholders including the U.S. military, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of major U.S. oil companies,
The United States
and Russia have a rocky relationship, to say the least. A rapidly-changing Arctic complicates that.
However, with adequate investments of political will and financial resources, the Arctic can continue to
be a relatively safe and cooperative space. Hopefully, that cooperation can help lay the foundation for
progress on pressing security, humanitarian and human rights questions across the globe.
has still not materialized. If it did, the scope of productive cooperation between the U.S. and Russia could expand significantly, in the Arctic and beyond.
Ukraine put US-Russian cooperation over Iran nuclear negotiations at risk – it
could scuttle the deal
Kreft 6-30-14 [Elizabeth Kreft is a 12-year Air Force veteran past Defense Legislative Fellow for a member of the House Armed
Services and Judiciary committees; Iran Sells Something in Russia For the First Time In Five Years,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/iran-sells-something-in-russia-for-the-first-time-in-five-years/]
The resumption comes at a time of greater openness to trade with Iran following an interim nuclear deal reached in November that saw some
international sanctions eased in return for Tehran freezing or curbing parts of its nuclear program. Iran hopes to reach a final nuclear deal with
Russia and other world powers by next month.¶ Geographical
proximity, shared regional interests and the
geopolitics of energy have connected the two states on strategic, energy-related and regional issues
of late; during a televised interview in February, President Hassan Rouhani commented on Iran’s international relations, asserting that
there will be a new dynamic in Iran-Russia relations, and tensions rose even higher when China
called for a new Asian structure for security cooperation based on a regional group that includes
Russia and Iran and excludes the United States.¶ And the conflict over Crimea and Ukraine may
make it difficult for the United States to garner Russian support against Iran in future nuclear
negotiations, as it did for the interim agreement in November 2013. This could weaken the U.S./European position
on conditions that are aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program beyond the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since
Americans and Europeans both have threatened to apply diplomatic pressure on Russia, including
the imposition of sanctions, “logic follows that Russia will play Iran’s nuclear card against the
United States and Europe, hoping to influence the US and European position toward Russia in
Ukraine,” reports Al Monitor.¶ The auto deal announced Sunday reflects another step in the increasing cooperation between the two Asian
countries. Russia built a nuclear power plant for Iran that went online in 2011, and Tehran and
Moscow are in discussions to build more.¶ Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Mahdi Sanaei said he expects the volume of trade with
Russia to increase this year, after plunging from four billion dollars to $1.5 billion in the four years leading up to 2013. “This was due to the
sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said. “However, with help of God, this downward slope will be reversed in the year
2014.” Andrey Luganskiy, Russia’s trade representative in Tehran, said the exports would allow Iran to acquire Russian currency, which it can
then use to buy goods that it is unable to import from the West.¶ Iran’s manufacturing sector has been crippled by international sanctions imposed
over its nuclear program. Western nations have long suspected Iran of covertly seeking a nuclear weapons capability alongside its civilian
program.¶ Tehran denies the allegations and insists its nuclear activities are only aimed at power generation and medical treatments.
That cooperation is critical to prevent Iranian prolif
Hecker et al 5-29-14 [Siegfried Hecker is a senior fellow and affiliated faculty member at Stanford University's Center for
International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is also a research professor in the
Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford.; Why the US should keep cooperating with Russia on nuclear security,
http://thebulletin.org/why-us-should-keep-cooperating-russia-nuclear-security7207]
A strong US role in nuclear security cooperation remains imperative. In spite of Moscow’s assertion to the contrary, its vast stockpile of nuclear materials remains
vulnerable to theft or diversion. Whereas the physical security of nuclear facilities has improved greatly, both because of years of American support and the reemergence of Russia’s overbearing security services, control and accounting of nuclear materials, which are crucial to combat insider threats, still fall far shy of
international best practices. For example, Russia still has no baseline inventory of all nuclear materials the Soviet Union produced and where they are today.
Moreover, it has shown no interest in trying to discover just how much material is unaccounted for. Our Russian colleagues voice concern that progress on nuclear
security in their country will not be sustained once American cooperation is terminated. They believe that Russia’s nuclear security culture and the government’s
is also in Washington’s interest
for Russia to cooperate on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran is a good case in
point. Much progress has been made toward a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program since
President Hassan Rouhani was elected in June, 2013. However, little would have been possible without US-Russia
cooperation. It is not in Moscow’s interest to have nuclear weapons spread to its near abroad. It needs Washington’s continued
global leadership in this area. Washington, in turn, needs Moscow; especially if it is to develop more
effective measures to prevent proliferation as Russia and other nuclear vendors support nuclear
power expansion around the globe.¶ Although cooperation related to the stewardship of Washington and Moscow’s respective nuclear arsenals
commitment to fund continued security upgrades are still very fragile and require continued cooperation .¶ It
would be more difficult in an adversarial governmental relationship, there are numerous areas that would still benefit from collaboration. Scientific understanding of
such problems as the aging of plutonium remains elusive and beyond the full reach of either country. One of the authors of this column has personally been involved
in plutonium science collaboration with his Russian counterparts for the past 15 years. Continued cooperation in this area, as in some areas of nuclear weapon safety
and security, remain in our common interest.¶ As the United States and the European Union take short-term measures to restrain Russia’s actions in Ukraine, they
should not sacrifice the hard-earned gains made to stabilize the nuclear threats that arose after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some forms of nuclear cooperation, especially on arms control and nonproliferation, were supported even during
the darkest days of the Cold War, because the alternatives proved unacceptable to both sides. With the Cold War’s end, nuclear cooperation flourished.
Washington should foster continued cooperation to meet our shared challenges, rather than
allowing it to be held hostage to the Ukrainian crisis. Over the past 20-plus years, when working with our Russian colleagues, we
have all found that at times we must move beyond political disagreements, such as the political situation in Ukraine, to work together to advance the cause of nuclear
security.
Iran prolif causes global nuclear war
Edelman, 11 — Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, former
U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Eric, “The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran: The Limits of
Containment”, Foreign Affairs, 2011, proquest)
FROM ISLAMABAD TO RIYADH The reports of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Commission on the Prevention ofWeapons of Mass
a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger additional
nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, even if Israel does not declare its own nuclear arsenal.Notably, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia,Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates- all signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (npt)have recently announced or initiated nuclear energy programs. Although some of these states have legitimate economic rationales for pursuing nuclear
power and although the low-enriched fuel used for power reactors cannot be used in nuclear weapons, these moves have been widely interpreted as
hedges against a nuclear-armed Iran. The npt does not bar states from developing the sensitive technology required to produce nuclear fuel on their own, that
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, as well as other analyses, have highlighted the risk that
is, the capability to enrich natural uranium and separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.Yet enrichment and reprocessing can also be used to accumulate weapons-grade enriched uranium and
plutonium-the very loophole that Iran has apparently exploited in pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Developing nuclear weapons remains a slow, expensive, and difficult process, even for
states with considerable economic resources, and especially if other nations try to constrain aspiring nuclear states' access to critical materials and technology.Without external support, it is
unlikely that any of these aspirants could develop a nuclear weapons capability within a decade. There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support: Saudi Arabia.
And if it did, proliferation could accelerate throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in
some form to a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi
government is already pursuing a nuclear power capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons development. And concerns persist that it might be able to
accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to Pakistan. During the 1980s, in response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region,
Saudi Arabia acquired several dozen css-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also offered to sell Saudi
Arabia nuclear warheads for the css-2s, which are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively. There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions
Pakistan could sell
operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material,
involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or security guarantees. This "Islamabad option" could develop in one of several different ways.
and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer.Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it
is currently building two more heavy-water reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might
accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain even a substantially expanded arsenal of its own. Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia
and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and troops on Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be particularly
appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the Saudis to argue that they are not violating the npt since they would not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended
deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the United States because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would
accompany the deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, as well as strategic depth
against its chief rival, India. The Islamabad option raises a host of difficult issues, perhaps the most worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan's weapons in Saudi
Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons? How would this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of
India's reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would increase the incentives of other nations in the
Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could increase their ability to do so by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires
nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation regime, even if its particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the npt. N-PLAYER COMPETITION Were Saudi
Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three nuclear-armed states, and perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because
most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based on the U.S.- Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that
would be
the interaction among three or more nuclear-armed
miscalculation and escalation
powers
more prone to
than a bipolar competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only
needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other.Multipolar systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the
emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might not take the costly steps
to preserve regional stability and avoid a nuclear exchange
balance of power and creating incentives for an attack. More important,
necessary
. For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the
knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents' forces and avoid a devastating
emerging nuclear powers might not invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as
hardened missile silos or submarinebased nuclear forces. Given this likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East,
and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new nuclear powers might be compelled to "launch on warning"
of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their governments might also delegate launch authority to lower-level
commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation. Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust commandand-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch would increase further still. And without sophisticated early warning systems, a
nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed incorrectly. That is, assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a
first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined with the pressure to respond quickly, would
create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially triggering a regional nuclear war. Most
retaliation. However,
existing nuclear powers have taken steps to protect their nuclear weapons from unauthorized use: from closely screening key personnel to developing technical safety measures, such as
permissive action links, which require special codes before the weapons can be armed. Yet there is no guarantee that emerging nuclear powers would be willing or able to implement these
measures, creating a significant risk that their governments might lose control over the weapons or nuclear material and that nonstate actors could gain access to these items. Some states might
seek to mitigate threats to their nuclear arsenals; for instance, they might hide their weapons. In that case, however, a single intelligence compromise could leave their weapons vulnerable to
attack or theft.
Advantage 2 is Shipping
Lack of mapping and exploration capabilities prevents arctic shipping development
CNAS ’14 [Center for a New American Security, The Arctic’s Changing Landscape, March,
www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_Arctic’sChangingLandscape_policybrief.pdf]
Despite all of this, operators and government agencies are
challenged with inadequate physical infrastructure in
the Arctic, which greatly limits the full and comprehensive knowledge of activities throughout the
region. Effective Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) – the understanding and awareness of waterborne
activities that impact safety, security, economy and the environment – is paramount as Arctic
maritime activity increases.14 Arctic shipping lanes greatly reduce the time and distance between
certain seaports – particularly between Europe, Asia and North America – and will become more frequently transited as sea ice
diminishes.15 (See Figure 2.) As oil and offshore gas extraction grows in areas adjacent to shipping lanes, MDA will become
increasingly important to reduce the risk of vessel accidents, oil and chemical spills, illegal fishing
and other adverse effects on the environment.16 With limited communication infrastructure and
physical presence in the Arctic, the U.S. government is not adequately equipped to achieve
comprehensive MDA. For safety at sea, modern ships are generally outfitted with digital satellite communication equipment. In most
cases, satellite and marine-based communication systems for the lower Arctic latitudes are considered sufficient. In the higher Arctic
latitudes and in remote areas, voice and data transmissions at sea for military and commercial vessels are
nonexistent.17 The unreliability or lack of satellite signal across much of the region hinders the
ability of the U.S. Coast Guard to detect and deter illicit activities, prevent accidents, coordinate
response operations, ensure safety at sea and ultimately communicate. This unavailability of satellite
signals also impedes electronic charting and navigation safety systems that identify hazards to ships
traveling throughout the region. Navigation charts – paper or electronic – depict accurate shorelines and provide commercial, recreational and
military vessels current information on water depth, aids to navigation and locations of hazards. Without
reliable, updated charts
and timely navigation safety bulletins, vessels face a greater risk of grounding or incurring hull
damage from contact with fixed or underwater obstructions. In addition, there are almost no visual aids to navigation in
the Arctic Ocean, such as buoys or fixed structures, which mark shipping channels and underwater obstructions. Mariners must
rely solely on charts and local knowledge to navigate the region safely. Although National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) underwater surveys and charting are being conducted and planned at least through 2018, the absence
of reliable satellite communications to obtain the most updated nautical charts and navigation
safety bulletins leads to a higher probability of maritime accidents, which could cause a
catastrophic oil spill or hazardous material release.18
Developed arctic shipping routes divert LNG shipping from the Suez canal
Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [“A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea
Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping”, Masters thesis,
Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tønsberg, Norway,
November 2013, Page 20-25,
http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf]sbhag
6.30.2014
As described earlier in the first chapter that currently the trade between
Europe and Asia is carried through the Suez
Canal route . This section intends to provide a comparative overview of the existing Suez Canal route and the emerging alternate the Northern
Sea Route. Suez Canal is a 119 miles long artificial waterway that has served the global trade over the last one and half century. The canal
connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez providing navigational access to Far East Asian countries. Today about 50% of the total
traffic of the canal is covered by container vessels whereas the LNG ships count approximately 6% of the entire traffic volume. The Suez Canal
can handle up to 25000 ships per year and the current traffic is on average 20000 vessels per year, which is 15 percent of the entire maritime trade
(SCA, 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2009). As discussed in the previous section that because
of ice melt a new route is emerged
namely the Northern Sea Route of NSR. The NSR is the seaway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and follows the
northern coast of Russia. It is necessary to mention here that northern sea route is not a specific or fixed shipping lane rather it is an arrangement
of several different shipping routes. The passage is spread over around 2200 to 2900 nautical miles of icy water and traverse different straits and
seas such as the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and the Chukchi Sea (Østreng As compared to Suez Canal the NSR is
particularly characterized with considerable distance saving of nearly 40% between Rotterdam and Yokohama (Liu & Kronbak, 2010). The
sailing on the route demands the mandatory assistance of icebreakers. An
LNG tanker navigating through the NSR
curtails substantial benefits over the traditional route of Suez canal such as fuel saving, increased
number of voyages results in multiple gas deliveries, saving from LNG evaporation and lower
amount of CO2 emissions et cetera (Gazprom, 2012). The following table shows the distance to some of the ports located in Asia
and Europe using the NSR in relation to the Suez Canal. Figures derived from different sources vividly depict that NSR is the most attractive
option on the trade route between Europe and Asia. The researcher of this study had a chance to interview Willy Ostreng about the comparative
scope of the NSR and Suez Canal. Willy Ostreng headed the International Northern Sea Route program (INSROP) and currently is serving as a
senior researcher and the president of Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research. The interview held in down town Oslo in October 2013.
During the interview, some interesting points were unveiled about the Northern Sea Route and Suez Canal. A transcript of this interview with
Willy Ostreng related to this section is presented here to deliver a professional viewpoint to the readers and to form a theoretical base for the
research questions of this study. For the details of the interview questions and the concerning answers (See Appendix). What would you say about
the potential of the Northern Sea route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, for the LNG shipping? ´´That’s is a big question, but
in the light
of accelerating sea ice melting there is no doubt that between northern European , northern Asia
and northern American countries the northern sea route or the north east passage has a huge
potential because its shortcut between the most economically developed parts of the world. Thus in that
respect, if the sea ice is removed by global warming as it is, and even this is accelerating, and if the sea ice that is left is weekend then of course
the potential of the suit is enormous. If you go London to Yokohama in Japan, you
save 40 % of the trade distance in
comparison with going through the Suez Canal that is 6 600 nautical miles through the NSR and 11 400 nm through the
Suez Canal. It goes around same, when you have set a saving in distance it can be transformed in to savings in sailing days and we know that
there are multiple examples that 15 up to 18 days can be saved by using the northern sea route
instead of the Suez Canal. So in general the very fact this is the shortcut geographically speaking and the fact that the ice
both retreating throughout the north pole and the marginal seas are getting ice free and the
remaining ice getting weaker, then of course you can use the passage with existing shipping technology.
What you will have to do is all the investments to build up a fleet that can cope with ice-infested waters because even if it is free there will always
be icebergs and drifting in the sailing lanes of the ship. Consequently, you will need to have ice-strengthened hull on the freighters and there
would need to have icebreakers assistance. So that’s the general answer to this question and when it comes to LNG of course there is need for
LNG in multiple Asian countries, such as Japan the biggest LNG consumer in the world, China, South Korea their needs are really important in
this respect. Not least, they have all the experience that going through the traditional sea routes in southern waters means that they are subjective
to piracy, political conflicts in the Suez Canal, in the Panama Canal. Consequently, in
order to really have secure deliveries of
LNG which then support the idea of going north which is the only place with no piracy and I would
argue that where there are no political risks of deliveries being stopped. So as seen from a broader perspective,
mean in political and criminal perspective the northern sea route or the Northeast Passage. Because there is difference between NSR and North
East Passage, the Northern Sea Route extends from Novaya Zemlya to the Bering Strait whereas the North East Passage also includes the Barents
Sea that makes the North East Passage a two state passage. We
usually think that North East Passage is Russian route,
to a large extent it is, but little Norway also has to say in this respect. I would say in general that this route has a huge
potential to compensate for some of the problems such as political problems we face in southern
latitudes. In the post-world war periods Suez canal was closed for several months twice and forcing
international shipping to go around Africa which adds extremely to the costs of energy and of
course the poor countries, the developing countries are suffering the most in that respect. So again,
going north has a huge potential if ice melting will continue, so that ice is getting weaker and ice is disappearing. The NSR is
a kind of alternative to compensate for political problems in the Middle East, for political problems
outside of Somalia. Political problems in the South China Sea you will avoid all these problems by
using the NSR. There is huge momentum or motto for those who are in the need of LNG to develop a shipping fleet that can operate in iceinfested waters. When I say ice infested waters it’s because the ocean will freeze out in winter but of course then ice is
weak and its thinner and it can be combated by the existing ice breaking technology, so even if you
have ice this ocean has a huge potential given the melting´´ (Østreng, 2013). Similarly, Henrik Faclk who is maritime
professional in a Norway based arctic shipping company, during the personal interview that held in his office located in the outskirts of Oslo on 1
st October 2013, he commented as following on the question about the potential scope of NSR; The scope of Northern Sea Route as an alternate
to the Suez Canal, in particular for LNG transportation: ‘‘The
Northern Sea Route can open for new LNG projects in
the far North, previously it was like finding a gold mine on the moon it did not help because the transportation will kill everything but
today the transportation can be very competitive with alternative sources of supply. The distance from
Mostar, Bergen to Yokohama is same as the distance from Arabian Gulf to Yokohama. Of course when you go from Arabian Gulf to Japan you
are not crossing any canal, you do not pay any, and you need not to have any ice class vessel etc. Going
through the NSR from
Melkøya to Tobatta is exactly fifty percent quicker than sailing through the Suez Canal. It opens up
a completely new market but what is particular for the LNG trade is that the investments are so
huge that nobody starts an LNG plant unless they have the long-term contracts and Melkøya was
established before the NSR was finished. Therefore, everything is sold out but of course they have
already done two or three trips through this passage and they are saving 8 million dollars on one
trip. In Sabeta, where the Russian company Novatek plans to establish an LNG plant for them the advantage is more better because they are
five days close to the Far East market’’ ‘‘It will only be of relevance for those who are contemplating to produce LNG up north, for the LNG
coming out from the US in future it has absolutely no relevance.
I think it is a game primarily for Russia. I often say
that the freight will no longer kill the deal because of the northern sea route. Previously if you have LNG up
north you were too far away from the consumption market but now you are very close to the market. So that’s why investing a huge amount in
LNG plant of Yamal, with the 20 percent share of Chinese National Oil company (CNOC) at the Sabeta port’’ (Falck, 2013) Summing up from
the above, we
can say that the NSR is comparatively more efficient in terms of sailing distance and it
compensates for the problems lie in the Suez Canal today. The NSR has a huge potential for the
LNG shipment primarily from the northern hemisphere.
Terrorists want to attack LNG tankers in the Suez now
Stephen Starr is a journalist and author who has been based in the Middle East for six years. He lived in
Syria from 2007 until 2012 and published the book Revolt in Syria: Eye-Witness to the Uprising (Oxford
University Press), 2014 [“Attacks in the Suez: Security of the Canal at Risk?”, CTC Sentinel
(Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point), The CTC Sentinel harnesses the Center’s global network of
scholars and practitioners to understand and confront contemporary threats posed by terrorism and other
forms of political violence, 2014 Vol 7 Issue 1, p 1-4, https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/attacks-in-thesuez-security-of-the-canal-at-risk]/sbhag 7.2.2014
Egypt’s suez canal is one of the world’s busiest petroleum shipping channels.1 An estimated 2.2 million barrels of oil and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) from the Persian Gulf pass through the Suez Canal every day bound for markets in Europe and North America.2 In addition, more than 1,500 container ships,
headed to Europe and Asia, traversed the canal in the second quarter of 2013.3 With
Egypt mired in political instability, however, a
terrorist group sharing al-Qa`ida’s ideology—the Furqan Brigades—attacked vessels traversing the canal in 2013, and
have vowed to conduct similar attacks in the future.4 In the wake of these attacks, there is concern that militants could
successfully disrupt shipments through the Suez Canal, such as by sinking a large vessel and
blocking the canal for a period of time. This article provides background on the Suez Canal, discusses the emerging terrorist threat to
vessels using the 120- mile waterway, warns of growing unrest in the Sinai Peninsula, and identifies some of the challenges faced by
shipping companies in the Suez region. It finds that while security in the bordering Sinai Peninsula remains transient and
the Egyptian state appears unable to stamp out militant activity in the Sinai, terrorist groups would have to employ new
tactics to sink vessels if their goal was to block the canal for any period of time. Yet such tactics are not beyond their reach, and
previous incidents of maritime terrorism could serve as their guide. Background Linking the Red and Mediterranean
Seas, 7% of the world’s oil and 12% of global LNG traffic pass through the Suez Canal, making it vital to the
world energy trade.5 It has been closed only five times in its 144-year history.6 It is maintained and owned by the Suez Canal Authority, which is in turn
operated by the Egyptian government.7 The canal generates around $5 billion per year for Egypt and is an important source of foreign currency due to an ailing
tourism trade.8 In 2012, 17,225 vessels passed through the canal coming from the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the Gulf of Suez in the south, often with just
minutes of headway between each ship." Shipping companies using the Suez waterway include Maersk Line, COSCO, Hapag-Lloyd and the French- owned CMA
CGM. For North American markets, the Suez is used by container vessels departing Houston, Charleston, Norfolk, and Newark bound for, among other countries, the
United Arab Emirates, India and Pakistan.'° Moreover, in April 2013, the world's biggest shipping company, Maersk Line, replaced the Panama Canal with the Suez
route for its Asia-East Coast America shipping as a result of increasing toll charges at Panama and the deployment of 18,000 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) vessels,
further increasing the importance of the Suez route to international trade." Threat to the Canal: The Furqan Brigades The security of the Suez Canal was threatened on
July 29 and August 31, 2013, when militants attacked two ships in the waterway with rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). In both instances, there was only slight
damage to the vessels. The Furqan Brigades, a group based out of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, claimed credit for the attacks.12 The
Furqan Brigades,
which support al-Qa`ida’s ideology but may not be directly linked to the terrorist group,13 promised further attacks on maritime traffic,
saying that the canal is an important trade route and has also “become the safe way for the Crusader aircraft carriers to cross in to assault
Muslims.”14 Little is known about the Furqan Brigades’ leadership, and it only rose to prominence when the two attacks in the Suez Canal were made public.15 It
may number less than a few dozen militants, although it has now claimed responsibility for a handful of attacks in Egypt. Details about the July 29 attack are limited,
but a video purportedly released by the groupshowed a Furqan Brigades militant launching what appeared to be a rocket at a ship, under the cover of darkness.16
Egyptian authorities played down the significance of the July 29 incident,17 but maritime experts
said that the speed with which the Suez Canal Authority apportioned blame to “terrorists” for the second
attack on August 31 suggested they had prior knowledge that the two incidents were connected.18 In the second attack on August 31, a video
released by the Furqan Brigades showed two men moving toward a ship, the COSCO Asia, before each fired an RPG into the port (left)
hull of the vessel in broad daylight.19 Brigades in September said, After becoming fed up with criminal practices such as sieges of mosques,
killing and displacement of Muslims, detentions of Muslim scholars, and the vicious attack by Egypt’s Crusaders on Islam and its people and mosques, the Furqan
Brigades declare their responsibility for targeting the international waterway of the Suez Canal which is the artery of the commerce of the nations of disbelief and
language employed by the
group in its statements is typical of al-Qa'ida- linked, anti-Western extremist groups. ['We know they aren't suicide
martyrs, [we know they are technologically savvy, End we know they have the capability as they proved it
twice," said Kevin Qoherty, president of Nexus Consulting, E security firm that monitors maritime threats. "They seem to be a more
sophisticated group and yet are keeping a very low profile and WWW [internet] footprint."21 Egyptian authorities said they
tyranny. By the graces of God, it was carried out with two RPG rounds [on August 31] amid their weak guards.20 [lfhe
arrested three people on September 1 who, according to an army source, opened fired on the COSCO Asia vessel with “machine guns,” even though video released by
the group clearly showed an attack with rockets.22 More recently, the Furqan Brigades claimed responsibility for an attack on a satellite communications
facility in Maadi, Cairo, in October 2013.23 In that attack, video showed several militants, under the cover of darkness, launching an RPG at the facility.24 The
explosion reportedly caused a one meter hole in one of the satellite dishes.25 The group has
also claimed responsibility for a number of
assassinations targeting Egyptian military personnel.26 Growing Unrest in the Sinai Peninsula and Suez Region The
Furqan Brigades are not the only threat to the stability of shipping in the Suez Canal. The canal divides Egypt
proper from the 23,000-square-mile Sinai Peninsula. Bordering the Gaza Strip, the peninsula's northern areas have for years been
home to militant activity, chiefly involving Palestinian smugglers and militants attempting to move goods and weapons into the Gaza Strip. Since
this activity primarily targets Israel and not Egypt, and because of the wider political turmoil in Egypt, the state's security
forces have concentrated resources elsewhere, which has allowed militant groups such as the
Furqan Brigades to grow and prosper. In August 2012, the Egyptian military launched a massive operation in the Sinai following the killing
of 15 Egyptian border guards on the Sinai- Israeli border." Egyptian forces deployed troops, tanks and warplanes, the latter for the first time in the Sinai since the 1973
Arab-Israeli war. The following summer, in 2013, Egypt moved two infantry battalions to the Sinai to battle militants.28 Throughout September and the following
months, Egyptian authorities conducted more operations.29 The aggressive operations left homes and villages in rubble,30 and the Egyptian military said it captured
hundreds of militants, including Palestinians.31 Despite
the Egyptian security operations, militants have since carried
out several attacks in the Sinai. On October 7, 2013, unidentified militants attacked a government army convoy close to the Suez Canal, killing
six soldiers." The same day, a suicide bomber drove a Vehicle into a security building in the Sinai Peninsula." In addition to the Furqan Brigades, other
terrorist groups are operating in the area, including Ansar Bayt al- Maqdis. This group, which has claimed
responsibility for a number of attacks on Egyptian security forces in the Sinai, is thought to comprise local Bedouins as well as some foreign fighters." The civil
and political unrest that has rocked Egypt since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 has affected every
major population center. In Suez, a port city of 500,000 people situated at the southern mouth of the canal in Egypt proper,
civil unrest has erupted sporadically over the past three years. In July, street fighting between pro- and anti-Muslim Brotherhood groups
resulted in injuries to more than 100 people.35 Elsewhere in the Suez region, police found explosives planted on a railway
line in September 2013,36 while fighting following the fallout of the Port Said stadium killings in 2012,37 in which more than 70 died, has added to a sense of
instability and drawn the army to the area.38 Problems for Shipping Companies The threat of terrorist attacks and the growing
unrest in the Sinai Peninsula have raised obvious concerns about the stability of shipments through
the Suez Canal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, closure of the Suez Canal “would add an estimated 2,700 miles of transit from
Saudi Arabia to the United States around the Cape of Good Hope via tanker.”39 Nevertheless, major shipping companies do not, at least publicly, appear overly
worried about the threat of further attacks. Mikkel Elbek Linnet of Maersk Line, for example, said the company was not planning to alter future plans because of
emanating threats.40 experts argue that RPG attacks are unlikely to sink a major Vessel and thus close the canal," and that only an attack launched by an explosivesladen smaller boat could achieve that outcome." The fact that the Furqan Brigades have not yet succeeded in carrying out bombings on board ships, nor have resorted
to suicide attacks on Vessels, suggests that, at least as a new organization, such capabilities may not yet exist.43 Analysts, however, believe
that the
Furqan Brigades could gain the skills necessary to launch waterborne attacks on cargo Vessels if
they should choose to do so.44 There are a number of groups operating in the Sinai with proven bomb-making
experience that share the same ideological outlook as the Furqan Brigades, and cross training between
groups is a possibility.45 The Furqan Brigades are not the first group to plot attacks on ships transiting the Suez Canal. In July 2009, Egyptian
authorities said that they arrested 25 militants with suspected links to al- Qa'ida for plotting to use explosives fitted with mobile
phone-activated detonators against ships in the canal." Other plots have been foiled as well." Securing the Suez Canal is
problematic. Locals keep small fishing boats along the Waterway and its lakes, while numerous towns, Villages and farms dot its western shoreline.48 In
March 2008, a ship contracted to the U.S. Navy fired at a group of boats in the canal, killing one man, after the latter failed to heed warnings from the Navy vessel to
keep the required distance.49 According to one expert, there
are numerous points along the canal where security is absent
or lacking: There are ferries that go east to west, locations where people sit along and watch the ships go by, there are bridges that overpass the canal of which
things can be dropped from or people can gain access from, even fishermen and sales folks selling DVDs and such inside the canal waterways.50 In the case of the
Furqan Brigades’ attack on the COSCO Asia container ship on August 31, the militants reportedly fired at the ship in an area where dense shrubs divided the road
An attack on any large transport vessel that
resulted in its sinking would “effectively shut the entire canal” for days, even weeks.52 Even if
militants failed to sink a major vessel, a waterborne suicide bomb attack on an LNG or oil tanker,
or cruise or container ship transiting the Suez Canal—a tactic used against the USS Cole in 2000 and the M/V M. Star in 2010—
would have immediate effects on the use of the Suez as a major shipping route. Conclusion Egypt’s
military recognizes the threat it faces over securing the Suez Canal, although it has not done enough to mitigate the risk of
attacks, instead favoring reactive military campaigns against militant groups and individuals operating
from the Sinai Peninsula. Yet the threat of serious attacks by militants —operations that could sink a major vessel and thus block the
canal— is a real one.53 The military, a cornerstone of the Egyptian state, has been on the wane in recent years as
popular protests increasingly dominate the political sphere.54 Furthermore, the loyalty of the
from the canal, obscuring the jihadists from view of the authorities or other observers.51
security forces and police was called into question in Port Said early in 2013 when police took part in strikes and
protests after being blamed for crackdowns on demonstrators.55 The military appears increasingly incapable of preventing
the sporadic attacks such as those being launched by the
and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. As a result, the
Sinai Peninsula remains a hotbed of militant activity, and ships in the Suez Canal risk future attacks.
LNG is uniquely attractive as a terrorist target
Hurst ‘8 [Cindy, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy
Reserve, Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529]
There reportedly have been indications of terrorists planning to hit LNG tankers. In November 2002, the capture of Abd alRahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda’s operational commander in the Gulf region, brought to light the idea that terrorists were already planning to go after such targets. Nashiri, allegedly a specialist in
According to a Western counterterrorism
official during an interrogation, Nashiri indicated that al-Qaeda had information on the vulnerability of supertankers to
suicide attacks and the economic impacts they would have. The official informed The Daily Star that al-Qaeda had a naval manual
maritime operations, had already played a key role in the attack on the USS Cole and the Limburg.
describing “the best places on the vessels to hit, how to employ limpet mines, fire rockets or rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft, and [how to] turn LNG tankers into floating bombs.
They (terrorists) are also shown how to use fast craft packed with explosives, and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and detonated beside bigger ships, or in
ports where petroleum or gas storage areas could go up as well. They (manuals) even talk of using underwater scooters for suicide attacks.” According to Dan Verton in his book Black Ice: The
Invisible Threat of Cyberterrorism (2003), “al-Qaeda cells now operate with the assistance of large databases containing details of potential targets in the U.S. They use the Internet to collect
intelligence on those targets, especially critical economic nodes, and modern software enables them to study structural weaknesses in facilities as well as predict the cascading failure effect of
attacking certain systems.” Al-Qaeda is a “goal-driven organization.” This means that they take action toward an end goal of affecting the “future state of the world.” Al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal is
to establish “an Islamic caliphate,” which will ultimately extend across the global Islamic community. The biggest obstacle to accomplishing this is the U.S. Therefore, in order to try to achieve
this goal, al-Qaeda must first bring down the U.S. With America’s growing appetite for natural gas, LNG could potentially become one of al-Qaeda’s targets. The 2007 Rand study, entitled
capability and motive as the two variables that can best predict
the probability of al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates selecting a particular target. It would be impossible for an attack to occur
Exploring Terrorist Targeting Preferences, not unexpectedly, lists
with only one variable. In other words, al-Qaeda must first have a motive. Once a motive is established, the group must then possess the capability to carry out its selected mission. Without
capability, the attack cannot occur, at least not successfully. Capability includes financial backing, technology, flexibility in movement, physical access to target or target area, ability to penetrate
security of a target or target area, ability to conduct reconnaissance and planning, external links to sources of information/weapons/technology, and sophistication of media. The Rand study broke
Al-Qaeda’s desire is to
“coerce” the U.S. and its Western allies toward a specific goal by causing pain, most likely through casualties. A successful
attack on LNG has the potential to be deadly. Damage: Al-Qaeda’s desire is to reduce the ability of the
U.S. to intervene in the Islamic world. This would likely be accomplished by somehow damaging
the economy. Under the damage hypothesis, al-Qaeda has already repeatedly demonstrated the desire to try to cripple the U.S. economy through both its propagations (i.e.: its call to
down al-Qaeda’s motivational factors into four plausible groups. These four factors are coerce, damage, rally, and franchise operations. Coerce:
attack oil and gas sources to “strangle the U.S. economy”) and through a pattern of historical terrorist acts, both successful and unsuccessful, many of which affected the economy to some degree.
An attack on
LNG would also have an impact on the economy. The extent of that impact would depend upon the extent of the damage, coupled with the humanWhile the bombing of the World Trade Center was clearly motivated by a desire to take as many lives as possible, it also had a strong impact on the economy.
emotion factor. Rally: Al-Qaeda’s desire is to rally support in the Muslim world. Under the rally hypothesis, hard targets symbolize U.S. strength and are the most difficult targets to penetrate.
Three of the 14 terrorist attacks analyzed by Rand were hard targets. “By striking and destroying them, al-Qaeda has been able to underscore its credentials as a meaningful force, establishing a
benchmark of power that it has then used to build morale among existing members and attract new recruits.” Indeed, al-Qaeda tends to hit soft targets more frequently than hard targets. However,
The
added publicity surrounding LNG terminals in the U.S. could potentially draw increased appeal to
them as targets for terrorist groups hoping to send out a strong message on their strength and
potential, which could lure more support. Franchise: Al-Qaeda might not possess the means or capability
to carry out a particular terrorist act and, therefore, a like-minded terrorist group might assume the task instead. Under the franchise
hypothesis, since 9/11 and the global war on terrorism (GWOT), the U.S. has managed to destroy much of al-Qaeda’s infrastructure
in Afghanistan. However, some analysts believe that rather than destroying bin Laden’s movement, the GWOT
has actually “given rise to new, less predictable organizations composed of dozens of like-minded extremists.” If al-Qaeda is
unable to execute an attack on LNG, perhaps a lesser known extremist group would step in
unexpectedly. The Rand study found that the majority of terrorist acts committed fell under at least two categories of the above hypotheses. For example, the 1993 bombing of the
it has already proven it is willing to hit hard targets. With the numerous security measures implemented in every LNG shipment, LNG terminals and tankers are extremely hard targets.
World Trade Center, in which a car bomb was detonated in the underground parking garage, killing six people, and injuring 1,042, falls under the categories of coercion and damage. This attack
was meant to cause mass casualties while also impacting the economy. September11 falls under three categories – coerce, damage, and rally. It caused mass casualties, impacted the economy,
and rallied support in the Muslim world. A well-executed attack on the U.S. LNG infrastructure would fall under three categories, or potentially under all four categories. The most controversial
LNG terminal in the U.S. is the Suez Energy North America’s Everett LNG terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. The location of this terminal makes it an ideal candidate for a terrorist attack
under the coerce hypothesis. Almost weekly, LNG tankers have to pass within several hundred yards of the crowded Boston waterfront, past the end of the Logan International Airport runway,
and under a busy bridge. Immediately after 9/11, Richard Clarke, who was then the White House counterterrorism chief, prompted the U.S. Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor to all LNG
tankers. LNG shipments resumed several weeks later after a federal judge ruled there was no evidence of a credible threat. However, these LNG operations started back up under much heavier
The rest of the world does not seem to share the same security and safety concerns as
Americans regarding LNG. This could be a potential problem. Acting on these concerns, the U.S. has strict security measures in place.
Meanwhile, in other areas of the world security is severely lacking, leaving massive tankers floating as
easy targets. An attack could occur anywhere. One key location would be in Southeast Asia. Since 9/11, analysts have often pointed to the
security.
vulnerabilities of the Strait of Malacca. The Strait of Malacca is approximately 600 miles long, but only 1.5 miles across at its narrowest point. Furthermore, it is the busiest chokepoint in the
world. In 2006, more than 65,600 ships passed through it. An attack on an LNG tanker in the narrowest part of the strait would put a serious delay on the traffic traversing through. This could
have a significant impact on the world’s economy, which is heavily dependent on commerce traversing the strait. At least a dozen LNG tankers pass through the Strait every day. Catherine Zara
Raymond, of the Jamestown Foundation, described a number of potential scenarios that could occur in Southeast Asia involving maritime terrorism. Citing concern by Singapore’s Foreign
Minister George Yeo in a speech to the ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2005, Raymond suggested that terrorists could highjack an LNG tanker and blow it up in Singapore harbor.
An LNG tanker attack is equivalent to large-scale nuclear war
Lovins and Lovins 1 [Amory Lovins has received ten honorary doctorates and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1984,
of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1988, and of the World Business Academy in 2001. He has received the World Technology Award, the Right Livelihood Award, the Blue Planet
Prize, Volvo Environment Prize, the 4th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment in 1998,[17] and the National Design (Design Mind), Jean Meyer, and Lindbergh Awards. Lovins shared a
1982 Mitchell Prize for an essay on reallocating utility capital, a 1983 Right Livelihood Award (often called the "alternative Nobel Prize"), a 1993 Nissan Award for an article on Hypercars, the
1999 Lindbergh Award for Environment and Technology, and several honorary doctorates. In 2000, she was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine, and received the Loyola Law School
Award for Outstanding Community Service.[2] In 2001, she received the Leadership in Business Award and shared the Shingo Prize for Manufacturing Research. In 2005 she received the
Distinguished Alumni Award of Pitzer College. “Brittle Power”, http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Energy/BrittlePower.pdf]
LNG is less than half as dense as water, so a cubic meter of LNG (the usual unit of measure) weighs just over half a ton. 1 LNG contains about
thirty percent less energy per cubic meter than oil, but is potentially far more hazardous. 2 Burning oil cannot spread very far on land or water,
but a cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about six hundred twenty cubic meters of pure
natural gas, which in turn mixes with surrounding air. Mixtures of between about five and fourteen percent natural gas in air are flammable.
Thus a single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to twelve thousand four hundred cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture. A single
modern LNG tanker typically holds one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters of LNG,
equivalent to twenty-seven hundred million cubic feet of natural gas. That gas can form between about twenty and fifty billion cubic feet of
flammable gas-air mixture—several hundred times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG
will probably, if spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes. 3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred
twenty-eight Fahrenheit degrees hotter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The resulting gas, however, will be so cold
that it will still be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume
might extend at least three miles downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to twenty minutes. 4 It might ultimately reach much farther—
perhaps six to twelve miles. 5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame
reminiscent of the 1937 Hindenberg disaster but about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant
heat would cause third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away. 6 An
LNG fireball can blow through a city,
creating “a very large number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable
equipment can put out a very large [LNG]...fire.” 7 The energy content of a single standard LNG
tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five
Hiroshima bombs.
Advantage 3 is Spills
Arctic oil drilling is coming now – it makes oil spills likely
Scientific American ’12 [“Coming Soon: Oil Drilling on the Arctic Ocean's Outer Continental
Shelf”, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-drilling-outer-continentalshelf/] //JC//
Dear EarthTalk: The
oil industry is planning what some call a dangerous strategy of drilling for oil on the
outer continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. What’s going on?—Vera Bailey, New Hope, Pa. In November 2011 the
Obama administration began lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling that had been imposed in
the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a five year plan including 15 leases for oil
development on Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf and in the Gulf of Mexico. For now the East and West coasts of the continental
U.S. have been spared from drilling, but environmentalists are particularly worried about opening up the fragile
Alaskan Arctic to off-shore rigs. “This five-year program will make available for development more
than three-quarters of undiscovered oil and gas resources estimated on the [Outer Continental
Shelf], including frontier areas such as the Arctic, where we must proceed cautiously, safely and based on the best science available,”
Salazar told reporters. Republicans were incensed that more acreage was not being made available for off-shore drilling, but environmentalists couldn’t
believe what they were hearing for different reasons: In June 2011 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had released a 292-page
report commissioned by Interior Secretary Salazar “to identify the gaps in scientific or technical
knowledge about how drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas north of Alaska would affect the region,” reports Jerry Bellinson in Popular
Mechanics. The report, Bellinson says, “details several areas where those gaps exist, including oil-spill cleanup technologies, basic mapping of currents and the effects
of underwater noise on sea mammals.”
Despite the USGS’s warnings, the Obama administration decided to
proceed anyway. “Drilling infrastructure permanently alters ocean floor habitats,” reports Defenders of Wildlife. “Drill rig footprints,
undersea pipelines, dredging ship channels, and dumped drill cuttings—the rock material dug out of the oil or gas
well—are often contaminated with drilling fluid used to lubricate and regulate the pressure in
drilling operations.” The group adds that contaminated sediments are carried long distances by
currents and can kill important small bottom-dwelling creatures at the bottom of the marine food
chain. Defenders also argues that spills, leaks and occasional BP-like catastrophes are unavoidable with off-shore oil drilling, if history is any guide. “Even
with safety protocols in place, leaks and spills are inevitable—each year U.S. drilling operations send an average of 880,000
gallons of oil into the ocean.” As for wildlife, off-shore drilling can have devastating effects even with no spills or leaks. “Seismic surveys conducted during oil and
gas exploration cause temporary or permanent hearing loss, induce behavioral changes, and even physically injure marine mammals such as whales, seals and
dolphins,” reports Defenders. “Construction noise from new facilities and pipelines is also likely to interfere with foraging and communication behaviors of birds and
mammals. Because they are at the top of the food chain, many marine mammals will be exposed to the dangers of bioaccumulation of organic pollutants and metals.”
And off-shore drilling only adds insult to injury as far as Defenders is concerned: “In the face of the climate crisis, the U.S. needs to look for ways to decrease
petroleum consumption, not…increase it.”
Oil spills are devastating to arctic ecosystems but enabling adequate spill response
solves
Pew after 2010 [Pew Charitable Trust Oceans North Campaign, OIL IN THE ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM, http://oceansnorth.org/oil-arcticecosystem]
If an
oil spill were to occur in broken ice, oil would concentrate in polynyas and at the ice edges that form the heart of the
ecosystem, threatening much of the life in the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, oil spill response operations plan to use
these open areas to concentrate and burn the oil, a plan that could result in severe impacts to this ecosystem. See our recommendations on
assessing spill response capacity. Impacts of Oil Oil
is toxic. It can affect organisms from plankton to whales,
causing acute harm to creatures such as birds that get trapped in the oil, chronic toxicity to long-lived animals and
lasting effects on populations. The impacts of an oil spill in the Arctic where the environment is
already stressed by the rapidly melting ice pack could be devastating. If spilled or leaking oil can be
effectively contained at its source or promptly removed from the environment, the overall consequences of the release
will be much less severe than a scenario where the full spill volume is released to the environment. In the Arctic marine
environment, the chance that a catastrophic oil spill might exceed the operating limits of oil spill
response technologies is significant. Those limits include high seas that prevent skimmers from recovering oil or heavy fog that
grounds aircraft spraying dispersants. Oil persists longer in Arctic conditions because it evaporates more slowly
or may be trapped in or under ice, and is thus less accessible to bacterial degradation. Population
recovery after an oil spill may be slowed because many species have relatively long life spans and
produce fewer offspring. Recent research published in the United States suggests that long-term consequences of oil
spills to temperate and sub-Arctic coastal environments may persist well beyond initial projections.
Long term impacts could be similarly persistent along Arctic shorelines.
The Arctic is a biodiversity hotspot – it supports globally significant populations
CBD 5-20-14 [Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members known for
protecting endangered species, “REPORT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF
ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE AREAS”, pg. 28-30, http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-201401/official/ebsaws-2014-01-05-en.pdf]//JC//
Arctic biodiversity is an irreplaceable cultural, scientific, ecological, economic and spiritual asset.”
(CAFF 2013, p. 4) “The challenges facing Arctic biodiversity are interconnected, requiring comprehensive
solutions and international cooperation.” (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Key Finding No. 9, 2013) 1. The Arctic hosts a globally
significant array of biodiversity, and the size and nature of Arctic ecosystems make them of critical
importance to the biological, chemical and physical balance of the globe (ACIA 2005). 2. The marine
waters of the Arctic are unique in that they contain a deep ocean basin which until recently was almost
“
completely covered in multi-year ice. No other area in the world has such an ice- dominated deep
ocean. That property alone would make conservation of the Arctic deserve the attention of Arctic States and the rest
of the world. The increasing loss of the multi-year ice places the Arctic under increasing pressure and is exerting impacts on sensitive Arctic ecosystems. These pressures and impacts
emphasize the urgency of adopting effective conservation and management measures. The Arctic, as defined by CAFF, covers 32 million km2, 40.6% of which is composed of marine areas.
The ecosystems of this vast area exhibit substantial biodiversity, comprising more than 21,000
known species. 3. Arctic species have developed remarkable adaptations to survive both extreme
cold and highly variable climatic conditions. Iconic ice-adapted species such as polar bear, bowhead whale, narwhal, and walrus, live among thousands
of lesser-known species that are adapted to greater or lesser degrees to exploit the habitats created by sea ice (Eamer et al. 2013). Some species have adapted to the point where they have become
Sea ice is a generic term for a variety of critically important
Arctic marine habitats, which include ice shelves, pack ice, and the highly mobile ice edge. The sea ice
ice-dependent, making their population levels vulnerable to loss of sea ice.
complements and modifies other types of habitats, including extensive shallow ocean shelves and towering coastal cliffs (CAFF/ABA 2013). 4. In addition to supporting a diversity of ice-
Arctic habitats are also remarkable for their roles in supporting globally significant
populations, including more than half of the world’s shorebird species. Millions of migratory birds breed in the Arctic and then
adapted species,
fly to every continent on Earth, contributing to global biodiversity and ecological health (ABA 2013). During the short summer breeding season, 279 species of birds arrive from all corners of the
Earth3 to take advantage of the long days and intense period of productivity. Thirty species come from as far away as South Africa, 26 from Australia and New Zealand and 22 from South
America. Several species of marine mammals, including grey and humpback whales and harp and hooded seals, also join the migration (CAFF 2010). 5. Recent changes in Arctic sea-ice cover,
driven by rising temperatures, have affected the timing of ice break-up in spring and freeze-up in autumn, as well as the extent and type of ice present in different areas at specific dates. Overall,
multi-year ice is rapidly being replaced by first-year ice. The extent of ice is shrinking in all seasons, but especially in the summer. The Arctic Ocean is projected to be virtually ice- free in
summer within 30 years, with multi-year ice persisting mainly between islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and in the narrow straits between Canada and Greenland (Eamer et al. 2013). 6.
Changes in ocean conditions also mean that subarctic species of algae, invertebrates, fish, mammals (Kaschner et al. 2011) and birds are expanding northwards into the Arctic, while some Arcticadapted species are losing habitat along the southern edges of their ranges. Relationships among species are changing, with new predation pressures and shifts in diets recorded for some animals.
To what extent Arctic species will adjust to these changes is uncertain. Changes are too rapid for evolutionary adaptation, so species with inborn capacity to adjust their physiology or behaviour
will fare better. Species with limited distribution, specialized feeding or breeding requirements, and/or high reliance on sea ice for part of their life cycle are particularly vulnerable (Eamer et al.
Humans have long been part of Arctic ecosystems, and presently the
2013). 7.
Arctic is home to more than four million people
(AHDR 2009). Arctic biodiversity has been the basis for ways of life of indigenous peoples for millennia and is still a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. The CBD recognizes this
link, inter alia in the draft plan of Action for Article 10 (c), which states that biodiversity, customary sustainable use and traditional knowledge are intrinsically linked (CBD 2013). In addition to
its intrinsic worth, Arctic biodiversity also provides innumerable services and values to people. 8. Industrial exploitation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources poses special
ommercial exploitation of natural resources, including fisheries, only takes place in
waters under national jurisdiction in the marginal seas surrounding the Arctic Ocean. While the Arctic Ocean
was once ice-covered for most of the year, climate change has reduced ice cover, creating the potential for utilization of
natural resources, including fish stocks, in the central portion of the Arctic Ocean, i.e. marine areas beyond
national jurisdiction (Lin et al. 2012). The newly seasonally ice-free areas of the Arctic Ocean contain protected species such as bowhead whales (Moore et al. 2011) and fish
species that may support a commercial harvest (Lin et al. 2012). Among non-renewable natural resources, the Arctic is estimated to contain a fifth of
the world’s remaining oil and gas reserves, the development of which is expected to increase. Already, 10%
of the world’s oil and 25% of the world’s natural gas is produced in the Arctic, predominantly onshore, with the majority coming from the Russian Arctic (AMAP 2007). 9. The
foregoing makes clear that the Arctic is a region of global significance and that what happens there
will have an effect felt far beyond its extent. The description of Arctic areas meeting EBSA criteria is important and necessary because this relatively
challenges in the Arctic. Currently, c
pristine environment now faces threats from increased warming, ocean acidification and increased pollutants, causing among other things erosion of sea ice, changes in weather patterns, altered
hanges will have significant consequences for marine
biodiversity and biological production, as well as for indigenous peoples’ subsistence use of these resources. Describing ecologically or
biologically significant marine areas in the Arctic is an essential process for informing policy and
management and for establishing a scientific baseline for future observations and to better inform
policymaking. 10. The Arctic Council is a regional body with a long history of effective cooperation on issues related to environmental conservation and sustainable development; it
natural habitats, and the opening of areas for new development (ACIA 2005). These c
provides an important forum in relation to marine conservation, monitoring and research. Data generated through Arctic Council activities provide important inputs into the EBSA process, e.g.,
through the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) and the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). Specific reports, such as AMSA IIC, demonstrate the important
contribution of these activities. AMSA IIC identified areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance in light of changing climate conditions and increasing incidences of multiple marine
the
Arctic is unique relative to the rest of the world’s marine and coastal areas for a number of reasons,
including that: (a) It supports unique cold- and ice-adapted species, biodiversity, habitats and
ecosystems (ABA 2013); (b) The Arctic is undergoing change at a more rapid rate than other places on the
globe, threatening the existence of ecosystems such as multi-year sea ice. In the past 100 years, average Arctic temperatures
uses, and encouraged the implementation of measures to protect these areas from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping. 11. In summary, when considering the EBSA process,
have increased at almost twice the average global rate (IPCC 2007); (c) When viewed on a global scale, the region as a whole meets several of the EBSA criteria: Uniqueness, naturalness,
vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity and slow recovery, which can be found at many scales throughout the Arctic; (d) Owing to cold temperatures, breakdown processes for anthropogenic
contaminants occur more slowly than in a temperate and tropical climate (AMAP 2011); (e) The Arctic is more clearly defined as a distinct and unique geographical region than other areas where
the EBSA process has been applied; and (f) In the Arctic, there exists a challenge for indigenous peoples and Arctic States in how to include traditional knowledge in the description of areas
meeting EBSA criteria, as well as how to assess and include social and cultural significance, especially when these areas cross national borders. 12. These factors justify adopting a higher
The challenges in maintaining the functionality
and biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and
baseline level of risk aversion in managing of activities in the Arctic relative to the rest of the world.
international cooperation (ABA 2013), hence the importance of the EBSA process as a means of drawing attention to the Arctic and helping to inform
responses to the challenges it faces.
Biodiversity loss risks extinction
Danovaro 8 [Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. “Deep-Sea Biodiversity
Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse”.
http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-AvoidEcosystem-Collapse/]
The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of ecological research .
The dark portion of the biosphere
likely hosts millions of undiscovered-yet new species. A global scale study conducted on biodiversity collected down
to 8000 m depth reveals for the first time that small invertebrates (including worms and crustacea) play a key role in sustaining the
overall functioning of these ecosystems. This study concludes that even a minor loss of biodiversity can cause
a major impact on the functioning of the global biosphere. In the future, we should start protecting not only large “flag
species”, but also the almost invisible and sometime monstrous creatures that inhabit the abyss and the ocean interior. Hard to believe, but so far
we dedicated more efforts on the exploration of the Moon or on searching the life on Mars than on exploring the deep interior of our oceans. The
total amount of seafloor recovered from depths higher than 4 km (which is the average depth of the oceans) is equivalent to less than the surface
of a football pitch. Till few decades ago, we believed that deep-sea habitats were the equivalent of the terrestrial deserts, devoid of life. But
recently we accumulated evidence that the
dark side of the biosphere is plenty of life and characterized by an
enormous number of species. Despite the deep-sea ecosystems are apparently far from us and
difficult to reach and investigate there is an increasing evidence that they are susceptible to the
direct and indirect impact of human activities. At the same time they help sustaining human life by
providing essential goods and services (including food, biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, minerals) and contribute
to climate regulation, nutrient regeneration and supply to the upper ocean. The oxygen produced in
the upper ocean, for instance, is about half of the total oxygen produced on Earth and largely depends
on the availability of the nutrients regenerated in the deep-sea floor. Therefore, for their profound
involvement in global biogeochemical and ecological processes deep seas are essential for the air,
water and food we consume and consequently crucial for the sustainable functioning of our
biosphere and for human wellbeing. Deep-sea ecosystems are becoming a target for industries for exploiting the huge
natural resources (trawling, drilling, dumping, oil, gas and mineral extraction) and are already being threatened by other pollution
sources. These impacts might have important consequences on these highly vulnerable ecosystems
determining biodiversity losses. A study published on January 8th on Current Biology, a prestigious publication of Cell Press,
provides for the first time evidence that the functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems depends on the richness of species living there. The
researchers of a joint team collaborating within the frame of the project Hermes (Hotspot ecosystems along European Margins) and to the EU
network of excellence MARBEF, found that the health
and functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems are not only
linked to biodiversity, but also increase exponentially with the increase of the diversity of species
living there. In this study, it was found that sites with a higher diversity of species support exponentially higher rates of ecosystem
processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes are performed. Overall, these results suggest that a higher biodiversity
can enhance the ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and
biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning. This finding, which has no
equivalents on terrestrial ecosystems, has an important consequence: the loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to
the future of the oceans. In fact, a biodiversity loss by 20-25% is expected to reduce drastically (by 50%) the functions of these
ecosystems, whilst a species loss by 50% could lead to ecosystem collapse. The exponential increase in ecosystem function
as species numbers rise indicates that individual species in the deep sea make way for more species,
and facilitate each other life. “Facilitation” among species could be therefore the most efficient strategy to increase the ecological
performance of the communities. Deep seas are the largest ecosystem on Earth, covering approximately 65% of the total
surface. As such it is possible to conclude that facilitation could be the most common typology of interactions
among life forms. There are several possible applications of this finding to other systems, and even to human societies, as
“facilitation” could be the most convenient interaction for the overall wellbeing of the ecosystems
and humans. Overall the results of this study indicate that we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deepsea biodiversity, because otherwise the negative consequences could be unprecedented. In particular we
must care also about species that are far from us and [essentially] invisible. To do this we must preserve deep-sea habitats
of these life forms. An immediate policy action can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions
of the largest ecosystems on the planet.
The plan solves – exploration and research create effective oil spill response –
cooperation with Russia is key
Rosen 4-23-14 [Yereth, Arctic Editor and Reporter at the Alaska Dispatch, Ability to respond to oil
spill in the Arctic called 'sorely lacking', http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140423/abilityrespond-oil-spill-arctic-called-sorely-lacking]
Before anyone can adequately respond to oil spills in the U.S. Arctic, people need to know much
more about what exists in the Arctic, according to a report issued Wednesday by the National Research Council, the operating
arm of the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Engineering. The 183-page report on oil spill responses in Alaska’s
Arctic outlines a wide range of deficiencies in knowledge about natural resources, ice conditions, weather patterns and even basic geography in
infrastructure to respond to an oil spill in Alaska’s Arctic waters is also sorely
lacking, the report said. “The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the
event of a large oil spill,” it said. “It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless
there were improved port and air access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and
the region. Adequate
personnel.” The report, requested by the U.S. Arctic Commission, the American Petroleum Institute, and numerous federal agencies, makes 13
recommendations for improved spill readiness in the Arctic waters off Alaska. Those recommendations won consensus from a “really diverse”
committee that spent 18 months drafting the report, said University of Alaska Fairbanks Vice Chancellor Mark Myers, a committee member. The
group included representatives from the oil industry, academia, government resource agencies and Arctic communities. The report is wideranging, Myers said. “The
oil spill risk isn’t just about oil and gas,” he said. “It's about marine shipping and
even oil tanks on the ground.” Recommendations call for beefed-up environmental and scientific
research, enhanced U.S. Coast Guard presence, training oil-spill responders in local Arctic communities, new oil-spill response
research, an expedited study of Bering Strait traffic, improved sea-ice and weather forecasts as well
as more cooperation with Alaska’s Russian and Canadian neighbors. A major scientific effort is needed because
baseline and historical information is so sparse, the report said. And research must be ongoing because the Arctic is being
transformed by climate change, it added. High-resolution satellite and airborne images of coastlines and nearshore environments are needed, and should be updated regularly because the coastline is rapidly eroding and
changing, the study said. Expanded use of unmanned aerial and marine vehicles, already deployed by UAF and other institutions, could help
in mapping, the report said. Realistic spill-cleanup research would allow for “controlled field releases” of oil in Arctic waters to test cleanup
equipment and methods, the study said. Laboratory
tests to date have been useful, the report said, but current
and emerging oil-spill response technologies should be validated in tests conducted “under realistic
environmental conditions” -- meaning the actual Arctic environment. Up to now, discharges of oil have not been allowed in U.S.
Arctic waters for training or scientific exercises. Also recommended is more cooperation with Alaska’s Russian
neighbors. The Coast Guard “should expand its existing bilateral agreement with Russia to include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct
regular exercises to establish joint responses under Arctic conditions,” and develop a joint contingency plan with Russia and
Canada, the report said. Some of the recommendations -- such as improved mapping -- overlap with ambitions
articulated in an action plan released Monday by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. It is unclear whether
governments or other entities plan to make the financial investments to carry out the report’s
recommendations. The report suggests some potential funding sources. Revenues from oil leasing or production could be shared with
some sort of “public-private-municipal partnership,” the report said. Cost efficiencies could be found if data is shared, including between oil
companies, Myers said. The Alaska Legislature appears poised to approve a bill that would establish an Arctic infrastructure development fund,
to be administered by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, that could help pay for new facilities in the region. Lawmakers
have made no commitment to put any money into the fund, and there are no anticipated appropriations until FY 2016, according to legislative
documents. As
for boosting cooperative efforts with Russian authorities to enhance marine safety,
Myers said he is optimistic, despite rising tensions over Ukraine.
1NC
1NC Shipping DA (invasive species, bio-d)
Arctic Biodiversity is high—It’s key to global biodiversity
Naido 2013 [Jayeseelan, Chairman, GAIN “The Scramble for the Arctic and the Dangers of Russia's
Race for Oil” 11/6/13 The Huffington Post 13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayaseelan-naidoo/thescramble-for-the-arctic_b_4223661.html)
The Arctic region covers more than 30 million square kilometers - one sixth of the planet's
landmass. It spans 24 time zones. It is one of Earth's last pristine ecosystems. It is critical to global
biodiversity with hundreds of unique plant and animal species. Scientists concur that the Arctic sea ice
serves as the air conditioner of the planet, regulating the global temperature.
Arctic shipping introduces invasive species, destroying biodiversity
Geiling 14 (Natasha, Arctic Shipping: Good For Invasive Species, Bad For the Rest of Nature,
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/global-warmings-unexpected-consequence-invasivespecies-180951573/)
Yes, shipping containers and bulk carriers do currently contribute to the spread of invasive species—it's
something that has been irking marine biologists for a long time. Bulk carriers (and ships generally) have things called ballast tanks, which are
Ships take in water
from one location and discharge it in another, contributing to concerns about invasive species. The zebra mussel, an
compartments that hold water, in order to weigh a ship down and lower its center of gravity, providing stability.
invasive species that has colonized the Great Lakes and caused billions of dollars of economic damage, is believed to have been
introduced from the ballast tank of ships coming from Western European ports .
Shipping is already the primary way that
invasive marine species become introduced—contributing to 69 percent of species introductions to
marine areas.¶ But Miller and Ruiz worry that Arctic shipping—both through the Arctic and from the Arctic—could make this statistic even
worse. ¶ "What’s happening now is that ships move between oceans by going through Panama or Suez, but that means ships from higher
latitudes have to divert south into tropical and subtropical waters, so if you are a cold water species, you’re not likely to do well in those
warm waters," Miller explains. "That could currently be working as a filter, minimizing the high latitude species that are moving from one
ocean to another."¶ Moreover, the Panama Canal is a freshwater canal, so organisms clinging to the hulls of ships passing through have to
undergo osmotic shock as saltwater becomes freshwater and back again. A lot of organisms, Miller explains, can't survive that.¶ These
new cold water routes don't have the advantage of temperature or salinity filters the way traditional shipping routes do. That means that
species adapted to live in cold waters in the Arctic could potentially survive in the cool waters in northern port cities in New York and
New Jersey, which facilitated the maritime transport of nearly $250 billion worth of goods in 2008. And because routes through the
Arctic are much shorter than traditional shipping routes, invasive animals like crabs, barnacles and mussels are more likely to survive
the short transit distance riding along inside the ballast tanks and clinging to the hulls.¶ ¶
Invasive species are always cause for apprehension—a Pandora's Box, because no one really knows how they'll impact a
particular ecosystem until it's too late. In an interview with Scientific American in March of 2013, climate scientist Jessica Hellmann, of the
University of Notre Dame, put it this way: "Invasive species are one of those things that once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s hard to put her
back in." There aren't many invasive species from the Arctic that are known, but one that is, the red king crab, has already wreaked
havoc on Norway's waters; a ferocious predator, the red king crab hasn't had much trouble asserting near total dominance over species
unfamiliar with it. "You never know when the next red king crab is going to be in your ballast tank," Miller warns. Invasive species pose
two dangers, one ecological, the other economic. From an ecological standpoint, invasive species threaten
to disrupt systems
that have evolved and adapted to live together over millions of years. "You could have a real
breakdown in terms of [the ecosystems] structure and their function, and in some cases, the diversity and abundance
of native species," Miller explains.
But invasive species do more than threaten the ecology of the Arctic—they can threaten the global economy. Many invasive species, like
mussels, can damage infrastructure, such as cooling and water pipes. Seaports are vital to both the United States and the global economy—
ports in the Western hemisphere handle 7.8 billion tons of cargo each year and generate nearly $8.6 trillion of total economic activity,
according to the American Association of Port Authorities. If an invasive species is allowed to gain a foothold in a port, it could completely
disrupt the economic output of that port. The green crab, an invasive species from Europe, for example, has been introduced to New England
coasts and feasts on native oysters and crabs, accounting for nearly $44 million a year in economic losses. If invasive species are able to disrupt
the infrastructure of an American port—from pipes to boats—it could mean damages for the American economy. In recent years, due to
fracking technology, the United States has gone from being an importer of fuel to an exporter, which means that American ports will be hosting
more foreign ships in the coming years—and that means more potential for invasive species to be dispersed. Invasive
species brought
into the Arctic could also disrupt ecosystems, especially because the Arctic has had low exposure to
invasions until now. Potential invasive species could threaten the Arctic's growing economic infrastructure as well, damaging
equipment set up to look for natural gas and other natural resources in the newly-exposed Arctic waters.
Biodiversity Loss Leads to Extinction
Buczynski ’10 gender modified* [Beth, writer and editor for important ecosystem sustainability, UN:
Loss Of Biodiversity Could Mean End Of Human Race, Care2, 18/10/10, http://www.care2.com/causes/unhumans-are-rapidly-destroying-the-biodiversity-ne.html]
UN officials gathered at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Japan have issued a global warning that the rapid loss of
animal and plant species that has characterized the past century must end if humans are to survive. Delegates in
Nagoya plan to set a new target for 2020 for curbing species loss, and will discuss boosting medium-term financial help for poor countries to
help them protect their wildlife and habitats (Yahoo Green). “Business
as usual is no more an option for
[hu]mankind*,” CBD executive secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf said in his opening statements. “We need a new approach, we need to
reconnect with nature and live in harmony with nature into the future.” The CBD is an international legally-binding treaty with three main goals:
conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biodiversity; fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
Its overall objective is to encourage actions which will lead to a sustainable future. As Djoghlaf acknolwedged in his opening statements, facing
the fact that many countries have ignored their obligation to these goals is imperitive if progress is to be made in the future. “Let us have the
courage to look in the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made
to them by the 110 Heads of State and Government to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010,” Djoghlaf stated. “Let us look in the
eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future.” Earlier this year, the
U.N. warned several
eco-systems including the Amazon rainforest, freshwater lakes and rivers and coral reefs are approaching
a “tipping point” which, if reached, may see them never recover. According to a study by UC Berkeley and Penn
State University researchers, between 15 and 42 percent of the mammals in North America disappeared after humans arrived. Compared
to extinction rates demonstrated in other periods of Earth’s history, this
means that North American species are already half
way to to a sixth mass extinction, similar to the one that eliminated the dinosaurs. The same is true in many
other parts of the world. The third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook demonstrates that, today, the rate of loss of biodiversity is up to
one thousand times higher than the background and historical rate of extinction. The
Earth’s 6.8 billion humans are
effectively living 50 percent beyond the planet’s biocapacity in 2007, according to a new assessment by the World
Wildlife Fund that said by 2030 humans will effectively need the capacity of two Earths in order to survive.
CP
CP text: The United States Federal Government should expand its programs for
Arctic Ocean exploration and scientific research.
Russia can’t be relied on for scientific data – the US should map the sea unilaterally
Cohen, et. Al, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 2008
(Ariel, Ph.D. and Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International
Energy Security, Lajos Szaszdi, Ph.D. and researcher at the Hertiage Foundation, and Jim
Dolbow, defense analyst as the U.S. Naval Institute, “The New Cold War: Reviving the U.S.
Presence in the Arctic”, online pdf available for download:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/executive-summary-the-new-cold-warreviving-the-us-presence-in-the-arctic)
While paying lip service to international law, Russia’s ambitious actions hearken back to
19th- century statecraft rather than the 21st-century law- based policy and appear to
indicate that the Kremlin believes that credible displays of power will settle conflicting
territorial claims. By comparison, the West’s posture toward the Arctic has been irresolute
and inadequate. This needs to change.Reestablishing the U.S. Arctic Presence. The United
States should not rely on the findings of other nations that are mapping the Arctic floor.
Timely mapping results are necessary to defending and asserting U.S. rights in bilateral
and multilateral fora. The U.S. needs to increase its efforts to map the floor of the Arctic
Ocean to determine the extent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and ascertain the
extent of legitimate U.S. claims to territory beyond its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic
zone. To accomplish this, the U.S. needs to upgrade its icebreaker fleet. The U.S. should also
continue to cooperate and advance its interests with other Arctic nations through venues such as
the recent Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland.
"Cooperation" with Russia won't produce quality clean-up efforts - they pocket
concessions and won't meaningfully engage the US
Kramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert
and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace),
2/21/2013
(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian
Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-againfalling-for-the-russian-trap/)
Nearing the end of his second term, George W. Bush sought to salvage Russian-American
relations with a visit to Sochi in April 2008, but then a few months later, Russia’s invasion of
Georgia brought the bilateral relationship to its lowest point in twenty years. President
Obama came to office intent on repairing the relationship and working together with
Moscow on a range of global issues. At the start of his second term, however, despite four years
of the reset policy, Obama, too, faces a very strained relationship with Russia.¶ True, the
United States has made its mistakes. But the current state of Russian-American relations
stems mostly from the Kremlin’s creation of imitation democracy and its attempts to
exploit the West and anti-Americanism for political survival. The Kremlin’s imitation
game has complicated American and Western policies toward Russia and forced the West
to pretend, just as the Russian elite does. The “Let’s Pretend” game allowed both sides to
ignore core differences and to find tactical compromises on a host of issues ranging from
the war on terror to nuclear safety. This concerted imitation has also had strategic
consequences, however. It has facilitated the survival of Russia’s personalized-power
system and discredited liberal ideals in the eyes of Russian society. It has also created a powerful
pro-Russia Western lobby that is facilitating the export of Russia’s corruption to developed
countries.¶ Despite numerous U.S. attempts to avoid irritating the Kremlin, relations between
Moscow and Washington always seem to end up either in mutual suspicion or in full-blown
crisis. That is what happened under the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, and
that is what happened after Barack Obama’s first term in office. Each period of
disappointment and rupture in relations, which has always been preceded by a period of
optimism, has been followed by another campaign by both Moscow and Washington to
revive relations. Who is behind these campaigns? For a quarter of a century, it has been the
same consolidated cohort of experts in both capitals, most of whom have serious and established
reputations and vast stores of experience. (There are a few new additions to the cohort, but they
walk in lockstep with the old hands.) After every new crisis, these experts implore politicians on
both sides to “think big.” Each time, “big thinking” on the Western side includes encouragement
to avoid issues that would antagonize the Kremlin. Thus U.S. administrations looked the other
way as the Kremlin created a corrupt, authoritarian regime.
1NC: T – Its
Interpretation – its shows possession
Using English 13 , http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show
possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and
shows that it belongs to me.)
And, possessive pronouns are exclusive – legal definition
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 2013
[BENCH BILLBOARD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF COVINGTON, KENTUCKY,
TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NORTHERN KENTUCKY, Defendants-Appellees. 2013 FED App. 0940N
(6th Cir, Lexis]
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.324(1) exempts public utilities from receiving prior approval for the location or relocation of any of their service
facilities. § 100.324(1). While the statute does not define "service facilities," the statute grants the exemption only to public utilities. The
statute's use of the possessive pronoun "their" clearly limits the exempted service facilities to those
possessed or owned by the utility itself and which the utility has located or relocated.
Violation – the affirmative increases exploration and development from another countrythat reduces national control
Weiss 5 Joseph Weiss Universidade de Brasilia 2005 Contradictions of International Cooperation in the
Amazon: Why is the nation-state left out? http://www.ispn.org.br/arquivos/bb_.pdf
Sajar and VanDeveer (2005) make clear that while environmental capacity-building attracted
multilateral organization attention again in the late 1990s, it was defined, when applied, to transfer
ineffective North models to th e South to make success more likely for programs defined by the North.
By allowing for NGO participation, national governments are often left with reduced control or
power.
Reasons to Prefer
1. Limits – there are tons of potential countries and areas of cooperation – allowing all of
them to be topical makes it impossible for the negative to prepare.
2. Ground – there is a huge difference in the literature between federal government and
international actions – the aff makes international counterplans irrelevant, which is a core
check on small affs
3. Extra-Topicality – they add another countries’ exploration. That’s a voting issue – extraT is unpredictable because it lets affs decide the terms of the debate through extra
advantage ground
1NC Arctic DA
Russia won’t be able to develop the arctic alone – cooperation and shipping
development are key
Fadeyev ’13 [Alexei, PhD in Economics, Head of the Production Support Department at GazpromneftSakhalin, Developing the Arctic Territories Efficiently, http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=1332#top]
many industrialized
states regard the Arctic as a key strategic region. Its industrial development would see intensive oil and gas production, extraction of
biological resources, massive cargo transshipment and, that would in turn require better transportation and the relevant infrastructure. International
cooperation in this field is vital for the region’s efficient and safe advancement, since organizing transport services is
Due to its vast hydrocarbon reserves and the greater role played by fundamental factors determining political and energy security,
technologically complicated and legislation in the different Arctic states varies greatly. Transportation Interests in Russia’s Arctic Zone and Infrastructure Status
Today The extensive development of the Arctic in the near future requires scores of new solutions, some of
which should produce highly effective breakthrough technologies, as well as sophisticated approaches to logistics support for remote facilities, vehicle propulsion and
ensuring minimal impact on the fragile environment. Russia possesses unique transportation and logistics capabilities and
can therefore play a major role in converting the country into a competitive transit territory with an advanced services sector and a service economy. The full-scale
realization of its transportation and transit potential seems most promising. It would involve creating a network of international transit corridors across the territory
Poor and
sometimes nonexistent transportation infrastructure causes a mismatch between the significance of
resource development in Russia's polar territories and the continental shelf and national security
requirements. This undermines Russia’s competitiveness, despite its exceptional geographical
advantages. A comprehensive transportation system and infrastructure would not only remove existing hurdles to utilizing transit potential but would also
clear away infrastructural restrictions on resource activities in the Russian Arctic Zone (RAZ). Arctic ports are less than promising, given
the absence of long-distance railway lines, raising the importance of the Belkomur project that involves building the absent sections along
and waters under Russia’s jurisdiction, in addition to the development of a capillary transport infrastructure to connect remote Arctic communities.
the Archangelsk-Perm railway line (Karpogory-Vendinga), connecting the Archangelsk seaport with Syktyvkar, Kudymkar and Perm (Solikamsk). The line would
carry products from these regions to foreign markets. To this end, projects such as the Sosnogorsk-Indiga (Barentskomur) and Vorkuta-Ust Kara lines seem especially
important, as does the North-South corridor linking the Persian Gulf states, India and Pakistan with Central and East Europe and Scandinavia via the Caspian.
Moreover, building the Polunochnaya-Obskaya railway line, completing the Obskaya-Bovanenkovo line to the port of Kharasaway, extending the Nadym-Salekhard
railway line to Labytnangi, and continuing the Korotchayevo-Igarka railroad line to Dudinka and Norilsk would forge a link between the ore fields of the polar Urals
and Yamal hydrocarbon deposits with industrialized areas in the Urals. [1] Meridian railway lines to ports on the White, Barents, Kara and Laptev seas should boost
the cargo potential of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and open direct access to West Europe. Some complications can be expected from building the Salkhard-NadymNovy Urengoy railroad that to reach Igarka and Norilsk, as cargos may leave via the Dudinka connection, the NSR’s best link. This could mean the emergence of
competition between railway and marine transportation with regard to tariffs, logistics and reliability. There would be growing demand for rapid cross-Polar transit,
including air routes (similar to the shortest routes between the Eastern and Western hemispheres), and for a multifunctional transcontinental traffic route through a
tunnel under the Bering Strait. Feasibility is based on the future use of the high-latitude Northern Transport Corridor: Russia’s multi-purpose sea-and-land route
incorporating the NSR and its adjacent meridian river and railway communications. The cities of Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky – its extreme points –
would allow the transshipment of cargos to ice-class vessels, icebreaker servicing and feeder route support [1]. Despite
the numerous technical
difficulties of Arctic sailing, the NSR offers the shortest route between Europe, the Far East and North America's western
coast, which could be used not only for transit but also for Russian exports that are currently
delivered to Southeast Asia via the Suez Canal. Interestingly, in recent years, government decisions have also
stressed the NSR’s key role in developing the Arctic areas and resources. There is now a clear and
pressing need for the modernization of existing and construction of new seaports, export terminals,
icebreakers and transport vessels, and for the creation of a marine platform for offshore geological
survey and servicing.
Russia needs a developed Arctic as a power base for Russian expansionism and USRussian war
Hodges 13 [Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, and a political activist and writer who has published
dozens of editorials and articles, “Why Russia Needs Alaska”, http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/02/27/why-russia-needs-alaska/]
Soviet Russia had to be contained within the heartland.
that whosoever controlled Eurasia, controlled the world, so long as the controller had
access to useable ports. The problem for Russia is that they have so few usable ports thus impacting commerce and
the movement of men and material in a time of war. So long as Russian could be prevented from being a major sea power,
Containing Russia Is the Key to World Peace From Mackinder’s perspective,
Mackinder’s believed
the forces of the United States and Western Europe were safe. However, if Russia should become a
sea power in conjunction with its massive land-based power, Russia could rule the world. Zbigniew
Brzezinski confirms the Heartland Theory, in his book, A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the US-Soviet Contest (pp 22-23), n which he echoed the words of Mackinder when he
If the Soviet Union captures the peripheries of this landmass … it
would not only win control of vast human, economic and military resources, but also gain access to
the geostrategic approaches to the Western Hemisphere – the Atlantic and the Pacific.” For Russia, controlling
stated that “Whoever controls Eurasia dominates the globe.
the peripheries of the landmass means controlling Alaska and having access to its ports. This would make Russia the world’s most preeminent land and sea power and the world would have to
pay homage to the new global master. Stalin’s Secret Plans to Invade Alaska In 1951 In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian
Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America as early
as 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining
to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States. These documents, from the Cold War, revealed that Stalin had a definitive
plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of
the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major
motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports.
Dictator Joseph
Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily. Suspicious Happenings In Alaska In light of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that there are clear economic,
political and military reasons why the Russians would want to occupy Alaska. My interest in this topic surfaced quite serendipitously as a couple of listeners to my radio program sent me
The
sighting of Russian troops in small Alaskan towns such Ketchikan, Alaska, got my undivided attention. Ketchikan is the
information on the Agenda 21 invasion of small Alaska communities, and oh, by the way, they also reported that they were seeing Russian troops in their respective communities.
southeastern most city in Alaska. With an estimated population of 8,050. Ketchikan is the fifth-most populous city in the state. Another area where there are civilian sightings of Russian troops is
in Sitka, Alaska. The City of Sitka, formerly New Archangel under Russian rule, is located on Baranof Island and the southern half of Chichagof Island in the Alexander Archipelago of the
one military veteran reports seeing Russian submarines, on a frequent basis, just off
the coast. Further, there are civilian reports of Russian vehicles and troops moving through Alaska
north of Anchorage. These are only anecdotal accounts and further proof is required in to validate these eyewitness accounts. Yet, there are indeed
verifiable, reported media accounts of Russian troops on American soil. The presence of Russian troops on American soil is
Pacific Ocean. Additionally,
very troublesome. America does not need to rely on the anecdotal accounts of Alaskan civilians to be concerned about the presence of Russian troops on American soil. Russian commandos are
also “training” at Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs since last spring. Why is this concerning? The United States is about to go to war with Iran for selling its oil to Russia, China and India for
Russia is, and should be considered to
be an enemy of the United States. A Stunning Act of Treason Obama has given away seven strategic, oil-rich Alaskan islands to the Russians at a time when we
could be going to war with Russia. At minimum, the oil, alone, from these Islands should be considered to be a military asset. I remain very concerned that these seven islands in the
Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea could also be used as a military staging area from which to invade
Alaska and defend its new claims of the mineral rich resources at the North Pole. The Department of Interior
gold instead of the Petrodollar. Russia and China have threatened to nuke the United States if it dares to attack Iran.
estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake, related to these seven Islands. Didn’t Obama promise energy independence. Didn’t this proven communist president promise to help the economy
bounce back by lessening our dependence on foreign oil? And despite our ongoing economic depression, Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago. Perhaps, very soon, America will
not need the Keystone Pipeline because Alaska will not be remaining as a viable member of the United States. To those who think that Obama would never sacrifice Alaska to Russia, then please
tell us “conspiracy theorists” why he would give away seven Islands, one as big as Delaware, with great natural resources, to the Russians? This is a case of bold-faced treason plain and simple.
Obama and his cabinet should be arrested, tried and sentenced as we would with any traitor. Yet, there is more. The Giveaway of Alaska There exists documented facts which support the reasons
Russia recently sent four brigades to the Arctic. The Arctic can be used as a
staging area for the invasion of the North Pole to protect its recent mineral claims, but more
importantly, this area of the Arctic could serve as a base of operations from which to invade Alaska
with the help of pre-positioned assets within the state. In March of 2012, with a microphone left on. Obama made an unguarded comment to
why Alaska should be placed on high alert.
Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to be “more lenient on nuclear issues” because he could be more flexible “after the November election”. Does more flexible mean killing the Keystone Pipeline
prior to giving away seven rich Alaskan Islands to the Russians? Does more flexible mean letting the Russians train in Colorado Springs and in Alaska? Does being more flexible mean
compromising our defense of Alaska? More Treason From Obama Although some journalists have said that they suspect that Obama is preparing to give away Alaska to Russia. I previously did
not see how a sitting president could do such a thing and remain in office. However, if Russia were to militarily seize Alaska, that would provide Obama with a plausible excuse in which he
claims America was caught off guard and the danger was unforeseen. Obama could best accomplish this by weakening the defenses of Alaska and the evidence is supportive of this suspicion.
The evidence does not support a timetable, however, I would guess that this event may transpire in Obama’s last year in office, or possibly in the lame duck session where he cannot be held
accountable. This article will hopefully remove Obama’s ability to excuse away the notion that America lost Alaska because it go caught with its proverbial pants down. The giving away of
seven strategic, oil-rich Islands is a good start to support a claim of treason because Obama is purposely weakening the defense of Alaska. Also, local residents along the Alaskan coast have
reported to me that the massive over flights along the coast have all but ceased. The F-22′s have disappeared. The Air Force says the flights have been suspended because of oxygen concerns
which are impacting the pilots. Then shouldn’t the flights be replaced by F-16′s? What about national security?These over flights have been a staple of Alaskan defense since the Cold War. If we
are close to war with Iran and its ally, Russia, then shouldn’t we beefing up our patrols in Alaska? Recently the ATF asked for gun registration records in Alaska. Perhaps the Russians need to
It is now on the
record that Putin said that he was going to make his country the greatest country, economically, as
he said in print that he is claiming part of Alaska. Adding fuel to the fire, it is now clear that Russia
is also establishing plans for an Arctic industrialization. In geopolitical and military terms, it could
be an easy to claim to make if the military resistance in Alaska is greatly compromised, and it has
been. The last thing that country should do on a potential front line area is to close military facilities and bases, yet, this is exactly what is happening in Alaska. Obama and the Base
know, in advance, where the most civilian opposition will come from when they take over Alaska. Are Plans Being Made For a Post-Russian Takeover of Alaska?
Realignment and Closure Commission have been closing bases and/or reducing base operations all through Alaska. It has gotten so bad that the Alaskan Governor hired a lobbyistto prevent
military reduction. Two years ago, a prominent Russia Professor predicted the end of the United States. The professor stated that Alaska would return to the control of Russia and that the United
think it’s very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old
Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire.” There is also a tunnel from Russia to Alaska being constructed. Are
we funding our own demise with our tax money which is designed to set up Russia’s future? Last summer, Russia challenged west coast detection
capabilities of our military by making provocative moves with their submarines inside of our
territorial waters. Also, in a stunning move, Putinbanned adoptions of Russian children by American parents. Could it be likely that he is looking out for the Russian adoptees as
States would be split into six pieces. John McCain recently said “I
this is a reaction to what Putin knows is coming? Conclusion Should we be closing bases on the potential front lines? Should we be failing to patrol off of our coast? Should we allow the
unchallenged sightings of surfaced Russian subs close to the coastline? Any one of these events should be considered to be a serious national security concern. Yet, the media and Obama act as if
all is well. There are a lot of dots on this wall to connect. However, there is one monumental dot to seriously consider. Subsequently, I have some final questions. If Obama is willing to give
away seven oil-rich Islands in the area of Alaska, during these tough economic times, then what exactly isn’t he capable of doing to the United States? Is the sacrifice of Alaska so far-fetched in
? Aren’t the apparent Russian plans to seize Alaska part of the fulfillment of the
Heartland Theory in which Mother Russia propels itself in the status of the world’s super power by
making itself both a land and sea power through the seizure of Alaska? When someone can provide a plausible set of answers
to the questions that I have raised here, then I will continue to sound the alarm that “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.”
light of these other considerations
US-Russia war causes extinction
Baum 3/7/14
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-baum/best-and-worst-case-scena_b_4915315.html
Seth Baum is Executive Director of the think tank Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He recently
completed a Ph.D. in Geography at Pennsylvania State University and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship with
the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. Based in New York City,
Baum's research covers a variety of topics including ethics, economics, climate change, nuclear war, and
life in the universe.
No one yet knows how the Ukraine crisis will play out. Indeed, the whole story is a lesson in the perils of prediction. Already we have a classic:
"Putin's Bluff? U.S. Spies Say Russia Won't Invade Ukraine," published February 27, just as Russian troops were entering Crimea. But
considering the best and worst cases highlights some important opportunities to make the most of the situation. Here's the short version: The best
case scenario has the Ukraine crisis being resolved diplomatically through increased Russia-Europe cooperation, which would be a big step
towards world peace. The worst
case scenario has the crisis escalating into nuclear war between the United States and
Russia, causing human extinction. Let's start with the worst case scenario, nuclear war involving the American and Russian
arsenals. How bad would that be? Put it this way: Recent analysis finds that a "limited" India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill two billion people
via agricultural declines from nuclear winter. This "limited" war involves just 100 nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia combine to possess
about 16,700 nuclear weapons. Humanity may not survive the aftermath of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war. It seems rather unlikely that
the U.S. and Russia would end up in nuclear war over Ukraine. Sure, they have opposing positions, but neither side has anywhere near enough at
stake to justify such extraordinary measures. Instead, it seems a lot more likely that the whole crisis will get resolved with a minimum of deaths.
However, the story has already taken some surprising plot twists. We
cannot rule out the possibility of it ending in direct
nuclear war. A nuclear war could also occur inadvertently, i.e. when a false alarm is misinterpreted as real, and
nuclear weapons are launched in what is believed to be a counterattack. There have been several alarmingly close calls of inadvertent U.S.-Russia
nuclear war over the years. Perhaps the most relevant is the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident. A rocket carrying scientific equipment was
launched off northern Norway. Russia detected the rocket on its radar and interpreted it as a nuclear attack. Its own nuclear forces were put on
alert and Boris Yeltsin was presented the question of whether to launch Russia's nuclear weapons in response. Fortunately, Yeltsin and the
Russian General Staff apparently sensed it was a false alarm and declined to launch. Still, the disturbing lesson from this incident is that nuclear
war could begin even during periods of calm. With
the Ukraine crisis, the situation today is not calm. It is even
more tense than last year, when the United States was considering military intervention in Syria.
Russia
no arctic science – territorial claims inadvertent bureaucracy
Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [“Scientific challenges in the Arctic: Open
water”, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478174a,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
The territorial ambitions of different nations may also end up restricting scientific access. In theory,
the areas claimed under the UNCLOS apply only to the sea floor and do not give a country rights over the
water above. In practice, however, such claims could hinder scientific work. "If a coastal state wanted
to, it could, by declaring regions to be of special interest for exploration, require that other states
request permission to conduct research in the area of the extended continental shelf," says Larry
Mayer, a marine geologist at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. This is more than just idle
speculation, he says, because Russia has a history of impeding access to scientists from other nations
seeking to work in its waters. Some researchers say that their attempts to put out or collect equipment
from areas under Russian control have been thwarted when applications for permits were either denied or
went unanswered. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, for example, could not obtain permission to
drill in Russian parts of the Bering Sea in 2009. Some scientists familiar with Russia say that the
permission problems stem more from the nation's massive bureaucracy than a deliberately
obstructionist policy. "Inertia here coming from the Soviet era is really huge," says Igor Polyakov, a
Russian Arctic researcher who now works at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He says that gaining
permission for research in Russian waters is much easier now than in the past. Others report just the
opposite. Cheryl Rosa, deputy director of the US Arctic Research Commission in Anchorage, Alaska,
says that researchers are still experiencing problems with permits, visas, taxations on funding,
getting data out of Russia and other issues.
No US-Russia crisis – everything is fine now
Gudev 3/19/14
enior Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the
Russian Academy of Sciences,
http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/arctic-cooperation/?id_4=1053
n the last years, we have witnessed a deep evolution in the understanding of the Arctic issues among
both American and Russian experts. We have understood that we are allies rather than enemies and
that we have shared interests in the Arctic. At the time being, all countries are willing to cooperate in
the Arctic. This willingness remains in spite of the crisis in Ukraine or in any other sphere. The
Arctic has been and will be a very fruitful field of cooperation between Russia and the U.S.,
Norway, and Canada. I don’t think there will be any problems
No impact on programs
RIA Novosti 4/25/14
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140425/189367444/Sanctions-Wont-Impact-Arctic-Projects--Russian-ScienceOfficial.html
Potential sanctions imposed by the West will have no impact on Russia’s international projects in
the Arctic, because the country’s partners are interested in further polar cooperation, a senior
Russian science official told RIA Novosti Friday. “No sanctions, I emphasize that, even Canada’s
demarche in the Arctic Council, will affect working relations," said Arkady Tishkov, deputy head of the
Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences. "The [international] cooperation
continues, information exchange continues, as well as an actual realization of the projects, including
major investments,” Tishkov said during a panel discussion entitled “Arctic: Defense of Russian
Interests.”
Ignore their cooperation defense—Russians are intentionally hiding their
belligerence to encourage complacency in the US
Huebert 10 (Rob, PhD and Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, “The Newly Emerging Arctic Security
Environment,” http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf)
It should be clear that the
Russians have been according a growing importance to the Arctic region . They
continually issue statements affirming their commitment to peaceful cooperation in the Arctic,
which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders and in their primary documents.
These same leaders are also very quick to condemn the actions of the other Arctic states as being
aggressive and a threat to international peace and security in the region whenever they engage in
any form of military related activity. It is clear, however, that the Russians have embarked on a much more
assertive use of military force in the region by taking various action – the missile test launches near
the pole, the sudden and substantial resumption of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages
of their surface units into the disputed zones – which exceeds that of any of the other Arctic states.
Furthermore, the Russians’ proposed rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any other Arctic
state. Thus, the Russians have excelled at portraying themselves as cooperative while taking
increasingly assertive action. The question remains as to why? Are they merely reasserting themselves as a global power, or, does
this new action point to an increasingly assertive Russia? This is not known.
Zero chance of Arctic war---experts
Mahony 3/19 Honor, EU Observer, "Fear of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'", 2013,
euobserver.com/foreign/119479
The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the
resource-rich region is overblown, say experts. For long a mystery because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic
region to scientists, researchers and industry. Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered
unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil. The interest is reflected in the growing list of those
wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region. While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada form the
The Arctic has become a new
meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During
council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status. "
a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by far in the last years." He points to its red-carpet treatment of
politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a
joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like
Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means greater
shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in
2012. For a ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is
connected to shipping. Russia is also keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways. According to
Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North
East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want
protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there." And he believes the biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US
Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and
China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. "The biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of
This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that
much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for
conflict. But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert. Most resources have
an owner "There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict
because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there
first. That is completely false," he said. He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region," with
international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles off
their coast. On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every
value in the water and under the seabed." "Up to 97 percent of energy resources is actually belonging to
valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said.
someone already," says Wang. He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment,
which requires stable politics and security.
US-Russian relations are re-stabilizing post-Ukraine – Russian return to diplomacy
Yucai, 4/21/14 – Professor, Crisis Management Center, PLA National Defense University (Yang, “Russia
sets example of strong crisis management with firm legal basis,” Global Times,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/855865.shtml)//SY
Meanwhile, US-Russia relations, which were once on the verge of a new Cold War, are gradually heading
back on the track of dialogue and cooperation. It seems that along with diplomatic measures and
economic dialogues, Russia's "assertiveness" which the West finds hard to tolerate, may be gradually
diluted. The Putin administration's high efficiency in managing the regional crisis is impressive. Such a
high efficiency stems from a united security institution, a high level of strategic planning, and government
agencies' strong enforcement capabilities. Russia's crisis management is based on a unified national
security institution, at the core of which is the Federal Security Service (FSB). Through the FSB, Russian
President Vladimir Putin grasps the overall strategic pattern and makes the most important
No impact to Iran Prolif
Layne 10 (Christopher, Christopher Layne holds the Mary Julia and George R. Jordan professorship of international affairs at Texas A &
M University’s George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service. He is the author of The Peace of Illusions: American Grand
Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Cornell University Press, 2006), and (with Bradley A. Thayer) American Empire: A Debate (Routledge,
2006), and is a contributing editor to the American Conservative, “who lost Iraq and why it matters: the case for offshore balancing,” august 19,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing)
Even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the worst-case scenarios—that there could be a nuclear arms race in
the Middle East; that Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and that Tehran could use its nuclear weapons aggressively
or to blackmail other states in the region—are improbable. A nuclear Iran is unlikely to touch off a
proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel already is a nuclear power. The other states that
might be tempted to attain nuclear weapons capability—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—would be under
strong pressure not to do so. (Saudi Arabia also lacks the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear
weapons indigenously.) Despite the Bush administration’s hyperbolic rhetoric and Tehran’s close links to groups like Hezbollah
and Hamas, Iran is not likely to supply nuclear weapons to terrorists. If it did and the terrorists were to use these
weapons against the United States or its allies, the weapons
could be traced back to the donor state, which
would be at risk of annihilation by an American retaliatory strike. Even if one believes the administration’s
claims that rogue state leaders are indifferent to the fate of their populations, they do care very much about the
survival of their regimes. For the same reason, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons will not invest
Tehran with options to attack, or intimidate its neighbors. Israel’s security with respect to Iran is
guaranteed by its own formidable nuclear deterrent capabilities. By the same token, the United States can
extend its own deterrence umbrella to protect its clients in the region—Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and
Turkey—just as it did in Europe during the Cold War. American security guarantees not only will dissuade Iran from acting
recklessly, but also restrain proliferation by negating the incentives for states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to build their own
nuclear weapons. Given the overwhelming U.S. advantage in both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, it is highly
implausible that Iran would risk national suicide by challenging America’s security commitments in the region. In short, while a
nuclear-armed Iran hardly is desirable, neither is it “intolerable,” because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the
United States. Containment, deterrence, and diplomacy are a far wiser policy than attacking Iran.
Oil
Oil companies won’t drill in arctic
Cockerman 1/30/14
Sean Cockerman. Sean Cockerham is a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, based in Washington, D.C. He writes for the Anchorage Daily News
and the Idaho Statesman.
January 30th,2014. “Shell won't drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year”. http://www.adn.com/2014/01/30/3298785/shell-abandons-plans-foralaska.html
Royal Dutch Shell is abandoning hopes of drilling in the Arctic waters off Alaska this
year, the latest blow to the company's effort to exploit huge potential in the petroleum-rich but
sensitive region. The decision came as Shell reported a steep drop in earnings and its new CEO announced plans to restructure operations to improve the company's cash flow. CEO
Ben van Beurden cited last week's court ruling that threw offshore Arctic oil leases into question. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed
with environmental and Alaska Native groups that the federal government had underestimated
how much oil drilling would happen when it sold the leases in 2008. Van Beurden told investors that
the ruling raised "substantial obstacles" for Shell's plans in Alaska waters. "This is a disappointing
outcome, but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further
resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014," he told the investors Thursday. "We will look to relevant agencies and the court to resolve their open legal issues as
WASHINGTON --
quickly as possible." Van Beurden told reporters in London that, in addition to not drilling the Arctic waters in 2014, "we are reviewing our options there." Shell and others had explored offshore
in the Alaska Arctic in the 1980s and early 1990s. But before Shell's recent push there had been little activity in the last two decades and none by Shell. A series of mishaps doomed its 2012
effort. Those included the grounding of a drilling rig, reports of safety and environmental violations, and fines for breaking air pollution limits. Ken Salazar, the interior secretary at the time, said
Shell "screwed up" the historic Arctic effort. The Coast Guard conducted a full marine casualty investigation into the circumstances of the grounding. But its report has not yet been released. The
Shell has spent almost $6
billion so far on its Arctic offshore effort, the company said Thursday. "We needed more certainty
and didn't get it, making it impossible to justify the commitment of resources needed to explore
safely in 2014," Pete Slaiby, Shell's vice president for Alaska, said in an email. It has yet to extract
oil or even drill a single, complete well. While Salazar allowed Shell to start wells in both the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in 2012, the company wasn't allowed
problems led Shell to drop plans to drill last year, but it had interest in resuming this year if the federal government agreed to issue permits.
to drill into oil-rich geologic zones because its novel oil-spill containment dome failed tests. The entire drilling season was shortened because of a series of equipment problems. Environmental
"Shell is finally recognizing what we've been saying all along, that
offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business
perspective," said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana's vice president for U.S. oceans. Erik Grafe, the Earthjustice attorney who
groups hailed Shell's decision to suspend the effort.
led the lease challenge, called on the Obama administration to do a new environmental study. "The Department of the Interior now needs to take a hard look at whether the Chukchi Sea should be
open for oil drilling at all, beginning with a full and public environmental impact statement process that addresses the Ninth Circuit decision and does not minimize the risks of oil drilling in this
Greenpeace urged other companies that are considering offshore Arctic
drilling to learn from Shell's experience and "conclude that this region is too remote, too hostile
and too iconic to be worth exploring." "The decision by Shell's new CEO to suspend Arctic Ocean
drilling in 2014 was both sensible and inevitable," Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, said in a
statement. "The Arctic Ocean has proven to be logistically challenging for drilling and mobilization, and
a bottomless pit for investment." Political leaders faulted the federal government and court rulings
and downplayed Shell's own difficulties. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was disappointed that Shell wouldn't be going ahead this year.
vibrant but vulnerable sea," Grafe said in a statement.
She said it was understandable given the uncertainty due to the federal court ruling on its leases. "Companies willing to invest billions of dollars to develop our country's resources must have
confidence that the federal agencies responsible for overseeing their efforts are competent and working in good faith. I'm not convinced that has been the case for Alaska," Murkowski said in a
statement. Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich blamed "judicial overreach" for the situation. "I'll be talking with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today, and expect her agency to move quickly to
address the court's questions and concerns and do everything possible to get this process back on track," Begich said in a statement. Gov. Sean Parnell said Shell's decision was understandable,
given the recent court ruling. "Multiple years of federal regulatory delay, litigation delay, and one year of operational issues have created barriers to Alaskans' near-term economic prospects,"
Parnell said in a statement. "Still, offshore energy development will play an enormous role in Alaska's economic future, and I remain committed to responsibly developing our vast offshore
resource basin." The decision came as the company told investors that its fourth-quarter profits had plummeted, in part because of expensive exploration projects around the world. Van Beurden
said project delays in several countries and Nigeria's worsening security situation had contributed to a changing outlook for the Dutch oil company. He said Shell would reduce its capital
spending this year by about $10 billion, increase sales of its assets and attempt to improve its operational performance. "We are making hard choices in our worldwide portfolio to improve Shell's
capital efficiency," he said
. Other oil companies also have reservations about developing in the harsh Arctic
environment. In April, ConocoPhillips announced it was abandoning its plans to drill this year in its Devil's Paw prospect about 80 miles off the Alaska coast because of uncertainty
over government requirements. Statoil, a Norweigian oil and gas company, announced in September 2012 that it was delaying exploration plans. Spanish oil company Repsol also holds leases
offshore. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates there are 27 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil offshore Alaska. Daily News reporter Lisa Demer
contributed to this story from Anchorage.
No spills – Drilling will be safe if it happens
Ossipov 12-11-13
(Igor Ossipov. M.A. 'Distinction' Higher School of Economics / Univeristy of Kent. December 11th, 2013.
The Arctic Frontier – “Armed with Cooperation”.http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/casingpoint/?id_4=868
With a series of major accidents that rocked the tabloids it can easily feel that the big oil business is
all about profits with no regard for the environment. It may well be the case for some firms;
however it is not the case in the Arctic. If we recall those series of major accidents, the Exxon
Valdez spill of the coast of Alaska had a total cost of $5-9 billion, as about 40-72,000 tons leaked
into the water in 1989. It was not too severe as the cargo was not too large nor did the oil hit ice. In
2002 the Prestige grounded near Spain costing €5 billion as 64,000 tons of mazut hit the coast. In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon Incident
broke all records as the most infamous and biggest oil spill in history. This tragic event not only took the lives of 11
people, but only a small portion of the oil was successfully removed, or burned, leaving huge pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, BP who charted the drilling
platform ended up with a cleaning up and damages bill of $25 billion as well as more than $40 billion in asset losses (Business Week, 2013). As David Hayes
outlined, the
potential of such disaster is unthinkable for any firm in the Arctic. It would far exceed the
Gulf of Mexico incident and likely wipe out even one of the global oil majors. To no surprise not
many take on this region. As A. Krivorotov of Shtokman Development Company highlighted Royal
Dutch Shell is the most active with investments of $4.5 billion, but most cannot enter the market
due to risk or huge costs. Even the French oil supermajor Total had to exit, whereas Exxon Mobil that receives a lot of public attention in the region
is highly selective. As LUKoil's Alexander Abashin outlined Russian firms are not left behind either, as his major invests 10% of their investment in selected areas
towards safety and even though there is competition amongst LUKoil and Gazprom, they have a deal in place to assist each other in the event of an accident. As
clear there is a change of behaviour towards the Arctic as no corporate headperson wants to attend
the funeral of their firm and their likely career, but aside from majors, state governments are also
doing their bit. Hayes stressed that the US is forcing firms like Shell to only enter the Arctic if they bring
their best equipment and know-how. As the Arctic is absent of infrastructure and there is no
stationed tools in the case of an accident, so a major cannot just try to redirect from nearby. USA
has demanded that capping-stacks are always available if drilling as well as oil well replacement
parts and special collector vessels that can quickly sweep up spills if they do occur. In 2012 drilling
was postponed as Shell did not have such vessels in the vicinity, as the risk of oil hitting ice is
unthinkable – purely because there is no technology that can clean or collect oil back under ice. In
May 2013 President Obama also launched an Integrated Arctic Management System, whereby any construction of ports or oil type installations had to be openly
discussed with all the potential stakeholders as the US hopes to avoid such an event whereby investment is made that soon becomes unnecessary. In all, from an
American perspective, we must be realistic that oil production will take place as at the end almost everything is ran on oil, but it must be done in the safest of ways for
this region. As Hayes puts it, USA has a “managed approach”.
No brink—biodiversity is a linear impact—ecosystem resiliency ensures no impact
to more losses
Sedjo 2k – Fellow, Resources for the Future (Roger, Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity, p 114)
But, as with other resource questions, including public goods, biodiversity is not an either/or question, but rather a question of “how much.”
Thus, we may argue as to how much biodiversity is desirable or is required for human life (threshold) and how much is desirable (insurance) and at what price, just as
societies argue over the appropriate amount and cost of national defense. As discussed by Simpson, the value of water is small even though it is essential to human
life, while diamonds are inessential but valuable to humans. The reason has to do with relative abundance and scarcity, with market value pertaining to the marginal
unit. This water-diamond paradox can be applied to biodiversity. Although biological diversity is essential, a single species has only limited value, since the global
system will continue to function without that species. Similarly, the value of a
piece of biodiversity (e.g., 10 ha of tropical forest) is small to negligible
since its contribution to the functioning of the global biodiversity is negligible. The global ecosystem can function with
“somewhat more” or “somewhat less” biodiversity, since there have been larger amounts in times past and some losses in recent times. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to indicate that small habitat losses threaten the functioning of the global life support system, the value of these marginal habitats is negligible. The “value
question” is that of how valuable to the life support function are species at the margin. While this, in principle, is an empirical question, in practice it is probably
unknowable. However, thus far, biodiversity
losses appear to have had little or no effect on the functioning of the earth’s life support
to the resiliency of the system, which perhaps is due to the redundancy found in the system.
Through most of its existence, earth has had far less biological diversity. Thus, as in the water-diamond paradox, the value
system, presumably due
of the marginal unit of biodiversity appears to be very small.
Multiple alt causes to species loss
EDF 7 (Environmental Defense Fund, The Importance of Wildlife and the Diversity of Life,
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=445, AG)
The major cause of species loss in the U.S. and worldwide is the loss and degradation of habitat. As forests, wetlands, prairies,
coastal estuaries and other habitats are converted to residential, commercial or agricultural use and other types of development,
wild plants and animals vanish. In addition, many areas known as "hotspots" for their unusually rich biodiversity, such as
Florida and Southern California, also have
rapidly expanding human populations, which accelerates the loss
of biodiversity. In the U.S. non-native species are the second largest cause of species loss. Hundreds of
Hawaii's unique wildlife and plants are being driven to extinction by non-native plants and animals. Other factors are
pollution, disease, over-fishing and over-hunting.
Shipping
Arctic won’t replace suez for LNG
Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [“A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea
Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping”, Masters thesis,
Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tønsberg, Norway,
November 2013, Page 94-95,
http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf]sbhag
6.30.2014
Increased savings in terms of shipping cost, reduced sailing days Political turbulence in the Middle East
and piracy threat in the Gulf of Aden may increase the attractiveness of the NSR for the prospective LNG
shipping. The lack of icebreakers and a scanty fleet of standardized ice classed vessels may delay the
early LNG transit operations across the NSR. . It was discovered that the regional price differences of
LNG in Asia, Europe, and United States would also play a remarkable role in deciding the fate of
Northern Sea Route, up to a certain extent. In future, Northern Sea Route may not emerge as a
huge competitor to the southern route of Suez Canal, but instead it may take away merely a part of
the shipping, mainly the hydrocarbons 95 and bulk that goes through the Suez Canal today, because the
Suez Canal too is a shortcut for some ports and cargo trades.
LNG is not the equivalent of a nuclear weapon
HCB ‘6 [Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, Exploding the myth, November,
http://etc.am.szczecin.pl/files/download/HCB%20Nov%2006.pdf]
Despite the major simplification of the scenarios, it is evident that any comparison between an LNG and
a nuclear incident is entirely inappropriate. Even a small nuclear incident releases several million
times more energy in a second than our worst case LNG incident, with the tangible results of blast,
thermal energy and radiation being incomparable in severity. Anyone comparing the two events is
clearly misinformed on both nuclear and LNG issues, and are simply using highly emotive language to agitate and
distract attention from the facts of the matter. Overall the comparison of nuclear and LNG should really be removed
from the debate on LNG safety, allowing more time to be spent on making sure the real hazards are addressed and managed safely.
no arctic shipping or science – too much ice, small timeframes, short supply of
suitable ships, nothing strong enough for scientists
Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [“Scientific challenges in the Arctic: Open
water”, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478174a,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
Eventually, shipping companies might start to use the Arctic as a short-cut for transporting goods between
cities on the Pacific Rim and those bordering the Atlantic. Experimental voyages have been made along
the north coast of Russia, and a smattering of ships has crossed the Northwest Passage north of Canada.
But don't expect a significant rise in trans-Arctic traffic any time soon. In a 2009 assessment3, the
Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for issues affecting the region, projected that most of
the shipping in the region will involve bringing supplies to northern communities and exporting
resources such as oil and minerals, for at least the next decade and possibly much longer. "The notion
that the Arctic Ocean will become a Panama Canal or a Suez Canal is a figment of the media," says
Lawson Brigham, a geographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and chairman of the assessment.
But, he adds, "there may be a short, summer 'window of opportunity' for trans-Arctic navigation".
These changes are creating a sense of urgency among scientists trying to answer a string of questions
about the region (see 'Top questions in Arctic research'). Researchers seeking access to the Arctic Ocean
have traditionally relied on icebreakers to get through the ice. But these ships are in short supply in
the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Europe, because of lack of investment. Even ice-strengthened
vessels can be difficult for researchers to secure. "Because of the retreat of the sea ice and the oil
development we have pending in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, a lot of the ice-strengthened vessels
are being taken up by industry," says Jacqueline Grebmeier, an Arctic researcher at the University of
Maryland in Solomons who has made several trips through the region on the Canadian Coast Guard
icebreaker Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Ice-strengthened vessels, meanwhile, are not sturdy enough to provide
the kind of access that scientists most desire. "A lot of the processes that are really fundamental to the
understanding of how Arctic climate, oceanography and biology work are not happening in summer
time," says Lester Lembke-Jene, a marine geologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine
Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. "If you don't have the full annual observation," he says, "you
have a very, very imbalanced and narrow glimpse of what's going on there."
2050 at the earliest – ipcc data
Andrew Critchlow is the Telegraph's Business News Editor. Andrew helps to oversee business
coverage across print and online for the Telegraph. Formerly Middle East managing editor for Dow Jones
Newswires and Australasia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, Andrew is an expert on energy,
commodities and Arab business, 5-30-2014 [“Sea change for commodities as Arctic melt transforms
trade routes”, Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/10733099/Sea-change-forcommodities-as-Arctic-melt-transforms-trade-routes.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected to reveal in a closely
watched report this week that warmer sea temperatures by 2050 could open up new channels across
the Arctic Northern Sea Route (NSR). According to the report, global warming could mean that at
current rates the NSR will remain open to shipping for around 125 days per year, up from an average of
about 50 days at the moment.
2AC
Case
Russia
OV
Arctic diplomacy fails now, the aff is key to good will science diplomacy which is key
to maritime containment because science emphasizes mutual transparency and
shared innovation which is key to checking pivot points for arctic conflict now and
scuttles Iran relations resulting in post sanctions armament and instability and war
--Arctic co-operation spills over to relations because of shared perspectieve over sea
lanes, and arctic trade with Russia leads to good will negotiations that make trade
humanitarian intervention, international climate negotiations in mutual allied states
possible- that’s ccs 8
AT: No Science co-op
Plan creates diplomatic transparency in arctic waters that solves institutional impediments to visas
because of synthesis of overlapping researhc would emphasize joint interest co-operation, and lead to
innovation solves- That’s benton
AT: No conflict now
Goldenberg evidence indicates territorial disputes over resources means and lack of strategic frameworks
for science co-operation jack relations and Ukraine only provides uniqueness for increasing skepticism
over energy
AT: Russia says no
Cohen evidence – assumes arctic push now the plan is the key internal link to dispute resolutions over
who controls arctic sea lanes and territorial influence- monitoring systems makes relations resilient
because knowledge and discoevery emphasisze shared stake in the arctic
Russia wants Arctic cooperation
Arctic Info 5/19/14
http://www.arctic-info.com/News/Page/chilingarov--russia-is-for-international-cooperation-in-the-arctic
A unique project in the Russian media market, giving the reader the opportunity to learn about all the
most important, what is happening in the Russian Arctic and circumpolar countries. Central agency office
is located in Moscow, bureaus operate in the Arctic regions of Russia. The project is implemented as a
multi-language: English, Russian, Chinese version. Authoritative source with a growing citation index.
Newsline broadcast in leading news aggregators ("Yandex. News", "Google News", "Rambler.Media"),
in the largest specialized database - online libraries ("Medialogia", "Integrum", "Public.Ru") . Every day
for the materials published on the portal "Arctic-info" link dozens of online resources - both Russian and
English-speaking. Portal audience: three-quarters - Russian Internet users. This Russian national /
regional media, national / regional governance structures; decision-makers in the management / policy /
business; specialists of different professions and residents of northern regions. Quarter resource users readers and colleagues from foreign countries and the CIS countries.
On the eve of Polar Explorer day, the President of the Polar Explorers' Association, special representative of the President of the
Russian Federation for international cooperation in the Arctic and Antarctic, Artur Chilingarov,
congratulated everyone who lives and works in the high northern latitudes, on their new professional holiday.
"A year has passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on the celebration of Polar Explorer day. This is an important event
for those working in the Arctic. A polar explorer is not just someone who engaged in ice science, but everyone who lives in the far north of the
Arctic Circle: doctors, pilots, sailors, geologists, and oil workers. These people have a common task, set by Russia's administration, of developing
the Arctic expanses," Chilingarov noted. He added that attention to the Arctic region in Russia is growing. "One of the
oldest organizations uniting all researchers North and South poles of the world,the Polar Explorers Association, is actively developing. And that's
good," said the scientist. According to Chilingarov, it is very important to cultivate interest in the extreme north from childhood. "Now the Polar
Explorers Association is reviving the young polar explorers clubs, which are aimed at the development of youth tourism, so high school students
participate in scientific research work at northern latitudes. For future polar expeditions 'general clearing' of Arctic territories is also being carried
out," he said. "I want to stress that Russia
is the largest Arctic state- and it supports international cooperation
in the Arctic region. Despite today's difficult political situation, the Arctic should become a place
for close cooperation and partnership of all states," the famous polar explorer concluded.
AT: No Arctic War
The U.S has not ratified the UNCOS makes nautical mile rules untenable, and no frameworks for cooperation over science and management of resources means their authors assume relations are sustainable,
military reorientation to defend resources assumes their authors
AT: Relations High
Indicative of secure resource extraction but increased territorial disputes over rights to drill means
realtions are untenable long temr, and concedes that it would make leveraging against Iranian aggression
over nuclear proliferation impossible the aff is the key internal link to preventing competition even if
china is a rising actor.
AT: No impact to Iran
For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure secondstrike capability, but economic motivation means that irrational states have little to zero incentive to
preserve peace; the scenario is based off of miscalculation as resul t of nuclear hair trigger,
sanctionsprovides uniqueness for Iranian aggression
Spils
OV
Biodiversity loss causes extinction, key to ecosystem functioning and health which facilitationg of
oxygen cylce between species and humans which results in fast collapse absent sustainable management
of hotspots in the arctic, the plan is key to creatin regulatory strategies for maintaingin spills
AT: No drilling
Their evidence is indcative of one country not drilling the arctic doesn’t ocnsider gazprom and Russian
countries that would invest after the plan and new undiscovered oil in the arctic shell means profit
motivation resutls in increased exploratio and drilling. Uniqueness evidence indciates profit motivation
will drive commericailizaion of the arctic
AT: No Spills
The rock material dug out of the oil or gas well—are often contaminated with drilling fluid used to
lubricate and regulate the pressure in drilling operations even tech advancements can’t prevent agains the
likelihood of oil spills, moratoriums recent lift means increasd drilling dooms spills- Scientific American
12
AT: Alt Cause- Climate Change
Plan creates a bi-national framework to address climate change and only we solve, research would
develop a joint contingency plan which would allow for overlapping environmental frameworks to
coincide that’s our –Rosen 4/23 evidence
We have a better internal link climate change is slow and causes the reduciton of ecosystem land over
long periods of time where as spills are immediate and ice traps oil making
Reproduction impossible and causing chronic toxicity
AT: Biod/ Alt cause
Not answering the nuance of our evidence - arctic specifically has 21,000 species, supports half the
worlds birds and ecoystem analysis from her eis key to creating a scientific baseline for adapting future
biodiverstiy policy and it goes through changes much faster than the rest of the earths hotspots in temrs of
eco-system interlinkages and cascade effects;
It’s a question of spill responese- ice traps oil and makes biodiversity inable to regenerate means it’s a
unique trophic cascade that resiliency cant sovle
Shipping
AT: No shipping- alternative routes
Plan causes shift we take out unqiueness for hteir shipping arugements plan
guaratneees adequate mapping techniques and reduces risk for countreis that’s theBenton evidenece
Our raza evidence indicates trade reductions are up to 40% incentivizes shifting
routes
AT: No Suez Impact
Terrorists attack in the suez are likely our evidence assumes egyptian miltiary capabilties and indicates,
reactive military campagins only embolden terrorists and make violence more likely mini rpgs have
already sunk major ships now, their evidence doesn’t assume defective army personnel who make furqan
raids more likely, our evidence also post dates and makes a predictive claim about international
commerce in the suez being causal to targetted lng atacks- that’s starr
AT: No LNG Impact
Natural gas let into the air would cause a fireballious explosion resulting in inability for containment,
their evidence says LNG explosions aren’t nuclear wars cool not the argument ours is one that assesses
magnitude not comparison
AT: No arctic shipping
Group these
Doesn’t assume superior mapping capabilties and monitoring that control things like weather patterns,
and climate fronts that make shipping not year round
Icebreakers also arent necccesary shipping already happens now it’s a question of increase, ice is already
melting plan creates a bi-lateral negotiation over who gets to control certain lanes
- IT’s
1. We meet plan increases u.s invididual stake in co-operation
2. CI: Its mean belonging to or associated with
Oxford Dictionary 10 (“Of”, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk)
Pronunciation:/ɪts/
possessive determiner
belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified:turn the camera on its side he chose
the area for its atmosphere
3. Cooperative ventures key to INCREASE exploration – it’s a T mechanism, not a
spike
Kintisch 4/30/14
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/bigger-better-arctic-studies-needed-u.s.-report-argues
citing National Research Council
Eli is a contributing correspondent for Science magazine
Creating stable interdisciplinary partnerships and funding formal data centers will be key to
carrying out such studies, the authors argue, and to “creating a culture of data preservation and sharing.”
At the moment, a survey of 300 Arctic scientists revealed, many researchers who participate in
international research collaborations “do so as a volunteer activity,” Pfirman said. “When they give up
that activity, the whole collaboration tends to fall apart.” Researchers also “need to be engaging a
broader set of people in collecting data in real time,” Huntington added. The report is silent on the total
amount of funding required to study the changing Arctic, but it suggests a number of structural changes to
funding mechanisms. The typical recipients of 3- to 5-year research grants are driven by the demands of
publication, which cost them flexibility and can constrain them from collaborations with other scientists,
it argues. An approach that could augment those grants would be multi-investigator projects with lots of
collaborators studying portions of a system to encourage cross-pollination, the authors write.
4. Us-Russian coop is a prerequisite to Arctic exploration
Grimmson 5/7/14
President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, president of Iceland since 1996.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/audio-video/foreign-affairs-focus-olafur-ragnar-grimsson-onthe-arctic-scram
REID: And do you think we're seeing that cooperation because, in fact, there's no other way that it's
sort of necessary to work together in order to benefit from the vast resources in the region?
GRÍMSSON: I think so. I think the Arctic, the north, the high north, given the ice, the extreme weather
patterns, the vastness of the territory, humbles people. People realize that despite all of the technology
and even despite the military strength of the greatest powers, the tough natural forces in the north can
defeat any military power of this kind.
So not one country, whether it's Russia or the United States, can alone make a success of the Arctic.
So given the strong northern partition, the legacy of the Arctic within Russian history and Russian
culture, I believe that they are very much aware of this in the same way as people up in Alaska, and
absolutely are aware that Alaska alone cannot make a success of the Arctic.
5. Overlimit – their interp excludes core research, surveying, or ocean law of the sea
affs which are essential to analyzing state to state ocean exploration, their interp
justifies debating solvency of the affirmative instead of mandates, makes it
impossible to have an aff with a particular mechanism.
6. Precision- Internal link turns their extra t arguments discussion of ocean policy
mechanisms is key to policy making that’s rooted in the literature and incentivizes a
more specific form of clash, any aff that engages in the political sphere would result
in their violation.
7. Reasonability- good is good enough don’t vote on potential abuse, even if we let
in one more aff not net worse for education where their definition precludes a
discussion of the topic, we incentivize the most prdictable race to the middle
2AC Unilat Cp
1. Perm do both- the plan and expand our progrmas for research and development
in the arctic
2. Permutation do the counterplan- Plan is normal means expansion of programs
3. Crossapply its is “associated with”- counterplan accesses their offense
Pics bad
1. Infinite regression: can pic out of anything, causes argument responsibility
2. Time Skew: Moots the 1AC speech time
3. Education: Gets to the point where Depth is ridiculous, focuses on a trivial detail.
4. Strategy skew: We get no offense off of 90% of our case. Forces us to Debate
ourselves.
5. Voter for Fairness and education
6. Coast Guard DA- status quo failure of electronic charting guts solvency for the
counterplan and makes mapping impossible, absent intellgience sharing
This is some real bolshit the second peace of co-operation fail evidence assumes
kremlin suspicion of u.s shared stake in the arctic but adequate mapping and good
faith diplomacy reorients polticial agendas that are more flexible in the face of
shared stake claims that’s the Cohen evidence
7. Bilateral agreements are the best solvency mechanism for Arctic development
Wilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14
(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)
Cooperation among Arctic littoral states can ensure greater responsibility and adherence to
best practices at the local level. Collaboration among Arctic countries on best practices,
environmental standards, and technology transfer can introduce an additional layer of
accountability to ensure safe and responsible Arctic development. Norway and Russia have
recently been very active, reflecting the benefits of formal cooperation. The July 2011
maritime border agreement in the Barents Sea has enabled Russia and Norway to explore the
resource potential in the region. Statoil and Rosneft have agreed to jointly explore offshore
deposits in the region. Norway and Russia are also exploring the possibility of joint naval
exercises in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. As climate change makes larger portions of the
Arctic accessible, cooperation on bilateral energy exploration and maritime capabilities could
benefit other nations as well (for example, among Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, and the
United States in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas). When possible, bilateral dispute settlements
and cooperation between countries in contiguous Arctic regions can ensure that best
practices are employed as operators expand oil and gas exploration and production activities.
Bilateral agreements can be more comprehensive and quicker to achieve than multilateral
efforts. Canada and Russia have had a long- standing debate over rights to the Lomonosov
Ridge and Mendeleev Rise; Russia submitted a claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf in 2001 providing its recommendations on how the shared border should be
delineated. However, with 51 sea claims currently before the UN Commission and only three
examined each year, a timely resolution is unlikely. Bilateral agreements can resolve border
disputes more quickly and avoid inefficiencies and delays.
8. Unilateralism fails to resolve territorial dispute andoverlapping science diplomacy
which is key to settting political agendas – the plan is an olive branch that the
counterplan cant solve
9. Russia and the US need to cooperate to effectively clean up Arctic oil spills
Fonseca, maritime analyst and author, 6/16
(Joseph, “U.S. Must Answer Russia's Challenge In the Arctic”,
http://www.marinelink.com/news/challenge-russias-answer371176.aspx)
Speaking just after Russia's Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, kicked off the program on
foreign policy issues between the two nations, Treadwell talked about the need for
cooperation with Russia despite disputes over Crimea and Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, which have
brought U.S.-Russia relations to their lowest point in decades. “My challenge to Russians is
this: where we are neighbors, help bring our relations back to normal. Help us eliminate salmon
by-catch in the North Pacific Ocean. Help us work together to prevent oil spills from all these
ships coming through, and help us protect food security in the Arctic. Alaskans depend on this
ocean for food and for jobs. "My challenge to Americans is this: don’t let Russia go it alone in
the Arctic. A quarter of the world’s oil and gas and one of the world's most important
fisheries are located in the Arctic. Let’s exercise leadership now, by developing our own
energy and building ports and icebreakers, and not let just one country control shipping.” “In
today’s tough international climate, we can’t forget we’re neighbors,” Treadwell said. "The
Arctic situation demands cooperation and friendly competition. If we don't exercise stronger
Arctic leadership, we will be sorry later."
Contradictory advocacies are bad—
1. 2AC strategy skew—contradictions allow the negative to concede arguments on one flow to ensure
links to the other—makes it impossible for the aff to generate offense
2. Education—contradicting truth claims destroy argument interaction and real world education—a
policy maker cannot say they advocate a bill and hate the bill
3. Logical limited conditionality is best—the negative can have any amount of conditional advocacies
absent contradictions
10. Arctic resource development would take the U.S. 20 years - Russia is already
commercially producing – CP can’t solve fast enough
Wilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14
(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)
These finds have shown that hydrocarbon development can successfully take place in the
delicate Arctic ecosystem. New technologies can help ensure more extensive and safer
resource development in one of the world’s most extreme climates. Sakhalin and Hibernia in
offshore Russian and Canadian Arctic waters respectively are two of the largest resource
development projects in the Arctic region2; each took roughly 20 years to achieve commercial
production. Given the lengthy timeline to move from exploration to production, large-scale
Arctic resource development has to begin now to guarantee that these resources will be able
to provide the global energy supply needed to meet demand by mid-century.
11. US cannot work alone in the region- lack of technology and infrastructure
Wang, Coastal Response Research Center Author and Environmental Analyst, 09
(“Oil Spills”, 2009. Online: URL http://www.oceansnorth.org/oil-spills)
Documents supporting the U.S. government’s 2007-2012 offshore oil and gas leasing program
assume that one large oil spill would likely occur in Bristol Bay in the southeast Bering Sea and
two large oil spills would occur in U.S. Arctic waters as a result of exploration and drilling
activities. The threat is amplified because no adequate technology or infrastructure to clean
up oil in broken sea ice has been proven to work in the Arctic. Spill response could be delayed
for weeks at a time due to the often hazardous conditions, especially during the winter. Oil
persists in Arctic environments longer than anywhere else. It can become trapped under sea
ice. It also evaporates at a slower rate in cold temperatures. The environmental conditions
that characterize the Arctic – sea ice, subzero temperatures, high winds and seas and poor
visibility – influence the effectiveness of clean up strategies and how much oil is recovered.
The longer the oil remains in the environment, the higher the probability that marine mammals
will come in contact with it
12. US lacks tools and technology
Snow, OGJ Washington Editor, ‘14
(Nick, Full set of tools needed for US Arctic spill response, NRC finds,
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/full-set-of-tools-needed-for-us-arctic-spill-response-nrcfinds.html)
A full slate of response tools will be needed to address crude oil spills in the US Arctic, but not
all of those tools are readily available, the National Research Council said in a new report.
While much is known already about both the behavior of oil and response technologies in Arctic
environments, there are areas where additional research would enable more informed
decisions about the most effective responses for different Arctic spill situations, the Apr. 23
report added. “The Arctic system serves as an integrator for the Earth’s physical, biological,
oceanic, and atmospheric processes, with impacts beyond the Arctic itself,” it stated. “The risk
of an oil spill in the Arctic presents hazards for Arctic nations and their neighbors.” The
council, one of the federal government’s independent national academies, was asked to
prepare the report by the American Petroleum Institute, US Arctic Research Commission, US
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
US Coast Guard, Marine Mammal Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute. “Arctic oil spill response is challenging
because of extreme weather and environmental conditions; the lack of existing or sustained
communications, logistical, and information infrastructure; significant geographic distances;
and vulnerability of Arctic species, ecosystems, and cultures,” it noted.
15. Permutation do the plan then the counterplan – sequencing gives the signaled of
u.s co-operation, while being able to discretely map the arctic
16. US Russia Coop key to prevent nuclear terror
Hecker et al 5-29-14 [Siegfried Hecker is a senior fellow and affiliated faculty member at Stanford University's Center for
International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is also a research professor in the
Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford.; Why the US should keep cooperating with Russia on nuclear security,
http://thebulletin.org/why-us-should-keep-cooperating-russia-nuclear-security7207]
A strong US role in nuclear security cooperation remains imperative. In spite of Moscow’s assertion
to the contrary, its vast stockpile of nuclear materials remains vulnerable to theft or diversion. Whereas
the physical security of nuclear facilities has improved greatly, both because of years of American support and the re-emergence of Russia’s overbearing security
services, control
and accounting of nuclear materials, which are crucial to combat insider threats, still
fall far shy of international best practices. For example, Russia still has no baseline inventory of all
nuclear materials the Soviet Union produced and where they are today. Moreover, it has shown no
interest in trying to discover just how much material is unaccounted for. Our Russian colleagues
voice concern that progress on nuclear security in their country will not be sustained once
American cooperation is terminated. They believe that Russia’s nuclear security culture and the
government’s commitment to fund continued security upgrades are still very fragile and require
continued cooperation.¶ It is also in Washington’s interest for Russia to cooperate on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran is a good
case in point. Much progress has been made toward a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program since President Hassan Rouhani was elected in June, 2013.
However, little would have been possible without US-Russia cooperation. It is not in Moscow’s interest to have nuclear weapons spread to its near abroad. It needs
Washington’s continued global leadership in this area. Washington, in turn, needs Moscow; especially if it is to develop more effective measures to prevent
proliferation as Russia and other nuclear vendors support nuclear power expansion around the globe. ¶ Although cooperation related to the stewardship of Washington
and Moscow’s respective nuclear arsenals would be more difficult in an adversarial governmental relationship, there are numerous areas that would still benefit from
collaboration. Scientific understanding of such problems as the aging of plutonium remains elusive and beyond the full reach of either country. One of the authors of
this column has personally been involved in plutonium science collaboration with his Russian counterparts for the past 15 years. Continued cooperation in this area, as
in some areas of nuclear weapon safety and security, remain in our common interest. ¶ As the United States and the European Union take short-term measures to
restrain Russia’s actions in Ukraine, they should not sacrifice the hard-earned gains made to stabilize the nuclear threats that arose after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union. Some forms of nuclear cooperation, especially on arms control and nonproliferation, were supported even during the darkest days of the Cold War, because the
alternatives proved unacceptable to both sides. With the Cold War’s end, nuclear cooperation flourished. Washington
should foster continued
cooperation to meet our shared challenges, rather than allowing it to be held hostage to the
Ukrainian crisis. Over the past 20-plus years, when working with our Russian colleagues, we have all found that at times we must move beyond political
disagreements, such as the political situation in Ukraine, to work together to advance the cause of nuclear security.
17. Nuclear terrorism causes extinction
Morgan 9 - Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, “World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Science Direct)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out
No doubt, they’ve figured out
that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As
Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small
nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’
system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be
destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and
what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries.
Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would
retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would
also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would
then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of
them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere.
Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation
disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll
upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web
accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason
could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used,
then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a
limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or
lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by
the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words,
once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for
anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however,
rests on. Any
‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate
factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear
weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their
oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time
before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once
even just one is used, it is very
likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the
destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is
such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
2AC Red Spread
1. Aff doesn’t modernize Russian ports means no risk of naval hegemony just
improves efficiency– the aff resolves territorial disputes TRANSPARENTLY takes
out uniqueness.
2. Arctic miltirization now disproves the brink on the link debate – science
diplomacy and regional co-operation is an olive branch to Russia that makes forums
for international co-operation sustainable
Cooperation best – adversarial response can destroy all coop within HOURS
Regeher 4/23/14
Ernie Regehr, OC is a Canadian peace researcher and expert in security and disarmament.[1] He cofounded Project Ploughshares, a peace research organization based in Waterloo, Ontario, with Murray
Thomson in 1976 [2] and served as its Executive Director for thirty years.[3] Project Ploughshares is an
ecumenical project supported by the Canadian Council of Churches.[4] Regehr has been a Canadian NGO
representative and expert advisor at numerous international disarmament forums including UN
Conferences on Small Arms.[1] Regehr is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and
Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel University College (Waterloo, Ontario) and The Simons Foundation
(Vancouver, BC).[5] He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Africa Peace Forum in Kenya.[1]
http://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/all/files/What%20do%20Russian%20actions%20in%20Ukraine
%20portend%20for%20the%20Arctic-DAS,%20April%2023,%202014_0.pdf
Arctic is not Crimea – the Arctic is steeped in, indeed depends
on, cooperation in scientif ic, economic, and public safety, 11 making the Arctic genuinely different
from the usual hotspots. Similarly, Arctic blogger Mia Bennett notes that not all follow the kind of Cold War formula pushed by Ms.
Clinton , citing Iceland Preside nt Olafur Grimsson, who warns against Arctic states pursuing the Ukraine conflict with
Arcti c based counter measures: “We would not need more than an hour to destroy Arctic
cooperation....Therefore, one should be very careful with the way they bring each country’s conflicts
into this kind of dialogue.” Bennet concludes: “...[I]t’s not really just up to Putin . It is up to all of the movers and shakers in the Arctic to
try to contain the geopolitical conflict on the Black Sea to ensure that it does not spill over to the Arctic Ocean.” 12 The most effective
way to blunt the advances of an expansionist Rus sia, assuming that is even remotely an apt description of Russian
designs in the Arctic, is by continued cooperation in the region, strict adherence to the rule of law, and transparency
and consultation. M ore m ilitary force will not settle Arctic territori al disputes, let alone political differences. The Ukraine occasioned
confrontation with Russia will be felt in the Arctic, but security relations among Arctic states will sour only if
Arctic states ignore recent history and defer instead to the Cold War habits of an earlier age. In the post Cold War
era, a nywhere in the world , including in the Arctic, the very best defence against violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity is
to be well governed, to earn the support of the population (legitimacy) , to develop competent and trusted public institutions, and to
promote regional security cooperation . Countries that fulfill those conditions are the safest and, if the experience of the last quarter
century is to be credited at all, the least likely to be attacked. Arctic states have been working collectively to fulfill those conditions. The
security of Arctic states will be most imperilled by diversions from that collective effort, not by events in
But cooler heads are also weighing in, pointing out that the
Ukraine
3. Containment- regional diplomacy spillsover and checks unbalanced Russian
aggression through mediating economic interests and resource stakes in the arctic
4. Mackinders notion of geopolitics ignores nuclear armament discrepancy, and
stockpile weapon build up which takes out their internal link to central Asia as a
pivot point. Prefer our scholarship based in contemporary geopolitical tensions
rooted in IR post Ukraine, rather than their conservative reductionists that rely on
an outdated geographical model of politics that assume differences only in strategic
location.
5. Case O/W
- Regional conflicts in the arctic esclaate more quickly, lack of co-operative spacial
frameworks means conflicts are unavoidable territorial disputes, and diplomatic
sourness provide uniqueness to nuclear escalation scenarios that are hair –trigger as
oppose to Russia expansionism which is a slow process for international signaling
- Iran proliferationa dn lng strikes outweigh on magnitude lack of response
capabilities and present weaponized safegaurds despite conventional security make
nuclear first strike more likely becuas eof lack of wepaons knowledge and would
cuase irrational actors to shift blame as miscalculation occurred making conflict
hair trigger and unchecked.
-Rusia war is worst case scenario our evidence makes predictive claims about lack
of international frameworks for de-escalation only the plan solves that
6. Their impact assumes speculative worst case fall out from Ukraine nucelar deals
our Cohen evidence indicates that joint-issue resolution in the arctic would soften
the blow in leveraging diplomatic solutions because of political goodwill resulting in
more stable relations – that’s cohen 10
7. Russia won’t attack perception of economic gains through arctic shipping lanes
de-motivate conflict absent spheres of influence
2AC Shipping
1. Non-unique: Invasive species increasing now
Lassuy and Lewis 10 By: Dennis Lassuy, and Patrick N. Lewis Written sometime in 2010 Accessed: July 8,
2014 #07 Invasive species (human-induced) http://arcticbiodiversity.is/abt2010/index.php/en/species/invasivespecies-human-induced
As climate change alters Arctic ecosystems and enables greater human activity, biological invasions
are likely to increase in the Arctic. To some extent, Arctic terrestrial ecosystems may be predisposed to
invasion because many invasive plants are adapted to open disturbed areas. If fire frequency and
intensity increase with climate change, this may further enhance invasion susceptibility. Sites of human
disturbance and those located along pathways of human activity (e.g., shipping, including port facilities, and road corridors) are the most likely
focal points of invasion into Arctic habitats. One study, for example, noted the susceptibility of gravel-rich river corridors to invasion by
Melilotus, a type of clover, from bridge crossings [19]. The
ability for climate change to directly enhance invasion
has been demonstrated for marine tunicates [20] and the spread of invasive marine tunicates to the Arctic
could present a significant risk to benthic-feeding marine mammals that are already at risk (e.g., several whale and pinniped
species). Benthic communities in northern Norway and the Kola Peninsula in Russia are already facing significant disturbance from the
introduced red king crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus [21], and further introductions may contribute to accelerated and synergistic impacts (e.g.
[22]). Range map scenarios
developed for 16 highly invasive plants either occurring in or at risk of invading Alaska [23] also paint a
sobering outlook for the future. Figure 7.2 depicts the potential expansion of one invasive aquatic plant, Hydrilla veticillata, well
up into Arctic Alaska ecosystems and even into far eastern Russian aquatic systems. Another recent study examining global
distribution trends associated with climate change predicted that marine communities in the Arctic
and Antarctic will be the most at risk from climate induced invasions [10]. Because future change will be best
understood when measured against a credible baseline, much more work similar to that of Ruiz et al. [24] will be needed. Due to the distribution
of resources in the Arctic, the development of cost-effective early detection monitoring networks will be a challenge. Special attention should be
given to monitoring around key points of introduction via the unloading of goods, such as ports and airports, or in areas likely to see increased
ship deballasting or at higher risk of shipwrecks. Engaging a network of citizen scientists might present a viable alternative to traditional
monitoring approaches. Such networks could represent an excellent opportunity to employ the traditional ecological knowledge of northern
residents. After all, who knows better when something “different” appears in an ecosystem than those who have used the native species of that
ecosystem for millennia?
2. Increase in arctic shipping now
Smith and Stephenson 13 (Probability of rapid increase in trans-Arctic shipping routes is
confirmed, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/328na2.pdf)
Reductions in Arctic sea ice and model predictions that this trend will continue have ¶ sparked
discussions regarding potential new shipping routes linking the Atlantic and Pacific ¶ oceans, either by the
Northern Sea Route, which runs across the Russian Arctic coast, or the ¶ Northwest Passage, which runs along the northern coast of America. However, few studies ¶ have combined climate change modelling with maritime shipping
This study merged data from seven climate change
models to estimate the distribution and ¶ thickness of sea ice for the current period and for the
middle of this century. The researchers ¶ estimated the most time-efficient routes that avoided
obstructive sea ice for ships seeking to ¶ cross the Arctic Ocean between the North Atlantic and the
Bering Strait. These ‘optimal’ ¶ navigation routes were determined for two Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change ¶ (IPCC) scenarios of different greenhouse gas concentrations and two
types of ships: open ¶ water (OW) vessels that have no hull strengthening against ice, and Polar
Class 6 (PC6) ¶ ships that are moderately strengthened. The estimations were performed for
September ¶ only, when the sea ice tends to be at its minimum. ¶ ¶ The results indicated that by mid-century the possibility of navigating the Arctic
speeds to predict the ¶ number and type of ships that would be able to navigate across the Arctic Ocean. ¶ ¶
Ocean will ¶ substantially increase under both IPCC scenarios. In 2005, the probability of OW transit of ¶ the Northern Sea Route was about 40%, whilst in 2040-2059, the predicted probability is ¶ between 94-98%, depending on the
IPCC scenario. The breadth of the route would also ¶ expand, providing more possible routes to cross north of the Russian coast. ¶ ¶ By 2040-2059 there will be greater potential for PC6 ships to cross the central Arctic Ocean ¶ using
the Northwest Passage. Again there will be a northward shift of feasible routes for PC6 ¶ traffic, meaning that the shortest route becomes possible. The Northwest Passage will also ¶ become a possible route for OW ships and the
The ¶ route using the Northwest Passage is
nearly a third shorter than the alternatives. For ¶ moderately ice-strengthened PC6 ships, the
fastest route will go directly over the North Pole. ¶
probability of transit will increase from ¶ approximately 15% in 2005 to 53-60% in 2040-2059, depending on the IPCC scenario.
3. Our internal links – are better LNG shipping containers aren’t traditional ballast
tank models and only 7% of ships means invasive species will be contained
4. Benton evidence indicates – science co-operation would allow the u.s and Russia
to safely manage international waters and prevents invasive species through
managements.
5. Oil spills access a stronger internal link- species redundancy and reproduction
insures that biodiversity is resileint but oil spills don’t’ have response capabilties
and cause gametic deffects in animals that make reproudction in impossible, oil
cannot dry out of ice making toxicity more long term
6. Environmental collapse can’t cause extinction---nuke war outweighs---magnitude
and probability
David Schweickart 10 is Professor at Loyola University Chicago. He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics (University of Virginia), and a Ph.D.
in Philosophy (Ohio State University). “Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2010) 6739–6752
It is not true either that the various ecological crises we are facing will bring about "the end of the world." Consider the
projections of the Stern Review, the recently released report commissioned by the British Government. If nothing is done, we risk "major
disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and
economic depression of the first half of the 20th century." This is serious. Some sixty million people died in World War Two. The Stern Review
estimates as many as 200 million people could be permanently displaced by rising sea level and drought. But this is not "the end of the world."
Even if the effects are far worse, resulting in billions of deaths--a highly unlikely scenario --there would still be
lots of us left. If three-quarters of the present population perished, that would still leave us with 1.6 billion people--the population of the
planet in 1900. I say this not to minimize the potentially horrific impact of relentless environmental destruction, but to caution against
exaggeration. We are not talking about thermonuclear war--which could have extinguished us as a species. (It
still might.) And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that millions of people on the planet right now, caught up in savage civil wars or terrorized by
U.S. bombers (which dropped some 100,000 lbs. of explosives on a Baghdad neighborhood during one ten-day period in January 2008--the
amount the fascists used to level the Basque town of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War), are faced with conditions more terrible than anyone
here is likely to face in his or her lifetime due to environmental degradation .
2NC
TopicalityExtend our Interpretation – its shows possession
Using English 13
And, possessive pronouns are exclusive – legal definition
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 2013
Violation – the affirmative increases exploration and development from another countrythat reduces national control
Weiss
5
Reasons to Prefer
1. Limits – there are tons of potential countries and areas of cooperation – allowing all of
them to be topical makes it impossible for the negative to prepare.
2. Ground – there is a huge difference in the literature between federal government and
international actions – the aff makes international counterplans irrelevant, which is a core
check on small affs
3. Extra-Topicality – they add another countries’ exploration. That’s a voting issue –
extra-T is unpredictable because it lets affs decide the terms of the debate through
extra advantage ground
4. Legal Superiority: Definition is better because we are dealing with legal matters and
should use a legal definition.
They say that . Precision- thatyure internal doesn’t actually change the fact, a prerequisite isn’t actually
doing anything, they no long abide by the resolution, therefor they are effect t, the negc an not pre pare on
the effects t
They say Overlimit neg doesn’t over limit, we limit it it to the point that we are voting to resolution
suffienctiantly, that is what matter. So we get education out of this round.
Reasonability- resoaniblity is a issue, but on the neg sizse, if theyre aff was simply the u.s sould just go
throught the acrtic hten that would be topical, it is the aff who needs to be reasonable.
Effects Topicality is BAD
A. Effects Standard Illegitimate
The effects standard says that if the effects of the Affirmative plan are topical, their
entire case is topical, but this:
1. Unfairly broadens the topic: The purpose of the resolution is to limit the area of
discussion. If the affirmative is allowed to claim topicality by the effects of their plan,
the topic becomes overly broad and worthless.
2. Collapses burdens: Under the effects standard, if the Affirmative can prove solvency,
they are assumed topical. Topicality is a jurisdictional issue and must be decided before
issues of solvency are considered.
B. Affirmative Team Not Topical by Effects Standard
The affirmative is only topical by effects. Their plan does not attempt to directly solve
for their harms, thus only the effects of their plan are topical.
C. Standards
1. Effects standard destroys debate: Affirmatives can always win because the negative is
unprepared. The topic becomes irrelevant.
2. Prima Facie: The case must be topical on its face. It cannot gain solvency by an effect
of the plan.
3. Ground: Judge, if you allow Effects topicality to be legitimized, then you’re asking the
negative to prepare for any kind of off-the-wall argument with incomprehensible links.
This is not Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, judge. We came here for clash, not to wander
away from the topic.
D. Voters
1.
Stock issues: Topicality is a stock issue of debate; if a case is not topical, you must vote against it.
2.
Fairness: You cannot promote unfair treatment of the neg by the aff by granting them your ballot.
3.
Clash: We could not present effective clash not because of our own lack of skill or preparation but
because they presented a case that we had no way of preparing for.
4.
Jurisdiction: It is not within your jurisdiction as judge to vote for a nontopical case.
5.
Education: Debate is supposed to be about education, and we can learn only by being able to debate
cases that we can prepare for and argue effectively. You, as the judge, should not vote for a case that
impedes education rather than promotes it.
6.
Debatability: We can prepare for only those cases that fall under the resolution and should not be
voted against because we could not debate a nontopical case.
7.
Predictability: Affirmative interpretation forces the negative to debate trivial issues that it is
impossible to prepare for. Your ballot should support only those cases that the neg can predict and
prepare for.
8.
Tradition: Topicality has traditionally been a voting issue.
Russia
Extend our
no arctic science – territorial claims inadvertent bureaucracy
Cressey 11
No US-Russia crisis – everything is fine now
Gudev 3/19/14
No impact on programs
RIA Novosti 4/25/14
Ignore their cooperation defense—Russians are intentionally hiding their
belligerence to encourage complacency in the US
Huebert 10
Zero chance of Arctic war---experts
Mahony 3/19
US-Russian relations are re-stabilizing post-Ukraine – Russian return to diplomacy
Yucai, 4/21
No impact to Iran Prolif
Layne 10
Xtn: No Arctic War
Past trends prove – cooperation is more likely
Fries 12 [Tom Fries, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Arctic Institute, Apr 18 2012, “Perspective
Correction: How We Misinterpret Arctic Conflict,”
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/04/perspective-correction-how-we.html]
It’s not
only the handcuffs of many colors worn by the Arctic states that will keep them from getting
aggressive, it is also the good precedents that exist for cooperation here. Russia and Norway
recently resolved a forty year-old dispute over territory in the Barents. There are regular examples
of military cooperation among the four littoral NATO states and between Norway and Russia. Even the
US and Russia are finding opportunities to work together. Meanwhile, the need to develop search-andrescue capabilities is making cross-border cooperation a necessity for all Arctic actors. There are
numerous international research and private-sector ventures, even in areas other than hydrocarbons.
These will only grow in importance with time. In fact, it would seem that for many of these countries, the
Arctic is a welcome relief - a site where international collaboration is comparatively amicable.
Xtn: Relations High
US-Russia relations still high – overlapping foreign policy interests
Lukyanov, 4/4/14 – Chairman, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (Fyodor, “Does Russia need
America?,” Russia Beyond the Headlines,
http://rbth.com/opinion/2014/04/04/does_russia_need_america_35629.html)//SY
But its goal in the international arena is not to simply oppose the U.S. However, this may be the way
that Russia reminds others about the line. In everything else, Moscow is not going to turn into an
automatic opponent of America. It is noteworthy that against the background of the very emotional
debate over Ukraine, chemical weapons are still being removed from Syria on schedule, and the
Kremlin has not changed its position on settling the Syrian situation politically, or on nuclear talks
with Iran. It is especially worth noting that Russia is not questioning its agreement with NATO to
allow cargo to be transported from Afghanistan via Ulyanovsk. And this is even in light of the quite
unfriendly statements being made by both the military and political leadership of the alliance. Russia,
it seems, doesn't plan on abandoning its cooperation with the United States in areas where the
interests of the countries do not contradict each other. But it will not give in where interests diverge.
This model is quite natural for relations between two major powers that are not allies, especially in
today's multi-layered world, where there aren't any simple oppositions or linear dependencies anymore. In
which areas do our interests converge? There is the Arctic, where, contrary to emotions that are often
blown out of proportion, Russian and American interests are not so far apart. There is the issue of
nuclear non-proliferation, in which Moscow and Washington, whether they like it or not, remain the
main players and carry the primary responsibility. The topic of terrorism has been exhausted,
mostly it has just been talk, but objectively there are still some points where our interests converge.
US-Russian relations are re-stabilizing post-Ukraine – Russian return to diplomacy
Yucai, 4/21/14 – Professor, Crisis Management Center, PLA National Defense University (Yang, “Russia
sets example of strong crisis management with firm legal basis,” Global Times,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/855865.shtml)//SY
Meanwhile, US-Russia relations, which were once on the verge of a new Cold War, are gradually
heading back on the track of dialogue and cooperation. It seems that along with diplomatic
measures and economic dialogues, Russia's "assertiveness" which the West finds hard to tolerate,
may be gradually diluted. The Putin administration's high efficiency in managing the regional crisis
is impressive. Such a high efficiency stems from a united security institution, a high level of strategic
planning, and government agencies' strong enforcement capabilities. Russia's crisis management is
based on a unified national security institution, at the core of which is the Federal Security Service
(FSB). Through the FSB, Russian President Vladimir Putin grasps the overall strategic pattern and
makes the most important decisions.
Onto Oil
Extend our Oil companies won’t drill in arctic
Cockerman 1/30
No spills – Drilling will be safe if it happens
Ossipov 12-11
No brink—biodiversity is a linear impact—ecosystem resiliency ensures no impact
to more losses
Sedjo 2k
Multiple alt causes to species loss
EDF 7
Xtn: No Drilling
No drilling coming
Connely 1-22-14 (Joel Connely. Columnist Joel Connelly has been a P-I staffer for 39 years. January
22, 2014. “Federal court deals latest blow to Arctic oil drilling”.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/01/22/federal-court-deals-latest-blow-to-arctic-oil-drilling/
The federal government failed to adequately evaluate environmental risks and the potential size of
oil spills when it approved oil drilling in Alaska’s remote Chukchi Sea, a federal appellate court
ruled on Wednesday. The Kulluk, Shell’s conical oil drilling unit, broke loose from tow lines and ran aground on Alaska’s Sitkalidak
Island. It’s off to Asia for repairs. AFP PHOTO/Greenpeace/Robert Meyers The ruling, by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, once
again throws into doubt plans by Shell Oil to begin drilling for oil in Arctic waters .
Shell experienced repeated mishaps when
it tried to drill in 2012, and did not return to the Chukchi last year. The court said the feds’ Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management relied on an estimate of 1 billion barrels of potential production, but
overestimated in a way that was “arbitrary and capricious.” The case was remanded back to U.S. District Judge
Ralph Bestline in Alaska. Bestline has already once before, in 2010, held up Arctic exploration because of flaws and inadequate evaluations of
environmental risks. The
federal government, under the Bush administration, sold offshore oil leases in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off Arctic Alaska. The Shell drilling ship Noble Discoverer drifts
near shore near Dutch Harbor on Unalaska Island last summer after losing its moorings. Photo: Capt.
Kristjan B. Laxfoss / AP Shell Oil shelled out more than $2 billion on acquiring leases. Environmental and
some native groups have furiously opposed the leasing. They have cited the power of storms coming from Siberia, the
distance (1,000 miles) from any Coast Guard presence, and the inability to clean up any spill beneath ice-choked waters. Shell launched its
Just about everything that could go wrong DID go wrong. Drilling
ships were late in arriving from the “lower 48.” The spill-containment barge, being prepared in
Bellingham, failed its tests. The drilling ship Noble Discoverer lost its moorings and nearly went ashore on Unalaska Island in the
Chukchi drilling in the summer of 2012.
Aleutians. Last but not least, the conical drilling ship Kulluk — which had been re-equipped at great cost — broke loose from its moorings and
ran aground on New Year’s Eve on an island in the Gulf of Alaska. Shell did not return in 2013, but has filed drilling plans in 2014. The
company has reported falling profits, however, and has noted the high cost of drilling projects. “We
are reviewing the (9th Circuit) opinion,” the company told Alaska news organizations. The feds’ estimates on production were challenged by
environmental groups including Oceana, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as the
native village of Point Hope. “Today’s
ruling is a victory for the Arctic,” the plaintiffs said in a statement.
“The government has no business offering oil companies leases in the Chukchi Sea. The area is home to
iconic species such as polar bears, bowhead whales, and to a vibrant indigenous subsistence culture.” They left out one key species. The Chukchi
is increasingly a feeding area for gray whales, which migrate north from Baja California all the way to Alaska, passing through inland waters of
Washington and British Columbia each spring.
Xtn: No Impact
Biodiversity doesn’t dictate ecosystem strength.
Science 1997 [ August 29, 2997, No. 5330 vol 277, page 1260-61]
We continue to lose species and genetic diversity locally, nationally, and planet-wide. In deciding priorities for
conservation, there is an urgent need for criteria that help us to recognize losses with potentially serious consequences. It would be naive
to assume that species-poor ecosystems are always malfunctional; some of the world's most
extensive and ancient ecosystems--boreal forests, bogs, and heathlands--contain few species. For both species-rich and
species-poor ecosystems, we need to establish whether current losses in biodiversity are likely to seriously impair functioning and reduce benefits
to humans. This problem is serious enough that the United States and the United Kingdom have invested recently in costly ventures specifically
designed to test experimentally the consequences of reduced diversity on ecosystems. Model communities with controlled levels of species
diversity have been created in the Ecotron at Silwood Park in southern England and at the Cedar Creek Reserve in Minnesota to assess the effects
of diversity on various ecosystem properties such as primary productivity, nitrogen mineralization, and litter decomposition. Early publications
from both sites ( 1, 2) claimed to demonstrate benefits to ecosystem function arising from higher levels of biodiversity, and these have been
highlighted by commentators ( 3, 4) excited by the prospect of a scientific underpinning for conservation measures. This
view that
"biodiversity begets superior ecosystem function" is not shared by all ecologists ( 5, 6). There are
obvious conflicts with published evidence from work on natural rather than synthesized
ecosystems. As early as 1982, Leps et al. ( 7) had suggested that ecosystem processes were determined
primarily by the functional characteristics of component organisms rather than their number. The
same conclusion was drawn by MacGillivray et al. ( 8) who showed that differences between five adjacent ecosystems in northern England in
their responses to frost, drought, and burning were predictable from the functional traits of the dominant plants but were independent of plant
diversity.
ShippingArctic won’t replace suez for LNG
Raza, 2013
LNG is not the equivalent of a nuclear weapon
HCB ‘6
no arctic shipping or science – too much ice, small timeframes, short supply of
suitable ships, nothing strong enough for scientists
Cressey 11
2050 at the earliest – ipcc data
Critchlow, 5-30
Xtn: No Suez Impact
Seriously won’t affect energy
Christopher Helman joined Forbes in 1999 and moved from New York to Houston in 2004. He’s all
about that energy reporting , 1/31/2011 [“Will Egypt's Revolution Mean Oil Armageddon?”, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/01/31/will-egypts-revolution-mean-oilarmageddon]/sbhag 7.2.2014
But what if? What if Suez was shut down? In short: no big deal. Egypt produces roughly 600,000 bpd of
oil, a drop in the globe’s daily demand of 85 million barrels. Each day roughly 1.8 million barrels of crude and refined
products transit Suez. Today with Brent crude reaching $100 a barrel OPEC and Saudi Arabia are saying here and here that markets aren’t
stretched they have ample spare capacity to deal with any Suez disruption. Kevin Book, analyst at
Clear View Energy Partners, agrees. In a report today, he looks at the potential impact of a Suez closure
and all the options available to ameliorate it. First of all, there’s roughly 25 million barrels of crude
and products just sitting in tankers on the high seas — called floating storage. Those can make up for a few
days of Suez disruptions, and give shippers time to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope.
Transiting the Suez, writes Book, takes a tanker about 15 hours, given a 120 mile voyage at 8 miles an hour. Going around
Africa means going an additional 6,500 miles at 15 miles an hour — some 500 hours. To make up the difference will
require more ships carrying more oil. Which isn’t a big deal either, given that Clarkson Research
Services says enough new tankers are expected to enter service this year to hold 197 million barrels.
Xtn: No Shipping
Arctic won’t replace suez for LNG
Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [“A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea
Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping”, Masters thesis,
Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tønsberg, Norway,
November 2013, Page 94-95,
http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf]sbhag
6.30.2014
Increased savings in terms of shipping cost, reduced sailing days Political turbulence in the Middle East
and piracy threat in the Gulf of Aden may increase the attractiveness of the NSR for the prospective LNG
shipping. The lack of icebreakers and a scanty fleet of standardized ice classed vessels may delay the
early LNG transit operations across the NSR. . It was discovered that the regional price differences of
LNG in Asia, Europe, and United States would also play a remarkable role in deciding the fate of
Northern Sea Route, up to a certain extent. In future, Northern Sea Route may not emerge as a
huge competitor to the southern route of Suez Canal, but instead it may take away merely a part of
the shipping, mainly the hydrocarbons 95 and bulk that goes through the Suez Canal today, because the
Suez Canal too is a shortcut for some ports and cargo trades.
no arctic shipping or science – too much ice, small timeframes, short supply of
suitable ships, nothing strong enough for scientists
Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [“Scientific challenges in the Arctic: Open
water”, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478174a,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
Eventually, shipping companies might start to use the Arctic as a short-cut for transporting goods between
cities on the Pacific Rim and those bordering the Atlantic. Experimental voyages have been made along
the north coast of Russia, and a smattering of ships has crossed the Northwest Passage north of Canada.
But don't expect a significant rise in trans-Arctic traffic any time soon. In a 2009 assessment3, the
Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for issues affecting the region, projected that most of
the shipping in the region will involve bringing supplies to northern communities and exporting
resources such as oil and minerals, for at least the next decade and possibly much longer. "The notion
that the Arctic Ocean will become a Panama Canal or a Suez Canal is a figment of the media," says
Lawson Brigham, a geographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and chairman of the assessment.
But, he adds, "there may be a short, summer 'window of opportunity' for trans-Arctic navigation".
These changes are creating a sense of urgency among scientists trying to answer a string of questions
about the region (see 'Top questions in Arctic research'). Researchers seeking access to the Arctic Ocean
have traditionally relied on icebreakers to get through the ice. But these ships are in short supply in
the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Europe, because of lack of investment. Even ice-strengthened
vessels can be difficult for researchers to secure. "Because of the retreat of the sea ice and the oil
development we have pending in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, a lot of the ice-strengthened vessels
are being taken up by industry," says Jacqueline Grebmeier, an Arctic researcher at the University of
Maryland in Solomons who has made several trips through the region on the Canadian Coast Guard
icebreaker Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Ice-strengthened vessels, meanwhile, are not sturdy enough to provide
the kind of access that scientists most desire. "A lot of the processes that are really fundamental to the
understanding of how Arctic climate, oceanography and biology work are not happening in summer
time," says Lester Lembke-Jene, a marine geologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine
Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. "If you don't have the full annual observation," he says, "you
have a very, very imbalanced and narrow glimpse of what's going on there."
2050 at the earliest – ipcc data
Andrew Critchlow is the Telegraph's Business News Editor. Andrew helps to oversee business
coverage across print and online for the Telegraph. Formerly Middle East managing editor for Dow Jones
Newswires and Australasia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, Andrew is an expert on energy,
commodities and Arab business, 5-30-2014 [“Sea change for commodities as Arctic melt transforms
trade routes”, Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/10733099/Sea-change-forcommodities-as-Arctic-melt-transforms-trade-routes.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected to reveal in a closely
watched report this week that warmer sea temperatures by 2050 could open up new channels across
the Arctic Northern Sea Route (NSR). According to the report, global warming could mean that at
current rates the NSR will remain open to shipping for around 125 days per year, up from an average of
about 50 days at the moment.
1NR
Arctic biodiversity remains relatively undisturbed
Pedersen 2014 [Jens Christian, Science/Technology at Aarhus University “Arctic biodiversity under
serious threat from climate change,” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140214075511.htm]
Arctic habitats are among the least anthropogenic disturbed on Earth, and huge tracts of almost
pristine tundra, mountain, freshwater and marine habitats still exist.
No arctic shipping now – too expensive and slow
Saul 13 (Jonathon, Icebergs, insurance hamper top of the world shipping route,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/arctic-shipping-idUSL6N0HX2WN20131015)
The new shipping route opened up through the Arctic by climate change will not be crowded any
time soon.¶ Cargoes of coal, diesel and gas have made the trip but high insurance costs, slow going
and strict environmental rules mean there will not be a rush to follow them.¶ Looser ice means icebergs. One
vessel has already been holed, and large ice breaking vessels, not always on hand, are a must. ¶ "Significant safety and
navigational concerns remain an obstacle to commercial shipping in the Northern Sea route, despite
recent media reports of 'successful' transits," said Richard Hurley, a senior analyst at shipping intelligence publisher IHS Maritime.¶ "AIS (ship)
tracking of vessels in the area shows all
vessels are subject to deviation from direct routes as a result of ice, and
many areas still cannot be navigated safely without the presence of large icebreakers able to
provide assistance such as lead through to clearer waters."¶ Last month, a dry bulk vessel carrying coal from Canada
passed through the Northwest Passage to deliver a cargo to Finland, in a trip its operators said would save $80,000 worth of fuel and cut shipping
time by a week.¶ The world's top oil trader Vitol brought tankers in October with Asian diesel to Europe via the Northern Sea route over Russia,
potentially saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs.¶ The
fast-growing liquefied natural gas market, in which
Arctic players like Russia and Norway play a big role, has also seen maiden Arctic voyages.¶ Hurley
said the passage of the Yong Sheng cargo vessel in August from China to Europe via the Northern Sea was only possible with the aid of the
world's largest nuclear powered icebreaker, 50 Let Pobedy, to get it through the Lapatev Sea. Ship tracking showed only four large icebreakers
were available at any one time to cover the whole Northern sea route. ¶ Separately, a
small Russian oil products tanker was
holed in September in the Kara Sea, also off Russia.¶ "Even though damage was minimal and did not cause a pollution
incident, the holing revealed fragility of emergency help," Hurley said. "Taken together, all the inherent dangers and concerns
over potential Arctic pollution count heavily against time and cost savings alone when assessing the
commercial viability of the seaway."¶ INSURANCE AND CONTAINERS¶ The market is also still nascent for insurers.¶ "The
key obstacle here will remain the insurance, as it's still simply too risky a proposition for standard
commercial insurers," said Michael Frodl of U.S.-based consultancy C-Level Maritime Risks, who advises insurers.¶ "The ships
aren't ready, the support facilities and port infrastructure are not yet in place, and the risks haven't
been figured out enough to price insurance correctly."¶
Adaptation takes thousands of years
PBS ’12 [Public Broadcasting Service, Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution, 6/7/12,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat06.html]
Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly
that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long
to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit
flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many
months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is
key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being
equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.