Mexico Energy – SCuFI 2013
AFF
1AC – Inherency
INHERENCY:
Mexico has a wealth of renewable energy resources available – but increased
investment and coordination is essential to unlocking their full potential
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
The potential for renewable energy (RE) development in Mexico has become a subject of growing
interest inside and outside of the country in recent years. A number of important studies led by governments and
academia2 have emphasized the incredible diversity and richness of renewable energy resources in
Mexico and have called on business, government and civil society to work toward a more effective
exploitation of this potential. In the north of the country, the issue of RE exports from Mexico to the United States has attracted
interest from both the public and private sectors. Focused primarily on wind power generation in northern Baja California, it has become clear
that Mexico
has natural endowments and structural factors (especially low land and labor costs) that make the
cross-border trade in RE an exciting and potentially highly profitable sector. Though significant barriers still
exist to the large-scale development of this potential, the effective coordination of efforts from both the
private sector and governments operating at all levels (federal, state, municipal) would provide a much needed
boost. The U.S. and Mexican governments, both individually and jointly, have noted the possibilities for
making a positive impact on the border through mutually beneficial RE projects. USAID-sponsored work, in
conjunction with efforts from Mexico’s Secretaría de Energía (SENER), have identified investment opportunities in both geothermal and wind
energy sectors for exporting clean energy to the Californian market, where unsatisfied demand for renewable energy exists thanks to the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (which mandates one-third of California energy come from RE by 2020). The Border Governors Conference (BGC)
has identified RE development as a central component of their Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive Sustainable Development of the United
States-Mexico Transborder Region. Energy firms from the United States, Mexico and Europe are already involved in developing RE resources at
the border in the expectation that demand will continue to rise. There
is an obvious interest in this work; what is lacking
is a comprehensive strategy to both integrate these efforts and identify the most effective paths
forward. Key stakeholders in the energy sector have suggested that a focus on renewable energy in the border region requires much more
than a focus on the potential for exporting green energy to the United States. Instead, a more in-depth understanding of how renewable
energy projects impact on the short, medium, and long-term prospects for development in local communities will improve the chances for
sustainable growth in, and community support for, RE projects. Linking RE generation to economic development in Mexico requires a focus on
value chain creation for providers and services. Information needs to flow from developers to universities and authorities to develop training
and certifications for technicians and engineers. Local
enterprises have already responded to an expanding market,
but with effective coordination, there is far greater potential.
1AC – Renewables Advantage
ADVANTAGE 1 IS WARMING
The plan encourages large-scale adoption of alternative energy throughout Mexico
and the US – this creates broader momentum for renewables
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Mexico’s border states are blessed with renewable energy potential from natural and man-made
sources. In the long-term, solar power will provide an inexhaustible and efficient energy supply, but in the shortterm considerations of cost will hold back a massive development of the resource. Wind and biofuels from MSW, however, are
ready to be developed now and provide reliable and comparatively low-cost alternatives to
traditional energy supplies from hydrocarbons. In order to maximize the benefits from these three energy sources for the
local population, efforts must be taken to ensure that employment and business opportunities are created
that will generate economic growth, contribute to the general welfare of society, and lead to longterm positive spillovers in terms of human capital. The example of the La Rumorosa I wind project in Baja California
provides us with best practices that should be studied by state and municipal authorities and incorporated into their future plans for renewable
energy. The private sector must also learn these lessons in order to increase the potential for social acceptance and community buy-in of their
projects. Employment
prospects are highly positive, both in terms of numbers of jobs created and the
quality thereof. The existence of skilled labor in the border region should be complimented by the
promotion and development, by state authorities and universities, of undergraduate, graduate and
vocational programs that focus on renewable energies. There is enormous potential for clusters of companies
and institutes of higher education to develop that will foster the long-term growth of the sector. Renewable energy
development in the border states presents Mexico with a unique opportunity to make gains on a number
of fronts: environmental impact, energy generation, employment and wealth creation, and social
participation. In order to achieve this, governments, businesses and society must engage fully with each
other to reduce frictions and benefit from complimentary capacities.
Energy coop spurs extensive increases in innovation through development of human
capital and intellectual collaboration
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Knowledge spillover and the development of human capital: Renewable energy development has enormous potential
for creating synergies with universities, research institutes, and technical and vocational training
institutes that will drive the creation and strengthening of human capital in the border region. If
effective collaboration between governments, business and educational institutions can be achieved,
a mutually beneficial relationship will develop in which local employment levels and wages rise,
businesses have access to local skilled labor, and universities benefit from access to new financial and
technical resources. An example of where this model has already been successful in Mexico is in the
city of Querétaro. There the federal and state governments have worked alongside universities and
businesses to create an aerospace cluster that groups industry corporations with partners in higher
education to design undergraduate and graduate programs. The Parque Industrial Aeroespacial located at the
Querétaro Airport has been the center of this growth, and more than 3,300 jobs have been created in the sector. In 2006, the state government
and the Universidad Tecnológica de Querétaro (UTEQ) announced the creation of new academic programs to train aerospace engineers.
Bombardier, the largest aerospace firm operating outside Querétaro, has worked closely with the university to develop courses that match the
human resource and technological needs of the company. Of even greater significance was the creation, in 2008, of the Universidad Nacional
de Aeronáutica de Querétaro (UNAQ), Mexico’s only university entirely dedicated to the aerospace sector. States
such as Baja
California have already begun to think along these lines and are well positioned to benefit from public
policies that promote such collaboration. Baja California has a well-developed system of higher education and has some
experience in working with the private sector to drive innovation and knowledge transfer.4 The potential for expanding the
experience across the Mexican border states and creating inter-university, interdisciplinary programs
that cover all aspects of renewable energy is an issue that should be taken up by public and private
actors alike.
Mexico is key – triggers spillover to global renewables shift
ENS ’12 “U.S., Canada, Mexico Vow ‘Continental’ Energy Grid,” Environmental News Services,
4/3/2012, http://ens-newswire.com/2012/04/03/u-s-canada-mexico-vow-continental-energy-grid/
The leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada today pledged to develop “continental energy, including electricity generation and
interconnection” across national borders and welcomed “increasing North American energy trade.” Meeting in Washington, U.S. President
Barack Obama, Canada’s President Stephen Harper and Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon committed their governments to enhance their
collective energy security, to facilitate “seamless energy flows on the interconnected grid” and to promote trade and investment in clean
energy technologies. They will cooperate in expanding cooperation “to create clean energy jobs and combat climate change,” the leaders said
in a joint statement.
“Enhanced electricity interconnection in the Americas would advance the goals of the
reduce energy poverty and increase the use of renewable
sources of energy,” the three leaders said. They recognized Mexico’s leadership in supporting interconnections in Central America and reaffirmed their support “to bring affordable, reliable, and
increasingly renewable power to businesses and homes in Central America and the Caribbean while
opening wider markets for clean energy and green technology.” During a joint news conference this afternoon,
President Obama said, “Between us, we represent nearly half-a-billion citizens, from Nunavut in the Canadian north to Chiapas
Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas to
in southern Mexico. In between, the diversity of our peoples and cultures is extraordinary. But wherever they live, they wake up every day with
similar hopes – to provide for their families, to be safe in their communities, to give their children a better life. And in each of our countries, the
daily lives of our citizens are shaped profoundly by what happens in the other two. And that’s why we’re here.” “Energy
cooperation
reduces the cost of doing business and enhances economic competitiveness in North America,” the three
leaders said. “We recognize the growing regional and federal cooperation in the area of continental energy, including electricity generation and
interconnection and welcome increasing North American energy trade.”
Mexico also leads to global consensus on climate change agreements
O’Neil ’13 Shannon K. O'Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations, was a Fulbright scholar; a Justice, Welfare, and Economics fellow at Harvard University; and
has taught Latin American politics at Columbia University, MA in International Relations from Yale and a
PhD in Government from Harvard, “Mexico Makes It,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2013,
http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-makes/p30098
If Mexico addresses these challenges, it will emerge as a powerful player on the international stage. A
democratic and safe Mexico would attract billions of dollars in foreign investment and propel the country into the world's top economic ranks.
Robust growth would both reduce northbound emigration and increase southbound trade, benefiting U.S. employers and employees alike.
Already influential in the G-20 and other multilateral organizations , Mexico could become even
more of a power broker in global institutions and help construct new international financial, trade, and
climate-change accords.
Warming is real and anthropogenic – scientific consensus
Nucitelli 5/28/13(Dana Nucitelli is an environmental scientist and risk assessor, works for the
guardian as a writer and blogger. http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dana-nuccitelli,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/globalwarming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics )
A new study confirms there is strong scientific consensus that human activities are causing the planet
to warm. 97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds. This finding serves as a nice talking point
for cocktail party conversations, but it’s less clear it will have a meaningful effect on public’s level of concern about
climate change. The authors* of the study (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature), who painstakingly
sifted through nearly 12,000 academic journal article to reach their conclusion, say they hope their results bridge the divide between publishing scientists who are
convinced human activities are causing global warming and the segment of the public, who are not. This, they say, will motivate action
on climate change. “The public perception of a scientific consensus on [manmade warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,” the study
says. “However,
there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US
public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming
due to human activity.” But Keith Kloor, a science writer for Discover, smartly argues that while closing this gap is a laudable goal, it doesn’t
necessarily move the needle on public’s level of concern about the issue or their motivation to act. “Over many years of research, we have consistently found that,
on average,
Americans view climate change as a threat distant in space and time–a risk that will affect far
away places, other species, or future generations more than people here and now,” concludes a Yale report that
Kloor cites.
Action now is critical to stop the world from triggering critical tipping points
Council on Foreign Relations 6/19, “The Global Climate Change Regime” Council on Foreign
Relations, http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/global-climate-change-regime/p21831
Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today. According to the American
Meteorological Society, there is a 90 percent probability that global temperatures will rise by 3.5 to 7.4
degrees Celsius (6.3 to 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit) in less than one hundred years, with even greater increases over land and
the poles. These seemingly minor shifts in temperature could trigger widespread disasters in the form of rising
sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification, famine, water shortages, and other
secondary effects including conflict. In November 2011, the International Energy Agency warned that the world may be fast
approaching a tipping point concerning climate change, and suggested that the next five years will be
crucial for greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Global warming leads to global destruction - causes resource shortages and conflicts
Klare ‘6 Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in
Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing
Petroleum Dependency . “The Coming Resource Wars” March 9, 2006, AlterNet.
http://www.alternet.org/story/33243/the_coming_resource_wars
Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear : when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate
change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental
effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the
survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no
society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict. We can respond to these
predictions in one of two ways: by relying on fortifications and military force to provide some degree of advantage in the global struggle over resources, or by
taking meaningful steps to reduce the risk of cataclysmic climate change. No doubt there will be many politicians and
pundits -- especially in this country -- who will tout the superiority of the military option, emphasizing America's preponderance of strength. By fortifying our borders
and sea-shores to keep out unwanted migrants and by fighting around the world for needed oil supplies, it will be argued, we can maintain our privileged standard of
the grueling, inconclusive war in
Iraq and the failed national response to Hurricane Katrina show just how ineffectual such instruments
can be when confronted with the harsh realities of an unforgiving world. And as the 2003 Pentagon report reminds us,
"constant battles over diminishing resources" will "further reduce [resources] even beyond the
climatic effects." Military superiority may provide an illusion of advantage in the coming struggles over vital resources, but it cannot protect us against the
ravages of global climate change. Although we may be somewhat better off than the people in Haiti and Mexico, we, too, will suffer from storms,
living for longer than other countries that are less well endowed with instruments of power. Maybe so. But
drought and flooding. As our overseas trading partners descend into chaos, our vital imports of food,
raw materials and energy will disappear as well. True, we could establish military outposts in some of these places to ensure the
continued flow of critical materials -- but the ever-increasing price in blood and treasure required to pay for this will eventually exceed our means and destroy us.
Ultimately, our
only hope of a safe and secure future lies in substantially reducing our emissions of
greenhouse gases and working with the rest of the world to slow the pace of global climate change.
Climate change comes first – it’s an existential risk – action now is key
Mazo ‘10 Jeffrey Mazo, PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA, Managing Editor, Survival and Research
Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,”
pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario.
Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions
have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already
been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of
the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and
advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and
collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed
observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to
civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such
climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social,
cultural and political changes.
1AC – Economy Advantage
Domestic Mexican energy production is falling rapidly and a shift to reliance on US
imports is unsustainable. Mexico needs a new and reliable source of power
Petroleum Economist 7/18 “Mexico relies on US as oil supply falls and gas demand rises,”
Petroleum Economist, 7/18/2013, http://www.petroleum-economist.com/Article/3232708/Mexicorelies-on-US-as-oil-supply-falls-and-gas-demand-rises.html
As its oil production keeps falling, Mexico is turning to natural gas to diversify its energy supply and
fuel economic growth. Increasingly, it is relying on booming US supplies to do the job. According to the World Bank,
Mexico's economy grew at an impressive 3.9% in 2012 and is on track to post growth of 3.5% in 2013. Yet 52 million people almost half of the population - live in poverty. Another 11.7 million, or 10%, live in 'extreme'• poverty,
earning less than $76 per month. President Enrique Peña Nieto took office in December 2012 promising to increase living
standards. But falling oil production, historically the mainstay of the country's export revenues, is
threatening his ambition. In 2010, oil accounted for 14% of export earnings and 32% of government revenues, according to the
Mexican central bank. Rising crude prices have offered some relief. The value of Mexican oil exports to the US has doubled in the past eight
years, to $35.7 billion in 2012. But the
export and production data tell a different story. Oil output has fallen to
2.5 million barrels a day (b/d) from a peak of 3.4 million b/d in 2004. Crude exports to the US have fallen by a third,
to 970,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2012 from 1.48 million b/d in 2004, the first time since 1994 that annual shipments to the US have fallen
below 1 million b/d. The country's share of total US oil imports has plummeted, too, from 16% a decade ago to 11% in
2012, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Production of heavy oil from the Cantarell and Ku-Maloob-Zaap offshore
oilfields - which supply grades favoured by US Gulf Coast refineries - fell 46% or 1.1 million b/d from 2004 to 2012. This was partially offset by a
200,000 b/d increase of light oil in the same period, but the trend is well established by now. The
question facing policy makers is
whether the country can afford to maintain a nationalist energy stance. Mexico nationalised its oil industry in
1938 and its constitution continues to prohibit foreign ownership in the strategically vital oil and gas sector. In 2008 Mexico's congress passed
limited energy sector reforms in a bid to address declining production and attract much needed foreign technical expertise, but the efforts
failed. Pemex, the state oil company, retains ownership of all crude oil produced in the country, but has entered into partnerships with foreign
companies through multiple services contracts. But major international oil companies have stayed away. Nieto
aims to introduce
further reforms in September aimed at increasing private investment. But this is sure to run into opposition from
those opposed to opening the country's energy sector. However, if Mexico's energy sector continues
down the path it is on the country risks becoming a net oil importer by the end of the decade. This is
already the case in natural gas. Mexican imports of US gas have increased 92% since 2008 as production has fallen by 15% and demand has
risen sharply. Mexico now imports 2 billion cubic feet a day from the US, or 3% of Lower 48 production. At least six new pipelines have been
proposed from southern US unconventional gasfields like the Eagle Ford to meet surging demand in Mexico. Imports could reach 7 billion cf/d,
or 10% of US gas production, by the end of the decade. On 5 May, US pipeline operator El Paso announced long-term agreements to extend its
Wilcox lateral from Arizona, adding 185 million cf/d of incremental capacity for Pemex Gas and Mexican de Cobre, one of the world's largest
copper producers. The US drilling boom couldn't have come at a better time for gas-starved Mexico. Mexico's proved gas reserves have fallen
to 17 trillion cf from more than 60 trillion cf a decade ago, largely as a result of under-investment in the upstream. In the same period, Mexico's
gas consumption has risen 160%, to 2.36 trillion cf per year, or 6.5 billion cf/d, driven by fuel switching in the electricity sector. In 2000, gas
supplied a fifth of Mexican power generation. By 2007, this had risen to half. Consequently, Mexican gas imports have doubled since 2003, to
767 billion cf per year. It will keep growing: plans are afoot to add 28 gigawatts of new generating capacity, most of it to be fuelled by gas.
Mexico's energy secretariat forecasts that gas demand will grow at a rate of more than 3% annually through 2016. In June, Gdf Suez Mexico and
GE Financial unveiled plans to extend the Mayakan pipeline to the Yucatan Peninsula, adding an incremental 300 million cf/d of supply under a
contract with Mexican power producer CFE. But it's not just pipelines that have seen growth. In 2012 the country completed the $900 million
Manzanillo liquefied natural gas import terminal, a partnership of Pemex, South Korea's Kogas, Mitsubishi and Samsung on the Pacific coast.
Full capacity of 3.8 million tonnes per year is expected online later this year. At
this point, it makes sense for Mexico to
import cheap US gas to fuel its economic growth. But the surge in demand is expected to increase
North American natural gas prices. Henry Hub futures have inched higher in recent months to more than $4 per million British
thermal units (Btu), although lower demand in the summer eased levels back to $3.63 on 17 July. Longer term rises in prices will
eventually force Mexico to decide whether it wants to depend on foreign supplies or open its upstream to
investors that could unlock more domestic energy.
That spells certain doom for the Mexican economy – oil revenues are critical to public
spending
Villarreal ’12 M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance @ CRS, “U.S.-Mexico
Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications,” Congressional Research Service, 8/9/2012,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf
Mexico’s long-term economic recovery and stability partially depend upon what happens in the oil
industry. In 2010, Mexico was the seventh-largest producer of oil in the world and the third largest in the Western Hemisphere. 39 The
Mexican government depends heavily on oil revenues, which provide 30% to 40% of the
government’s fiscal revenues, but oil production in Mexico is declining rapidly. Many industry experts
state that Mexican oil production has peaked and that the country’s production will continue to
decline in the coming years. 40 The Mexican government has used oil revenues from its state oil company, Pétroleos Mexicanos
(Pemex), for government operating expenses, which has come at the expense of needed reinvestment in the company itself. Because the
government relies so heavily on oil income, any
decline in production has major fiscal implications . In 2008, the
government enacted new legislation that sought to reform the country’s oil sector, which was nationalized in 1938, 41 and to help increase
production capability. The reforms permit Pemex to create incentive-based service contracts with private companies. Some analysts
contend, however, that the reforms did not go far enough and that they do little to help the company
address its major challenges. 42 Mexico’s President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto of the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)
has vowed to convince his party, which nationalized the industry and has blocked previous attempts at reforming the energy sector, and the
PRI-aligned oil workers’ union, to allow further energy reforms to move forward. The narrow margin of Peña Nieto’s victory and his coalition’s
apparent failure to capture a majority in either chamber of the Mexican Congress, however, may make it difficult to reform the energy sector.
Another issue that may block energy reforms from moving forward is the nationalist left’s strong showing in the July 1, 2012, elections. The
leftist coalition led by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has the second-largest bloc in the lower house of the Mexican Congress and
remains staunchly opposed to increasing private involvement in Pemex. 43 Most experts contend that Pemex has only the capacity to produce
in shallow waters and needs to bring in new technologies and know-how through private investment to allow the company to successfully
explore and produce in the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico. 44 The lack
of further reforms is reportedly keeping Mexico
from allowing much-needed foreign investment for oil exploration. Though the performance-based contracts are
expected to increase production and reserves, Pemex faces serious challenges in finding new, productive wells and also lacks resources
for investment in increasing engineering capacity and exploration.
Renewables investment brings vast economic benefit to Mexico – creates jobs,
income, and tax revenue that gets funneled into public goods
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Economic spillover: It is clear that the development of renewable energy projects brings economic benefits to the
areas in which they are located, not merely through the generation of electricity or the production of fuel, but
also through the spillover effect in terms of employment, infrastructure spending, services, and the
potential for creating industries focused on manufacturing equipment and components. Renewable
energy technologies tend to create more jobs per unit of energy generated than their conventional
energy counterparts. This is because the RE sector tends to create jobs not only in the generation of
electricity and fuel and in the manufacture of equipment and parts, but also indirectly in the form of
maintenance, repairs and services. It is estimated that more than three million people are employed in the
RE sector worldwide, and in Mexico the government has suggested that the sector could employ up to 100, 000 people if it were
implemented alongside a complementary industrial policy.3 A second level of economic benefit stems from the
potential for energy cost savings for local authorities who decide to purchase their electricity from
renewable energy sources. In Mexico, for example, the lower cost of wind energy in relation to power
generated through conventional means by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), has encouraged municipal
authorities to purchase wind energy for public lighting and buildings. These cost savings mean that the
government has the opportunity to use those funds for other public purposes. If public authorities such as state
governments are themselves partners in green energy generation projects, the resulting profits may be employed as a way of
providing subsidies to the local population. This will help to secure local approval of RE projects. Lastly, we
should point to the significant infrastructure investments that often accompany renewable energy
projects. As wind and solar plants are often located in remote areas, it may be necessary to build
roads and bring in water supplies to make them viable. Of course transmission lines will also be needed
to transport the electrons generated to market. All of this infrastructure spending is another potential
source of employment and income for local citizens and businesses, but also implies a potential obstacle due to financing
limitations.
Mexican growth is key to stem illegal immigration – that’s a key internal link to
terrorist entry
McNeill ‘9 Jena Baker McNeill, Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison
Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, 15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing
America's Southern Exposure,” Heritage Foundation, 3/9/2009,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/15-steps-to-better-border-security-reducingamericas-southern-exposure
New Challenges. Mexico has been strongly affected by the U.S. economic downturn in late 2008. Mexico
relies heavily on oil revenues and sales to the U.S. market-the United States purchases as much as 82 percent of
Mexico's exports.[66] As economic growth in Mexico decreases and unemployment rises, illegal immigration
may begin to increase again if quality of life further deteriorates in Mexico (illegal immigration decreased with the
U.S. economic downturn). The terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed the focus at the border from purely illegal
immigration to include the security of the U.S. homeland-as the U.S. became concerned that the southern border might
be used as a loophole for terrorists to enter the U.S. Mexico's current economic instability has provided the drug
cartels with more power-adding to the security concerns at the border. The more powerful the cartels
become, the more rule of law deteriorates-making the border ever more susceptible to crime and
terrorism. The increasing power of drug cartels and deteriorating rule of law, as well as Mexico's
economic instability have led some scholars to question whether Mexico is destined to become a
failed state.[67] But the United States and Mexico, working together, can ensure that this does not
become a reality. America must remain steadfast in its commitment to free trade with Mexico and should expand economic
opportunities with Mexico and Central America as much as possible. Mexico's security is linked to America's security-if Mexico
remains a haven for drug cartels and other serious criminals, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain control of the border.
Risk of terror is extremely high – Islamic fundamentalist groups will align with regional
crime rings to execute WMD attacks against the US
Anderson ‘8 Curt Anderson, “US officials fear terrorist links with drug lords,” Associated Press,
10/8/2008, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-805146709_x.htm
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah could form alliances with
wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
Extremist group operatives have already been identified in several Latin American countries, mostly
involved in fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence analysis at the Homeland
Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling routes and drug profits to bring
people or even w eapons of m ass d estruction to the U.S. "The presence of these people in the region leaves
open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. "The
threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them."
Nuclear terrorism causes global nuclear exchange
Ayson ‘10 Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies:
New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging
Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July 2010, informaworld
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily
represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded
as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a
massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would
have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major
nuclear weapons states have
hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear
attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and
especially an act of nuclear
terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of
nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s
terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were
seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late
1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war.
For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could
plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of
terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily
threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was
thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason
Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case
of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a
wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from
its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came
from.”41 Alternatively, if
the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe
that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors.
Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be
left with a very short list consisting
of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at
what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo?
In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in
Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the
worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited
armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these
developments may seem at the present time. The
reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack
occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and
Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted
(and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during
the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place
the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense
environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that
Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly
nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be
admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
Generally, Latin American wars escalate to global conflagrations
Rochin ‘94 James, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Discovering the
Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, pp. 130-131
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada
possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of
declining U.S. influence in the region – which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth
in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American
sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were
linked to the prospect of
explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which
could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worstcase scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading
elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would
be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern
expressed by the director of research for Canada’s Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a
predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of
the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the
next chapter.
1AC – Plan
The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in
renewable energy production and cross-border electricity transmission infrastructure
towards Mexico.
1AC – Solvency
The plan fosters cooperation over critical energy issues to bolster renewable industry
– now is critical to ensure Mexican approval
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Growing Potential for U.S.-Mexico Energy Cooperation”, Wilson Center of Mexico
Institute, January, 2012, http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf)
Looking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential for
an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends on two key factors, political will and the
internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican
hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S.based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in
recent
years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for
international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a
productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater
potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory. We can identify three main areas in which bilateral
energy cooperation holds great promise in the short-to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is
great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we
can point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross-border transmission
network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should
be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on
renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon-emissions policy
are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these areas are broader
concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development
in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region
has derived in recent years from low-cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to
ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent
years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a
number of commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a
potential source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential
opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform
process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and
industry best practices.
US collaboration and investment is key – broadly increases demand for renewables
and enhances energy production and transmission efficiency
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Growing Potential for U.S.-Mexico Energy Cooperation”, Wilson Center of Mexico
Institute, January, 2012, http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf)
Mexico’s electricity sector has gone through significant changes over the past twenty years since the
passing of the 1992 Ley de Servicio Publico de Energia Electrica, in which private electricity generation was permitted under certain
circumstances. During that time the private sector has become responsible for around 30% of installed capacity
in the country, although the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) remains the dominant player in the market through its monopoly over
transmission and distribution. Electricity
prices remain high in the country, particularly for commercial customers,
and this is widely seen as a limiting factor on Mexican business competitiveness. At the same time, although
97% of the Mexican population is connected to the national grid, this means that almost 5 million Mexicans still do not have
reliable access to electricity. At the present time Mexico is a net exporter of electricity to the United States, with around 600
gigawatt hours (GWh) of power exported from Baja California to California in 2010and around 150 GWh of power exported from Texas.
However, demand
for electricity in Mexico is growing fast: according to SENER, demand grew from 157,204 GWh in 2001 to
of that growth in demand has come from the residential sector, but it is big
business that has led the way as demand is tied directly to economic growth. This suggests that, as Mexico’s
economy continues to grow at a rate higher than its NAFTA partners, we should expect the country’s
electricity demand to increase at a similar rate. This projected growth means that Mexico will either have to add
further generating capacity or increase its electricity imports. Both scenarios present opportunities for
the U.S. In the first, new installed capacity will likely be in the form of combined cycle natural gas plants, to
take advantage of the historically low price of natural gas due to the shale revolution. As pointed out
above, Mexico is already looking to import more gas from the United States, and new electricity
generating capacity will increase that even further. The second scenario would directly benefit the electricity producers,
most likely in Texas, which has seen and rapid growth in capacity in recent years. In order to get electricity from Texas to
Mexico, however, some major investments must take place in the area of transmission. At the present time
the cross-border transmission infrastructure is highly limited and talks between the two countries aimed
at facilitating new cross-border projects have achieved little real progress since 2010. Nine cross-border interconnections exist at the
200,946 GWh in 2011. Much
time of writing, with new transmission capacity last added in 2007, with the opening of the Sharyland McAllen-Reynosa 150MW connection. Of
course transmission not only affects the prospects for electricity imports into Mexico from Texas, but also exports from Baja California to
California, particularly of electricity from renewable sources such as wind (see below). Mexico and the United States will need to deepen their
cooperation in the area of transmission if these projects are to be brought to fruition. As noted above, to date the cross-border transmission
discussions between the two countries have not yielded very much of substance, and it should be a priority of both governments to try to inject
the process with more vigor and enthusiasm. In part the slow movement of the talks so far is a result of the fact that neither side has attached
much importance to them; on another level, however, the differences between the two countries’ systems has run into cultural barriers.
Because the CFE is run as a federal government agency, rather than as a business, it has been noted that the organization thinks not in terms of
business opportunities, but rather of fulfilling its mission of providing electricity as a public service. This cultural obstacle to progress must be
overcome, however, if the true potential for electricity trade is to be realized. One
final issue on which the two countries can
and should cooperate in the years to come is that of upgrading Mexico’s national electricity grid and
making it a truly “Smart grid”. As Mexico’s economy and electricity market mature, and as a more
market-oriented pricing structure emerges, the use of smart grid technologies will become of
increasing importance to manage supply issues, and to allow for flexible responses to unexpected
jumps in demand. One issue that the government hopes to solve through smart grid technology is that of electricity
distribution losses, which run as high as 17% at the national level. At the present time the CFE is only just beginning to install a small
number of smart meters in the selected areas of the country, but in August of 2012 the Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE)announced that it
has begun developing a smart grid plan for the country. Early research for the plan was financed in part by a US$405,000 grant from the US
Trade and Development Agency, and the two countries should continue to cooperate on the development of the grid, creating significant
opportunities for private firms from both sides of the border.
Inherency
General
High potential for US-Mexico energy coop but little engagement now
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Growing Potential for U.S.-Mexico Energy Cooperation”, Wilson Center of Mexico
Institute, January, 2012, http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf)
Key Recommendations
• The question of cross border electricity transmission has been a feature of bilateral talks since 2010
but little has yet been achieved . It is vital that the bilateral mechanism is given a sense of urgency
and importance from both governments • The development of a Smart Grid for electricity transmission
and distribution in Mexico is an issue that would benefit from further bilateral cooperation. U.S.
funding for initial research into the building of a smart grid should now be followed by increased
technical cooperation. • The huge advances in energy efficiency in the United States in recent years
presents a model that Mexico would do well to study. Some work has already been done in Mexico to
put in place an energy efficiency strategy, and collaboration with U.S. agencies would be of great
benefit.
Huge potential for renewables in Mexico now
Watson 13
(Anna, Senior Research Analyst, Green power Conferences ‘Mexican Renewable Energy Market Set to Soar in 2013’ 1/16/ 2013
http://www.ecoseed.org/more/press-releases/15985-mexican-renewable-energy-market-set-to-soar-in-2013) BSH
Luckily the Mayans had it wrong and
2013 is upon us- a year in which Mexico is set to become an increasingly
important and prosperous renewable energy market. Despite the recent change in government, the mood for the
continued growth of the sector remains optimistic. With no feed in tariffs liable to change there are many factors
driving momentum beyond political parameters: Vast Untapped Resources - Mexico has an estimated 45GW
solar potential and 71GW wind power potential. Ambitious Targets -Mexico beat its own renewable energy target by generating 26% of
electricity from renewables in 2012, aiming for 35% by 2024. Growing Electricity Demand - Mexico will require an estimated 27GW
of new capacity over the next 15 years to cover growing demand. Stable Investment Environment - Private clean energy
investment in Mexico increased by 273% in 2010, with Latin America attracting $63.1billion investment in 2011. An Emerging
Manufacturing Superpower- With heavy industry relocating to Mexico opportunities for commercial scale generation are huge.
Committed to Sustainable Growth - Mexico has become only industrialising nation to put into national legislation long-term
climate targets. Expansion of wind power operations in particular has been hitting the news, with Enel Green Power
connecting a 70 MW farm to the gird in Oaxaca and Vestas recently receiving a 54MW turbine order from an unnamed customer. With the
governments optimism at reaching a wind energy target of 12GW by 2020 and commitment to the
market expressed by key players including Iberdrola and Suzlon, a key challenge will now be
expanding developments beyond the Oaxaca region. MMomentum behind the solar industry is also growing with Sonora
Energy Group de Hermosillo (SEGH) working on a 39 MW photovoltaic plant and LG set to supply a 100MW solar park also in Sonora. The State
of Zacatecas recently unveiled a 200KW system at the international airport, and Chihuahua State has enlisted Schneider to build a 250KW
system to power a local hospital. LLarge commercial companies are also looking to renewables to avoid increasing energy bills and to fulfil
ambitious CSR targets. For example the
food processing company Palsgard now supply 85% of their energy
usage via solar energy, whilst Grupo Bimbo recently opened a 90MW wind farm to power 45 of its
facilities. Domestic markets are also emerging, especially for roof mounted PV systems, due to the
DAC tariff forcing the bills of high power consumer’s sky high.
Warming
Yes Warming
Global warming increasing now- oceans prove
Painting 6/24/13 (rob painting is the chairman of SciCorr Limited, a past CEO of Early Equity PlC, and
a writer http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Looming-Climate-Shift-Will-Ocean-Heat-Come-Back-toHaunt-us.html)
The way that global warming has progressed in the 21st century has probably been a great surprise to many
people, no doubt a few climate scientists among them. Despite a strong increase in planet-warming greenhouse gas
emissions, warming of global surface temperatures has been rather muted. Surface temperatures have warmed, but at a slower rate than
the last two decades of the 20th century. Of course, the 2000′s doesn’t strictly qualify as a hiatus decade as defined in Meehl (2013) — where
hiatus decades are described as negative global surface temperature trends — but it is, nevertheless, a suitable analogue. Increases
in
sunlight-blocking sulfate pollution (from industrial activity) during the early part of the 21st century have probably played a
role (Hatzianasstissiou [2011]), as have sulfate emissions from tropical volcanoes (Solomon [2011], Vernier [2011]), but
the most significant contributor to this muted surface warming trend are natural changes in the way
heat is stored in the ocean.When large amounts of heat are efficiently transported to the deep ocean (as in the 2000′s — see Levitus
[2012], Nuccitelli [2012] & Balmaseda [2013]), there is less heat available at the ocean surface with which to raise global surface temperature.
Warming happening now and cause by greenhouse gas – Climate archives and studies
prove
Rahmstorf, Stefan 5/15/2013 (Stefan Rahmstorf is Co-Chair of Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research. 15/5/2013, Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick, Climate Progress,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/)
The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before
by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common
trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick ”, the
first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago. Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve
shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and
Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. 78
researchers from 24 countries, together
with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k”
stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was
It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice
cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are
freely available. The climate history of the past one to two thousand years was reconstructed for seven
continental regions in 30-year intervals (Figure 2). Regional climate evolution The data show, as expected,
significant regional differences. Such regional patterns are an important clue to the causes and
mechanisms of climate change. Significant local variations in climate can occur through changes in the
atmospheric or oceanic circulation patterns, with very little effect on global mean temperature,
because heat is only distributed differently (a recent short-term example is the record cold March in parts of Europe while
Greenland was extremely warm – nothing unusual happened in the global mean). Changes in global mean temperature,
however, occur due to changes in radiative forcing (eg solar fluctuations). This forcing can be globally
uniform (e.g. well-mixed greenhouse gases) or can have a regional pattern (for example, volcanic
eruptions and orbital cycles). So in the individual continents one expects a response to the forcings,
superimposed by internal fluctuations. The data shown in Figure 2 reflect this: they show some coherent signals, especially a
published in Nature Geoscience.
long-term cooling trend that leads to increasingly cooler climate conditions from the relatively warm Middle Ages until this is turned around in
the late 19th Century (see the next section). But, as expected, some regional variability is superimposed, especially on shorter time scales of
decades to a century, where particularly warm and cold phases do not coincide in their timing on different continents, as the authors
emphasize in the abstract: There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal hot or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm
Period or Little Ice Age. But they identify some shorter intervals where extremely cold conditions coincide with major volcanic eruptions and /
or solar minima (as already known from previous studies). Global Trends
The global mean temperature is of particular interest because it is a direct response to the global
radiative forcing, buffered by the thermal inertia of the oceans. This follows from the first law of thermodynamics, i.e.
the law of conservation of energy. So the globally coherent signals indicate globally effective forcings. The authors
write in the abstract: The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is
a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. (…) Recent warming reversed
the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed
temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years. The following Figure 3 therefore compares the
area-weighted mean over the continents (b) with some previous northern hemisphere reconstructions (a) and the forcings (f, g, h). The basic
long-term slow cooling which in the late 19th Century turns into a rapid warming – has been
known for 15 years and is often compared to a hockey stick: the long cooling trend is the handle, the
modern warming the angled blade.
Comparison with the forcings shows that this blade is due to the radiative forcing from the increasing
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (green line in g). The solar and volcanic forcing can be reconstructed only
pattern – a
with some uncertainty, therefore two variants are shown. For solar forcing, it is less the shape of the curve but mainly the amplitude which is
controversial (a constant conversion factor) – the very high amplitude adopted by Shapiro (dotted line) is widely regarded as highly
questionable (see, eg, Feulner and Judge et al ). But even with this extreme assumption, the solar forcing in the 20th Century cannot compete
by far with the greenhouse gases, and it also does not match the temperature evolution.
Warming Bad – Economy
Damage caused by climate change destroys economies
Nicholas Stern, Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003, and
government economic advisor in the United Kingdom, “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change," 2008 http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.c
fm)
The consequences of climate change in the developed world are likely to be felt earliest and most strongly
through changes in extreme events - storms, floods, droughts, and heatwaves.23 This could lead to
significant infrastructure damage and faster capital depreciation, as capital-intensive infrastructure
has to be replaced, or strengthened, before the end of its expected life. Increases in extreme events
will be particularly costly for developed economies, which invest a considerable amount in fixed
capital each year (20% of GDP or $5.5 trillion invested in gross fixed capital today). Just over one-quarter of this investment typically goes
into construction ($1.5 trillion - mostly for infrastructure and buildings; more detail in Chapter 19). The long-run production losses
from extreme weather could significantly amplify the immediate damage costs, particularly when
there are constraints to financing reconstruction.24 The costs of extreme weather events are already
high and rising, with annual losses of around $60 billion since the 1990s (0.2% of World GDP), and record costs of $200
billion in 2005 (more than 0.5% of World GDP).25 New analysis based on insurance industry data has shown that weather-related
catastrophe losses have increased by 2% each year since the 1970s over and above changes in wealth, inflation and
population growth/movement.26 If this trend continued or intensified with rising global temperatures, losses from extreme weather could
reach 0.5 - 1% of world GDP by the middle of the century.27 If
temperatures continued to rise over the second half of the century,
costs could reach several percent of GDP each year, particularly because the damages increase
disproportionately at higher temperatures (convexity in damage function; Chapter 3).
Warming Bad – Water Wars
Climate change exacerbates water stress – causes war
Tay and Paungmalit ’10 Simon Tay and Phir Paungmalit, Singapore Institute of International Affairs,
“Climate Change and Security In the Asia-Pacific,” Conference Paper Prepared for the 2nd Tokyo
Seminar on Common Security Challenges, 26 March 2010, google
Observational records and climate projections provide abundant evidence that freshwater resources are
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with wide-ranging consequences for human societies and ecosystems.17 Globally, the
negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems will outweigh the positive impacts.18 IPCC projects
the adverse impacts on water resources to include increasing atmospheric water vapour content; changing
precipitation patterns, intensity and extremes; reduced snow cover and widespread melting of ice;
and changes in soil moisture and runoff, among others. Globally, by the 2050s, the area of land subject to
increasing water stress due to climate change is projected to more than double.19 IPCC shows that the number of
people living under water stress could increase to 2.9–3.3 billion by 2025 and rise to 3.4–5.6 billion by the year
2055.20 However, it should be noted that the net effect of climate change on water availability will be limited in some regions.21 In other
regions, climate change impacts,
compounded by population growth, will actually have a much greater impact
growth is likely to exacerbate the effects of
climate change on water stress. Many studies expect that regions which rely on glacial meltwater for their water
supply during the dry season will be affected most by water shortage as a result of rising world temperatures.22 All over
the world, the glaciers act as reservoirs. They accumulate seasonal precipitation, which then becomes
available in the dry season as meltwater. As the glacial melt intensifies as a result of global warming, more
meltwater is initially discharged than is replenished by precipitation, causing an increase in runoff . In
some regions, therefore, the volume of available water will decrease in absolute terms. Asia, where hundreds
of millions of people rely on waters from vanishing glaciers on the Tibetan plateau, could be among
the hardest hit regions. In term of quality, higher water temperatures and changes in extremes, including floods and
droughts, are projected to affect water quality and exacerbate water pollution in many regions.23 Sea-level rise is
on water resource. Attention must also be paid to demographics. Population
also projected to increase salinisation of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and
ecosystems in coastal areas.24 • Security Implications Kofi
Annan once declared: “and if we are not careful, future wars
are going to be about water and not about oil.”25 Coping with water scarcity is an issue of state survival: in
contrast to oil, there is no substitute for water, which makes competition for diminishing water supplies
potentially more destabilizing than competition for any other natural resource. Moreover, water scarcity combined
with rampant population growth directly threatens food security Security issues in relation to water scarcity may arise in
future for two reasons. First, climate change will impact the water balance in many regions to such an extent
that its availability will deteriorate in terms of quantity, quality and seasonal distribution. Second,
demand for water will increase as the world’s population grows. These two factors could trigger or
aggravate intrastate or international conflicts of interest over water which, under adverse conditions, could
erupt into violence. Specifically, for intra-state conflict, inadequate quantity of water and poor quality of
available water resources can provokes competition between water-use sectors, demographics and
ethnic groups in some parts of the world.26 For example, there is already some evidence that the current conflict in Darfur is
partly due to increased desertification and drought and the resultant lack of water supplies and arable land.27 Though it is a
gross oversimplification to say that climate change has caused the conflict in Darfur, it is clear that the ecological crisis there has
exacerbated a diverse range of social and political causes, demonstrating how climate-related factors
can play an important part in triggering or prolonging conflict in the future.28 In addition, water scarcity may spark
tension or conflict between states. Such interstate conflicts are mainly defined by the different interests of upstream and downstream
states over the allocation of water from the international rivers. The likelihood of conflict is increased when a state use
transboundary water resources without consulting or downstream users.29 Such occurrences already
create tension in some regions of the world where several countries rely on the same water sources, such as the Nile River in North
Africa and the River Jordan in the Middle East.30 At least, it is possible that water scarcity will exacerbate existing tensions and be used as
a “tool” to escalate conflict or tension that has begun for other reasons.31 It is worth noting here that the risk of violent conflict over water
resources is estimated to be greater at an intrastate or local level than at an interstate level.32 In Asia, the potential
for instabilities
by the direct and indirect impacts of an increasingly volatile water supply should not
be underestimated, particularly in light of high population growth and rising concerns about climate change in the
and conflicts sparked
region.33 By the 2050s, IPCC expects that freshwater availability in South, East and South-East Asia, particularly in large river basins, to
decrease.34 Most importantly to the region, water
supplies stored in Tibetan plateau and Himalaya glaciers are
projected to decline over the 21st century, thus reducing water availability during warm and dry
periods in regions supplied by meltwater from major glaciers ranges, where almost one-sixth of the
world’s population currently live.35 The Tibetan plateau is also a source of many major rivers of Asia, including the Yangtze, the
Ganges, the Mekong and the Indus, among others. Although there is no clear scientific consensus as to how fast the glacier melting will happen,
but it
is generally clear that water supplies are decreasing at an alarming rate during the course of the century.36
The massive Himalayan range, in specific, is home to over 9,000 glaciers, and is one of the largest storehouses of
freshwaters outside the polar regions.37 These glaciers provide water to Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Pakistan, China and India and are the source of three of the world’s largest water systems. There is no
viable long-term replacement for the water provided by glaciers, so their diminution could result in water
shortages at an unparalleled scale. Hundreds of millions of people in India and China alone are
expected to be severely affected by the resultant changes in water supply from glaciers38, and hence are prone to
intrastate conflict over water rights in the future. China, in particular, has had a past history of internal water
conflicts between villages and communities.39 And as population growth and urbanization rates in the region rise
rapidly, stress on the region’s water resources is further intensifying. It should be noted that the potential for
intrastate water conflict often goes hand in hand with social discrimination in terms of access to good quality water.40
Tensions over water rights and supply could be worsened by development programs that privatize control of
the resource without looking after the rights of the poor.41 Tibetan plateau glaciers are also the sources of many
international rivers in Asia. For example, the Mekong starts in the Tibetan Plateau and then flows through China, Burma, Laos,
Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, to the South China Sea. Along the way, it supplies water to 60 million people. Water of India’s sacred Ganges
river, which flows through China and Nepal before reaching India and then flowing on to Bangladesh, and the Indus, which runs through India
and Pakistan, also come from Himalayan glaciers ranges.42 These
rivers link together close to half the world’s
increasingly water-starved population and all are dependent on the countries upstream for their
supplies. Conflict on distribution of water from these rivers is conceivable the receding water supply from the
glaciers. Future interstate water conflict may occur if certain states refuse to cooperate or participate in
regional mechanisms or organizations designed to assure water security for all parties in the face of
increasing water shortage. Two examples of refusal to cooperate were China's and Myanmar’s refusals to participate
fully with the joint management regime of Mekong River. In February this year, the water level in the Mekong hit a 20-year low,
which some believe is related to China’s massive program of hydroelectric dam building on the river. Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos, as
members of Mekong River Commission, are all seeking an explanation from China on the impact of Chinese dams on the downstream
Mekong.43 Conflict may
also result when smaller states deal with larger states that are the source of
major water supplies; e.g. the Ganges River has been the subject of a long-running dispute between India
and Bangladesh. Not relating to international rivers, cross-borders tension can occur when one state threatens
another to cut off water supplies, e.g. Malaysia’s threats to Singapore in the past. Different kinds of tension
outlined here could escalate in the future as climate change reduces regional availability of fresh water supply in Asia-Pacific.
Warming Bad – Droughts
Global Warming leads to serious droughts in the West
Romm ’13, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and
renewable energy in 1997, Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, 7/16/13,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/30/2236751/scientists-predicted-a-decade-ago-arctic-ice-loss-would-worsen-western-droughts-isthat-happening-already/
Scientists predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse western droughts. Arctic
ice loss has been much faster
than the researchers — and indeed all climate modelers — expected (see “CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed“). It
just so happens that the western U.S. is in the grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought. Is this just an amazing
coincidence — or were the scientists right and what would that mean for the future? I ask the authors. Here is the latest drought monitor: And
that drought monitor predates the record-smashing heat wave now gripping the West. Back in 2004, Lisa Sloan, professor of Earth sciences at
UC Santa Cruz, and her graduate student Jacob Sewall published an article in Geophysical Research Letters, “Disappearing Arctic sea ice
reduces available water in the American west” (subs. req’d). As the news release at the time explained, they “used powerful computers
running a global climate model developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to simulate the effects of reduced Arctic
sea ice.” And “their most striking finding was a significant reduction in rain and snowfall in the American West”: Where the sea ice is reduced,
heat transfer from the ocean warms the atmosphere, resulting in a rising column of relatively warm air. The shift in storm tracks over North
America was linked to the formation of these columns of warmer air over areas of reduced sea ice in the Greenland Sea and a few other
locations, Sewall said. I contacted Sloan to ask her if she thought there was a connection between the staggering loss of Arctic sea ice and the
brutal drought gripping the West, as her research predicted. She wrote (back in late March): Yes, sadly, I think we were correct in
our
findings, and it will only be worse with Arctic sea ice diminishing quickly . California is currently in a
drought (as I watch every day — our reservoirs are at about 50% capacity right now, and I fear for the coming fire season,
owning a house that backs up to greenspace and forest). She directed me to her ex-student, now Assistant Professor of Geology at Kutztown
University of Pennsylvania because he had done some additional work. Sewall wrote me: I am attaching a more definitive study (multiple fully
dynamic models with greenhouse gas forcing) on the topic from 2005. The end result is about the same as the original 2004 study, just nailed
down better. Comparing current changes (2011 summer ice and 2011/2012 winter precipitation season) to the 2004 paper: (1) Ice
concentrations in August 2011 weren’t too far off from the ‘future’ in the 2004 paper. The “future” in the 2004 paper was 2050, so it seems we
are moving faster than predictions (which has been seen in multiple studies of Arctic sea ice). That is likely due to the relatively conservative
greenhouse gas scenarios that were used for the earlier IPCC assessments and associated simulations. Potentially the forthcoming AR5 will have
more accurate/realistic/extreme responses in Arctic ice. (2) Observed precipitation seems to be lower than in the 2004 simulations (50 – 70% of
‘normal’ in the Sierras vs ~85 – 90% of normal in the simulations) based on snowfall data from 2011/2012. (3) The pattern of wetter conditions
to the north of California is as predicted in the 2004 paper, Washington State reporting 107 – 126% of ‘normal’ precipitation, Southern Alaska
reporting 106 – 148% of ‘normal’ precipitation for 2011/2012. I think the hypothesis from 2004 and 2005 is being borne out by current changes.
The only real difference is that reality is moving faster then we though/hoped it would almost a decade ago. The “more definitive” study is
“Precipitation Shifts over Western North America as a Result of Declining Arctic Sea Ice Cover: The Coupled System Response” (available here).
That study found that “as
future reductions in Arctic sea ice cover take place, there will be a substantial
impact on water resources in western North America.” I asked NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth to comment on these findings and
he was concerned that using an artificially high CO2 level to get the models to explore what happens when Arctic sea ice collapses might
conflate the CO2 effect with the ice loss. He also added “Variations from year to year are quite large and depend hugely on ENSO in the west of
N America. You can not say whether they have come true at this point.” I asked Sewall for a reply to those comments and he wrote: Re. the
point that Kevin Trenberth raises below and your e-mail just now: I am quite confident that the
changes are due to the decline in
Arctic sea ice. The 2004 study did not alter CO2. The study was done with a prescribed decrease in Arctic sea ice cover (and a
corresponding increase in local sea surface temperatures to reflect “non-freezing” conditions). The climate response presented in the 2004
study is, thus, a clean response due only to the imposed decline in Arctic sea ice cover. In the 2005 study, I then moved to look at fully coupled
models where
the decline in Arctic sea ice cover was the result of warming temperatures , which were, in
turn, the result of elevated CO2. This is presumably the same response we are now seeing. Those coupled
simulations showed the same response in storm tracks and western precipitation that we had found earlier in the 2004 study. Kevin is correct
that if I had only looked at the coupled simulations, it would be very difficult to determine if the changes in rainfall were due to the CO2 or to
the Arctic ice reduction. However, because the 2004 study was a clean sensitivity study, I can confidently attribute the exact same changes seen
in the simulations I viewed in 2005 as being a direct result of the declining Arctic sea ice (and,thus, an indirect result of elevated CO2). Kevin is
also correct that variations
from year to year are large and that the impact of Arctic ice on storm tracks
varies significantly with ENSO state. (1) In unpublished work that a student of mine did, we found that under strong El Nino
conditions, Arctic ice concentration had less impact on storm tracks and precipitation in the west. Under more neutral (weak El Nino or weak La
Nina) conditions, Arctic sea ice had a larger impact on storm tracks and precipitation in the west. (2) Both the 2004 paper and the 2005 paper
present results as 50 year averages. This, to some extent, takes care of the annual variability issue and suggests that sum total changes on
climatic time scales will, indeed, result in dryer conditions in the west. (3) While neither study employed ensembles, the 2005 study looks at
seven different models (all with slightly different parameterizations, resolutions etc. so the effect is similar to that of a seven member
ensemble) and the response, in spite of differences between the models, shows declining sea ice and declining precipitation in the American
west with increases in precipitation from Oregon on northward. If indeed this research is being confirmed, it suggests that on average —
allowing for yearly variations due to ENSO — the West is going to become hotter and drier faster than people had expected.
Warming Bad – THE BIRDS
Birds are dying—Warming is throwing off migration and killing food sources
Katie Valentine 6/24/13 (Special Assistant for ThinkProgress. Graduated from the University of
Georgia. She interned with American Progress in the Energy department “Birds Highly Threatened By
Climate Change, Report Warns”. Climate Progress.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/24/2175741/birds-highly-threatened-by-climate-changereport-warns/)
That mismatch of migration time and food and habitat resources is what National Wildlife Federation scientists say is an unusually serious
threat to birds, whose reliance
on multiple habitats make them uniquely vulnerable to changing
temperatures. NWF released a report Tuesday that outlines what climate change means for birds and how their challenges, in turn, affect
people — in particular the $1.8 billion game bird hunting and $54 billion wildlife watching industries. The report notes that “changes in timing
and missed connections” are some of the key threats facing migratory birds as the climate warms. Migratory
birds depend on
certain triggers — often changes in daylight or weather, depending on the species — to know when to migrate, and count on
food sources being available to them when they arrive in their destination. In some places, springs are starting earlier — last
year’s spring was the earliest ever recorded in the U.S. — and in others, they’re starting later than ever. They’re also starting and stopping, with
warm weather followed by bitter cold, which can damage new growth on trees and plants and kill off
insects that have already hatched. Many of the insects and flowers that birds eat in the spring hatch and bloom
when the weather gets warm, so an early or false spring in one part of the world could mean birds arrive
in an area with nothing to eat, which could ultimately harm bird populations. Higher temperatures are jeopardizing birds’ food
sources as well. In Maine, thousands of Arctic tern chicks are starving to death, partly because warming oceans are driving the
fish their parents need to feed them to move to colder waters. Arctic terns have declined 40 percent over the last 10 years, according to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the changing climate is having an effect on the birds’ habitats. The NWF report found that, as temperatures have
increased over the past four decades, “177 of 305 species of birds tracked in North America have shifted their centers of abundance during
winter northward by 35 miles on average,” with some birds moving more than 100 miles northward.
Drought threatens to dry up
the habitat of birds who live in wetlands, sea level rise threatens coastal birds, and massive pest outbreaks, like the pine beetle,
are damaging the forests that many birds depend on to breed. Game birds, like the sage grouse, are particularly threatened by the increasing
frequency of wild fires, as well as diseases such as West Nile Virus, which are projected to expand into higher elevations as the climate warms.
Top level predators are key to human survival.
Bjorn Carey 7/19/2006 (LiveScience staff writer. Science Information Officer at Stanford University. “Top predators key to ecosystem
survival” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939039)
Top-level predators strike fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. But when a deer is being mauled by a wolf, at least it can know that it's
giving its life for the greater good. A
new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of
top predators be keeping populations of key species from growing too large . It also provides a
cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top predators from the food chain, setting
off an eventual collapse. The study is detailed in the July 20 issue of the journal Nature. The researchers studied eight natural food
webs, each with distinct energy channels, or food chains, leading from the bottom of the web to the top. For example, the Cantabrian Sea shelf
off the coast of Spain has two distinct energy channels. One starts with the phytoplankton in the water, which are eaten by zooplankton and
fish, and so on up to what are called top consumer fish. The second channel starts with detritus that sinks to the sea floor, where it's consumed
by crabs and bottom-dwelling fish, which are consumed by higher-up animals until the food energy reaches top-level consumers. The top
predators play their role by happily munching away at each channel's top consumers, explained study leader Neil Rooney of the University of
Guelph in Canada. "Top
predators are kind of like the regulators of the food web—they keep each
energy channel in check," Rooney told LiveScience. "The top predator goes back and forth between the channels like a game of
Whac-a-Mole," a popular arcade game in which constantly appearing moles are smacked down with a mallet. Constant predation of the top
Boom or bust Removing a top
predator can often alter the gentle balance of an entire ecosystem. Here's an example of what can happen:
consumers prevents a population from growing larger than the system can support.
When an area floods permanently and creates a series of islands, not all the islands have enough resources to support top predators. Top
consumers are left to gobble up nutrients and experience a reproductive boom. The boom is felt throughout the system, though, as
the
booming species out-competes others, potentially driving the lesser species to extinction and
reducing biodiversity. Rooney refers to this type of ecosystem change as a "boom-and-bust cycle," when one species' population
boom ultimately means another will bust. Bigger booms increased chances of a bust. “With each bust, the population gets very close to zero,
and its difficult getting back," he said. Human role in 'boom-and-bust' Humans often play a role in initiating boom-and-bust cycles by wiping out
the top predator.s For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearing forest
critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food. Or, more recently,
researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While jellyfish have few predators,
removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on. Ecosystems
provide us with the food we
eat and help produce breathable air and clean water . But they're generally fragile and operate best when at a
stable equilibrium, scientists say. "These are our life support systems," Rooney said. "We're relying on them.
This study points to the importance of top predators and that we need to be careful with how
we deal with them."
AT: Warming Good – CO2
Warming straight turns agriculture—as CO2 increases crop destruction accelerates
Empson ‘13 Martin Empson, “Climate change: it’s even worse than we thought,” International
Socialism, Issue 137, 1/9/2013, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=873&issue=137
Weather and climate As the world warms extreme weather events will become more common. The world’s
weather will also become even more unpredictable. Hurricane Sandy is a poignant reminder of what this might mean in
the future. It is very difficult, though not always impossible, to link a particular weather event to global warming. So we cannot say with any
certainty that Sandy was directly linked to climate change. But again trends are that extreme weather is getting more common: Work by
researchers from Taiwan and China found that the increase
in rainfall intensity over the past three decades has been
an entire order of magnitude greater than global climate models predict. As for extraordinary
heatwaves such as those in Europe in 2003 and 2010, events so far from the norm were only projected
to occur towards the end of this century.4 In 2012 the US saw its worst and most widespread drought
since the mid-1950s. In July around 80 percent of the country was considered “abnormally dry”.5 The US
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration reported that “June 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive June
and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average”.6 The US
drought destroyed crops across extensive areas of the US. This has helped to increase prices of food,
though climate change is only exacerbating a problem caused by banks and multinationals speculating in food prices. But as climate change
causes crops to fail possible price rises make price speculation even more attractive to companies and banks. Early
climate models,
including those used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) discussed below, tended to predict
that some global warming would be good for crop yields. Higher levels of carbon dioxide can act as a fertiliser for plants
in some conditions. In 2007 the IPCC predicted that yields of crops would increase unless warming exceeded 3.5°C, when they would drop.
While scientists are still debating the exact impact of global warming on agriculture, some
studies show that the IPCC were
over-optimistic in their predictions. A 2011 study from Stanford University “looked at global
production of wheat, maize, rice and soybeans—crops that provide three quarters of humanity’s
calories—from 1980 to 2008. Based on what we know about how temperature, rainfall and CO2 levels
affect growth, the analysis suggests that average yields are now more than 1 percent lower than they
would have been with no warming. Without the fertilising effect of increased CO2, they would have been 3 percent lower”.7 As
the world warms, dry regions are likely to become drier, making it harder to irrigate crops. Extreme
and unpredictable weather will cause more and more failures. The future for the world’s farmers is
likely to be much harder. In particular, those working family farms or smallholdings are less likely to be able to survive the financial
crises caused by failed crops.
Benefits of fertilization are overstated and warming straight turns
Stern ‘7 Nicholas Stern, Head of the British Government Economic Service , Former Head Economist
for the World Bank, I.G. Patel Chair at the London School of Economics and Political Science, “The
Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review”, The report of a team commissioned by the British
Government to study the economics of climate change led by Siobhan Peters, Head of G8 and
International Climate Change Policy Unit, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 70
Carbon dioxide is a basic building block for crop growth. Rising concentrations in the atmosphere will have benefits on agriculture – both by
stimulating photosynthesis and decreasing water requirements (by adjusting the size of the pores in the leaves). But the extent to which crops
respond depends on their physiology and other prevailing conditions (water availability, nutrient availability, pests and diseases). Until
recently, research suggested that the positive benefits of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
might compensate for the negative effects of rising mean temperatures (namely shorter growing season and
reduced yields). Most crop models have been based on hundreds of experiments in greenhouses and fieldchambers dating back decades, which suggest that crop yields will increase by 20 – 30% at 550 ppm carbon dioxide. Even maize,
which uses a different system for photosynthesis and does not respond to the direct effects of carbon dioxide, shows increases of 18 – 25% in
greenhouse conditions due to improved efficiency of water use. But
new analysis by Long et al. (2006) showed that the highend estimates were largely based on studies of crops grown in greenhouses or field chambers,
whereas analysis of studies of crops grown in near-field conditions suggest that the benefits of carbon
dioxide may be significantly less – an 8 – 15% increase in yield for a doubling of carbon dioxide for
responsive species (wheat, rice, soybean) and no significant increase for non-responsive species (maize,
sorghum). These new findings may have very significant consequences for current predictions about
impacts of climate change on agriculture. Parry et al. (2004) examined the impacts of increasing global temperatures on cereal
production and found that significant global declines in productivity could occur if the carbon fertilisation is
small (figures below). Regardless of the strength of the carbon fertilisation effect, higher temperatures are
likely to become increasingly damaging to crops, as droughts intensify and critical temperature
thresholds for crop production are reached more often.
Climate change halts photosynthesis
Brown ‘8 Lester E. Brown, Director and Founder of the global institute of Environment in the U.S.,
“Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization” 2008
Higher temperatures can reduce or even halt photosynthesis, prevent pollination, and lead to crop
dehydration. Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric C02 that raise temperature can
also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the C02
fertilization effect for the major crops. In a study of local ecosystem sustainability, Mohan Wali and his colleagues at Ohio State
University noted that as temperature rises, photosynthetic activity in plants increases until the temperature
reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). The rate of photosynthesis then plateaus until the
temperature hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees Celsius (104
degrees Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely '? The most vulnerable part of a plant's life cycle is the pollination period. Of the
world's three food staples-rice, wheat, and corn-corn is particularly vulnerable. In order for corn to reproduce, pollen must fall from
the tassel to the strands of silk that emerge from the end of each ear of corn. Each of these silk strands is attached to a kernel site on the cob. If
the kernel is to develop, a grain of pollen must fall on the silk strand and then journey to the kernel site. When temperatures are uncommonly
The effects of temperature
on rice pollination have been studied in detail in the Philippines. Scientists there report that the
pollination of rice falls from 100 percent at 34 degrees Celsius to near zero at 40 degrees Celsius, leading to
crop failure.IR ''
high, the silk strands quickly dry out and turn brown, unable to play their role in the fertilization process.
CO2 kills oceans
Geoffery Lean, Environmental Editor of the Independent, The Independent, 1 August 2004, lexis
The world's oceans are sacrificing themselves to try to stave off global warming, a major international research programme has
discovered. Their waters have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities over the past
two centuries, the 15-year study has found. Without this moderating effect, climate change would have been much more rapid and severe.
But in the process the seas have become more acid, threatening their very life. The research warns
that this could kill off their coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all marine life depends. News of
the alarming conclusions of the research - headed by US government scientists - follows the discovery, reported in Friday's Independent, of a
catastrophic failure of North Sea birds to breed this summer, thought to be the result of global warming. The disaster - forecast in The
Independent on Sunday last October - appears to have been caused by plankton moving hundreds of miles to the north to escape from an
unprecedented warming on the sea's waters. Sand eels - millions of which normally provide the staple diet of many seabirds and large fish have disappeared, because they, in turn, depend on the plankton. The
new study warns of an even more alarming
collapse throughout the world's oceans if climate change continues. It is the result of a mammoth research effort,
which has taken and analysed 72,000 samples of seawater from 10,000 different places in the oceans since 1989. Led by scientists working for
the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, it has also involved teams of researchers from Australia, Canada, Spain,
Japan, South Korea and Germany. It has discovered, for the first time, that the seas and oceans have soaked up almost half of all human
emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, since the start of the Industrial Revolution. By doing so they have greatly
slowed climate change, and almost certainly prevented it from already causing catastrophe. "The oceans are performing this tremendous
service to humankind by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," says Dr Christopher Sabine, one of the leaders of the
research. But, he adds, this is coming at a great cost because the act of salvage "is changing the chemistry of the oceans". The research
concludes that "dramatic changes", such as have not occurred for at least 20 million years, now appear to be under way. They could have
"significant impacts on the biological systems of the oceans in ways that we are only beginning to understand". As the water naturally absorbs
carbon dioxide from the air, it forms carbonic acid. And the acid then mops up calcium carbonate, a substance normally plentiful in the oceans
that sea creatures use to make the protective shells that they need to survive. The scientists say that if
the world goes on producing
more and more carbon dioxide, this shell formation will become increasingly difficult, while the world will
heat up anyway. The results are incalculable, because so may shelled creatures live in the seas, ranging from clams
and corals to the plankton and other tiny creatures that form the base of the entire food chain of the
oceans. The surface waters and upper 10 per cent of the oceans - which contain most of the life - are the most acidic, the research shows.
The acidity also varies around the world. The North Atlantic - the nearest ocean to the world's most polluting countries, is the most affected;
the southern ocean that encircles Antarctica the least. When the scientists took a species of snail from the relatively unpolluted waters of the
far north of the Pacific, near the Arctic Circle, and put it in seawater with carbon dioxide levels similar to those found elsewhere, the animals'
shells began to dissolve. Dr Peter Brewer, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute - who was not himself involved in the research calls the results "a wake-up call". He adds: "The numbers are crystal clear. The analysis is impeccable. There is no uncertainty about this. These
impacts of a high carbon dioxide ocean are real, and are measurable today." The research also explodes a heavily touted "solution" to global
warming. Critics of international action, including members of the Bush administration, say that there is little need to curb carbon dioxide
emissions because the gas could be collected and injected into the oceans for disposal. However, the study shows that this cure could be even
worse than the disease.
Extinction
Robin Kundis Craig, associate professor of law at Indiana University School of Law, “Taking Steps
Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,”
Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, lexis
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable .
"Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food;
marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including
carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and
economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the
ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis
of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological
cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been
calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the
ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21
AT: Warming Good – SO2 Screw
The cooling effect is temporary
Monastersky ’91 Wigley, of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England [Richard, Staff writer for
Business Net News, “CO2 limits may initially worsen warming - carbon dioxide and global warming”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n7_v139/ai_10381518]
Policies designed to control fossil-fuel emissions might temporarily hasten the greenhouse warming
before ultimately limiting the global temperature rise, according to calculations by climate researcher
Tom Wigley. Yet that possibility should not deter efforts to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he says.
Wigley, of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, says the real message of his findings is that success will not come easily. "It might
take decades for even a strong policy to produce some noticeable response," he says. More Articles of Interest Polluted dust storms reduce
global warming Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power
Act - Brief Article Sulfur-climate link called insignificant Releasing Sulfur to the Atmosphere Could Counter Global Warming Related Results
Polluted dust storms reduce global warming Greenhouse gases Warming hysteria.(LETTERS) Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate
Environment Committee plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power Act - Brief Article advertisement Wigley's calculations
spotlight a highly uncertain arena in climate-change scenarios: the influence of sulfur dioxide (SN: 8/25/90, p.118). Like carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. But while carbon dioxide gas traps heat, sulfur
dioxide turns into tiny
sulfate droplets that reflect sunlight back toward space. These sulfate "aerosols" also cool the Earth's
surface indirectly by making clouds more reflective. Scientists don't know the strength of such cooling
effects, especially the effect on clouds. But if sulfate aerosols have an important influence, policies that limit fossilfuel use would exert two opposing forces on the climate by reducing emissions of both the warning
gas and the cooling gas. To investigate the outcome of that tug-of-war, Wigley calculated how various pollution
controls would affect the carbon dioxide "forcing" and the sulfate aerosol "forcing." His study,
detailed in the Feb. 7 NATURE, represents the first attempt to quantify the impact of both direct and
indirect aerosol effects. Because carbon forcing appears to dominate aerosol forcing, a policy that
cuts emissions would eventually limit a temperature rise. But Wigley found that the aerosol effect would
delay the climate's response to any emissions control strategy and would reduce the overall
effectiveness of such policies. Since the cooling power of sulfate aerosols remains unknown, Wigley tested
a range of cases. In a scenario where aerosols exerted considerable effect, fossil-fuel limitations enhanced greenhouse warming for more
than three decades before beginning to slow the temperature rise. That's because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere
for more than 100 years, while aerosols fall out within days. Thus, controls would rapidly reduce the
aerosol cooling, and only later begin to curb the carbon dioxide warming, he found. Although the sulfate
aerosol effect might appear to represent an ameliorating force, "it cannot be considered to be a good
thing," Wigley maintains. Because industrial centers in the Northern Hemisphere produce the most sulfur pollution, the aerosol
effect could throw the world's climate off balance by cooling the north more than the south. Although this might limit an increase in average
global temperatures, the hemispheric imbalance could significantly alter weather patterns around the world, possibly producing a situation "as
severe as what we might be heading for with the plain greenhouse effect," says Wigley. Atmospheric scientist Robert J. Charlson agrees. "It
would be a fundamental mistake to think that the aerosols in any way balance the greenhouse
forcing," he says. Charlson, of the University of Washington in Seattle, views aerosol's influence on clouds as a priority for future climate
research. Investigators must study not only pollution-generated aerosols but also natural ones, he says. Wigley adds, however, that
unanswered questions about aerosols should not hold up negotiations on an international climate treaty, which formally began in Chantilly, Va.,
last week. Rather, he says, "the possible effects of fossil-fuel-derived sulfate aerosols should be seen as further reason for implementing
controls on fossil-fuel use."
Their impacts are inevitable
Zimbio.com ‘7 Dec 2007, “Acid Rain –a By Product of Global Warming?”
http://www.zimbio.com/Acid+Deposition/articles/3/Acid+Rain+Product+Global+Warming
Acid rain: two words that is not very pretty. Instead of the romantic rain that most us would like to imagine, acid rain brings to mind frightening
images of a future wrought with pollution and other problems. But what is acid rain and what is it caused by? And is
acid rain really a
by-product of global warming? The short answer is both yes and no. Acid rain has causes that are rooted both in
nature and in the human activity that is causing the effects of global warming to become more pronounced. In scientific terms, acid rain refers
to any kind of precipitation, including mist, snow, fog, and of course, rain, that is more acidic than normal. Most rain is naturally a bit acidic, but
acid rain contains an above average level of acid in it. Generally speaking, acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
that react with hydroxyl radicals and water vapor that exist in many industrial environments. When this combination exists, the acid rain may
come down as either dry acid deposition or, when it is mixed with water, it is known as acid rain. What is most acid rain composed of? Acid rain
as it falls in the eastern part of North America and parts of Europe are composed mostly of sulfuric acid ad nitric acid. How do these things
make up acid rain? Acid
rain generally occurs when the burning of fuels produce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. These different oxides get into our atmosphere because of both natural environmental activity as
well as human activity. When these oxides reach the troposphere, they become oxidized by the
hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere that then break down the oxides into sulfuric and nitric acids. These
acids will usually break down readily into water that is then brought down in the form of precipitation, or acid rain. So is acid rain a by-product
of global warming? It is not so simple. Many
natural sources are also a part of acid rain. Many tons of sulfur is
released into the earth’s atmosphere each year from natural sources, including volcano eruptions,
microbial processes, and sea sprays. Nitrogen oxides are also released into the earth’s atmosphere in
a natural manner, including from burning, lightning, the burning of biomass, and many microbial
processes.
Warming overwhelms
Dannevik ’96 William Dannevik, Atmospheric Sciences Division leader, a position he has held since
1995. He came to Lawrence Livermore in 1988, as a member of the A-Division code group; “Assessing
Humanity’s Impact on Global Climate” 1996, https://www.llnl.gov/str/Dannevik.html
In recent years, we have been addressing the apparent disparity between the GCM predictions of global warming and the observational record.
According to the models, greenhouse gases such as CO2 should have raised average temperatures
worldwide by 1°C during the past 100 years. Instead, temperatures climbed by about only half a
degree, as shown in Figure 1. One hypothesis to explain the disparity states that atmospheric sulfate aerosols might partially offset the
effects of greenhouse gases. Suspended in the atmosphere, these micrometer-size particles tend to cool the Earth by
scattering sunlight back into space. The aerosols result from photochemical reactions of sulfur dioxide
emitted into the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels. To test that hypothesis, we developed the world's
first global chemistry-climate model. This model involved combining three others: (1) the LLNL version of an atmospheric model
developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research for use by the global climate research community, (2) a simple ocean model that
represents conditions of the ocean's upper layers (within 50 meters from the surface), and (3) the GRANTOUR tropospheric chemistry model
developed at Livermore. GRANTOUR simulates the transport, transformation, and removal of various sulfur species in the troposphere (lowest
10 to 20 kilometers of the atmosphere). It was needed for predicting the formation of sulfate aerosols from sulfur dioxide gas released into the
atmosphere. We
used the chemistry-climate model in a series of experiments that were the first attempt
to simulate how temperatures are affected by combinations of carbon dioxide and sulfate aerosols.4
Numerical integrations began with a control run using the pre-industrial CO2 level and no sulfur emissions. Next, we ran an
experiment to simulate CO2 increased to the present-day carbon dioxide level and examined the
difference in temperature compared to the control run (Figure 2a). The next run combined CO2 and
sulfate aerosols, and again we considered the difference compared to the control run (Figure 2b). These two
sets of results can be compared to the observed temperature changes. Figure 2c depicts the difference between temperature data taken in
1948 and 1988. The run depicted in Figure 2b, which included both CO2 and sulfur emissions, predicted results much closer to the temperature
difference map, which is based on observations. These results showed that the sulfate aerosols offset CO2-induced warming and could even
produce net cooling in regions of the Northern Hemisphere where sulfur emissions are highest.4 Follow-up statistical studies found that the
patterns of climate change resulting from both greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols are a closer match to actual observed temperatures than
patterns of change predicted by models that only include greenhouse gases.5,6These Laboratory results are included in a United Nations report
prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.3 That report,
written by dozens of internationally
prominent scientists including several from Lawrence Livermore, contains the most recent modelgenerated predictions of temperature change to the year 2100 (an increase between 1 and 3.5°C) and
includes the presence of both sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases. The sulfate aerosols counteract
global warming to some extent; however, the potential warming that the report describes may still be
significant enough to pose a threat to human economies and natural ecosystems. Also, it is important to note
that greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere far longer than sulfate aerosols, and thus their effects
would dominate even more if present sulfur and greenhouse emission rates continue.
Solves Solar Power
Massive potential for Mexican solar power industry
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Solar energy is undeniably the energy source of the future, with massive and inexhaustible supplies of
solar radiation hitting the planet each and every day. Until now, though, this has remained a largely
untapped resource by energy utilities due to the high cost of installing photovoltaic and/or solar
thermal generation facilities. Recently, however, government and public concerns over climate change and
the possibilities for mitigation have spurred countries to make solar energy more competitive with
conventional energy sources and with other renewables through the application of generous
subsidies. Current developments in Europe, the United States and China bear testimony to this
tendency, with the construction of giant solar energy facilities and heavy investment in the development of new and improved
technologies. To date, Mexico has not been an important participant in this tendency. Despite the
country’s geographic location within the world’s most important sun-belt (between 150 N and 35o N), and
knowledge that large parts of the country receive enough solar irradiation to make solar power
generation economically viable, governmental policy and businesses have, until recently, focused on
other areas of renewable energy development. One of the main reasons for this neglect is that the
cost structure of solar photovoltaics (PV) has made generation prohibitively expensive without the
application of subsidies or feed- in tariffs, and the Mexican government has been unwilling to legislate
the provision of such support. This is not to say that the Mexican federal and state-level governments have not recognized the
importance of solar power. The Federal government has frequently referred to estimates showing that, assuming an efficiency factor of 15%
from solar PV, a 650 km2 area of either Sonora or Chihuahua covered in photovoltaic (PV) panels would generate sufficient electricity to satisfy
national demand. A
2009 government-sponsored study estimated that “one should regard the fact that a
mere 0.06% of the Mexican national territory would be sufficient to generate the overall electricity
consumption of Mexico by the means of photovoltaic, assuming the consumption data of the year
2005” and argued that, despite minimal development of the resource to date, there was the prospect
of rapid and large scale growth in the near future if the costs of installing PV panels came down due to
technological advances.7 Other studies have shown that Mexico’s potential for generating electricity
from solar PV, measured in terms of kilowatt hours per meter squared (kWhr/m2 ) is around twice as high as that in
countries such as Germany, which has been a global leader in solar PV development.
Solves Wind Power
Plan massively increases use of wind power – high potential now – but improving
cooperation and transmission infrastructure is key
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Mexico is on the verge of experiencing a second boom in wind energy development, this time in the north of
the country. The research findings highlight the enormous potential of, and growing interest in the impressive
wind resources in Tamaulipas, Nuevo León and Baja California. With the right management, effective
public policies and large-scale investment, Mexico’s border region stands to benefit from wind energy
development at a level similar to what has been seen in Texas over the last decade. One area that is
commonly discussed is the potential for exporting wind energy to the United States. This will indeed be a
significant driver for the industry in Baja California, but other Mexican border states are unlikely to benefit to the same degree due to Texas’s
impressive domestic wind energy industry. In
order to make wind energy exports come to fruition, the crucial
question of transmission must be resolved. At the time of writing, there is insufficient capacity in
cross-border transmission lines, and a seeming lack of political will on the part of the federal governments in the United States and
Mexico to move forward with an agenda to address the problem. A largely stagnant bilateral dialogue on the issue, through
the Cross-Border Electricity Task Force, has failed to produce meaningful results and requires a new injection of energy to reboot its efforts. In the interim, one company, Sempra, has decided to go ahead and build its own private transmission line to transport
electrons from its wind plant currently under construction in the La Rumorosa region. This line will be sufficient to carry the electricity
generated from that plant, but will not be open to other IPPs. This
sub-optimal solution is not the way to proceed for
future wind energy export projects, as it would result in duplication of resources and inefficient
allocation of investment capital and other resources. Large-scale transmission capacity is required to
take advantage of California’s need for renewable energy, and this means that the CFE must sign on as
a central partner. Both in Baja California and other border states, however, the main driver for wind energy development will come from
domestic demand as IPPs sign contracts with private companies and public authorities to sell green electricity at substantial cost savings. The
CFE’s pricing structure means that, for both public and private consumers, wind energy from IPPs in Mexico is more cost-effective than
traditional energy sources, even without the application of a subsidy. Demand
from municipal governments and large
industrial consumers is growing, and will continue to provide an expanding market for electricity from
wind farms. Here again, the question of transmission is key. Major wind projects in Baja California and
Tamaulipas will benefit from the security of knowing that transmission capacity will be provided by
the CFE. The recent use of “open seasons” in determining demand for transmission has been effective in providing certainty for investors
and for the CFE itself, which in turn justifies (for the CFE) and guarantees (for the IPPs) financing. The prospects for employment
from wind energy development are also tantalizing. In the projects that are already operating or
under construction, hundreds of jobs have been created in the construction phase and a small number
of high quality permanent jobs (around 3–5 per 10 MW of installed capacity) have left a permanent imprint on
labor markets. The border states have thousands of megawatts of potential wind development
(Tamaulipas, for instance, projects that almost 2000 MW will be developed in the next decade), meaning there exists the
potential for many thousands of construction jobs, as well as hundreds or thousands of permanent
positions in the operation, management and servicing of wind plants. It is vital to recognize that in
both the construction and operational phases of wind farm development, skilled and white-collar
positions are created in the technological, consulting, financing and legal aspects of the projects.
Smart Grids Good
Smart grid tech solves warming, green tech, economy
Silverstein 13 Ken Silverstein, editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider, covering
economic and policy angles within the energy sphere, column was named best online column by Media
Industry News (MIN) in 2011 and has been presented the Gold for Original Web Commentary by the
American Society of Business Press Editors in 2012, “Smart Grid May be Shortest Route to Obama's
Green Energy Goals,” Forbes, 1/23/2013,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2013/01/23/smart-grid-may-be-shortest-route-to-obamasgreen-energy-goals/
A smart grid could have profound implications on electric power markets, affecting the whole utility
supply chain — from the way power is generated to the way it is delivered to customers, and
ultimately how much energy is consumed. At the moment, though, consumers lack an understanding of the technology’s
potential, which has deterred its development. That’s why some experts are saying that state regulators must lead the way by providing
financial incentives to power companies, which will then try to entice their customers to participate. The smart grid’s relevance is becoming
increasingly clear as Congress grapples with the role that renewable energy will play. It will also be an integral part of any climate mitigation
strategies and energy efficiency goals to emerge from Congress. Indeed, the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., says that
deployment of a highly automated system could severely cut carbon dioxide releases and at the same
time limit electricity consumption by reducing sales by 1.2 to 4.3 percent by 2030. For their part, state utility
commissioners, generally, feel that they must exercise restraint: Rushing headlong into something that is unproven and expensive is imprudent.
Their concern is that smart meters that can facilitate energy conservation have yet to bear fruit. And if those meters are unable to do so, then it
would be consumers who pay the price for any failures. Kurt Yeager, vice chairman of the Galvin Electricity Initiative in California, disagrees with
that apprehension and says that regulators
hold the keys to progress. Utilities profit on the amount of
electricity they sell. Instead, they should be rewarded on the quality of service they provide, he says. To that
end, smart meters provide the price signals to consumers to tell them when to cut their energy usage.
The technologies are already working and would only improve as more technology providers jump in.
But those utilities with monopolies over their electricity markets are reluctant to evolve, meaning that today’s innovators are being shunned
away, says Yeager, who adds for
every dollar spent on the smart grid, $4 or $5 is returned. That’s not just from
the marginal savings of electricity. It’s also from job growth and productivity.
Smart grids solve blackouts
Niiler ’12 Eric Niiler, “Could A Smart Grid Curb Blackouts?” NBC, 7/31/2012,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48057487/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.USVK8aVfEmk
One solution is to make power locally produced. The idea is to combine small-scale power generation with bigger
batteries inside the home as a way of weaning your house off the electric grid. That scenario could be
a more reliable and quieter back-up system than a firing up a diesel generator when the lights go out,
according to Bob Gohn, vice president of research for Boulder-based Pike Research. “There’s no magic technology that’s going to allow us to
transmit power wirelessly,” said Gohn. “But there
is a future with greater distributed power that is more independent,
having your own power generation or with solar or gas power plants, and using storage systems to run your home for a while.” Some
communities are already experimenting with home-powered electric storage systems that combine solar panels, electrical
vehicles and smart- metering technology to allow homeowners greater freedom from utility grids. Austin, Sacramento and Portland are all
working on such pilot projects. Solar cells generate power, which is stored in EV, which is then used to power home appliances in case of
emergency. “You may not run your entire house,” Gohn said. “But you could keep your refrigerator going for a while." The so-called "smart
grid” has been touted as a way for utilities to take advantage of wireless technology and more
advanced software systems to allow them to get a better handle on outages and to reroute power
around problem areas. In the outage this weekend in the Mid-Atlantic states, smart meters provided power
companies data about which houses are out without owners having to call in. Many of these wireless smart meters have been
installed in just the past few months.
Smart grids key to rapid recovery from grid failure
Goldsmith ’12 STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School, “How
a Smart Grid Can Get the Lights Back on Faster,” Governing, 11/16/2012,
http://www.governing.com/blogs/bfc/col-smart-grid-meters-electricity-outage-hurricane-sandy.html
Yet the storm teaches us that the best way to plan for the truly unexpected will be by being prepared to to
improvise and by understanding that resilience in times of disaster isn't determined only by a static
disaster plan but to a greater degree by being dynamic and responsive to change. Being dynamic
requires real-time data. Recent technologies are beginning to provide more access to more data,
allowing analytics to find the patterns fast enough to make it useful during a disaster. Smart grids , and
particularly smart electric meters, played a promising role in improving disaster response and the speed with
which power could be restored after Sandy passed. That role was small-scale and local, since electric
utilities' conversion to smart-grid technology has been slower and spottier than desired, but the
potential is there for the technology to have a much larger impact as these systems are rolled out
more widely. At best, phone calls and spotty service-outage reports can slowly piece together a hazy picture of the conditions of a power
network. But smart meters, programmed to send out a "last call of distress" when power is lost, can
automatically report service cuts. This gives a utility company instant access to regional maps of
outages, allowing it to prioritize repair-crew mobilization and begin getting service back to customers
without them even having to report an outage. Smart meters also can help identify the locations of
particularly tricky "nested" outages, when more than one break is affecting an area. Additionally, smart
meters can automatically report getting back on line when power is restored, eliminating unnecessary
calls between the utility company and customers or follow-up service-crew visits. Repair crews can move on to the next repair
rather than spending time checking on their last one, increasing efficiency and reducing system repair time
considerably.
Economy
US Key
US is key to Mexican growth
Wolff ‘8 Rick, is Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. US Economic Slide
Threatens Mexico by Rick Wolff http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/wolff010908.html BSH
Deteriorating economic and social conditions in Mexico have generated mounting social problems.
Private enterprises in Mexico and the government they control cannot manage, let alone solve them. Huge
demonstrations are rocking the country with more to come. One chief cause of Mexico's problems is the turmoil and decline
in the US economy. Rising US unemployment lessens its appeal for poor Mexicans seeking to escape
their country's gross economic inequalities and lack of opportunity for a decent life. Cash that
Mexican immigrants in the US send back to their families -- "remittances" is its formal name -- has stopped growing
and begun a significant decline. What were major offsets to Mexico's disastrous economic conditions -sending able-bodied workers out of the country and then siphoning part of their US earnings back into it -- have changed into their
opposites: threats to destabilize Mexican society. For many years, the US official policy towards Mexico
was based on choosing between Mexican economic and social instability and allowing Mexican
immigration into the US. Republicans and Democrats alike consistently chose immigration. It solved
the economic problems of a Mexican capitalism that was and remains extremely unjust in its distributions of
wealth, income, and well-being and extremely inefficient in utilizing its labor force. First, migration to the US gave
desperate Mexicans, and especially men, a way to escape that country's failure to provide decent jobs or
incomes to millions of its citizens. Mexico thus exported what might otherwise have become a politically dangerous mass
critical of Mexican capitalism. Second, it generated those remittances back into Mexico that kept afloat an
economy that would otherwise have provoked social unrest and revolutionary movements among those
unable or unwilling to emigrate to the US. Both mass emigration and massive remittances kept the Mexican economic
disaster from becoming an active social crisis on the US border. Immigration likewise suited US
businesses by providing millions of new workers (especially those immigrants fearful about their illegal status) willing to
accept lower wages and benefits than were the US norm. All sorts of gains accrued to US employers of Mexican
immigrants (in agriculture, construction, retail, and beyond). Vast profits were made by the US financial companies
through whom Mexican immigrants sent their remittances home. A recent World Bank report found that
banks and other agencies (such as Western Union) charged an average of 4 to 8 per cent of each remittance
as payment for transferring the money from the US to Mexico (a trivial and nearly costless electronic transfer process).
Such employers made sure that anti-Mexican immigrant policies were never effective. There were the usual hyped public
relations gestures by politicians pandering to US movements against Latino immigration. However,
business interests, the immigrant communities themselves, and liberal groups prevailed against those
movements. The inflow of Mexican immigrants and the outflow of remittances to Mexico were not stopped by political means. It has
been US capitalism's credit meltdown and its consequences that have changed the economic links
between Mexico and the US. The dependence of Mexico's extremely unequal capitalism on emigration and
remittances is stark. In the most thorough study to date, the World Bank's Raul Hernandez-Coss found that in 2003, remittances
were a much larger inflow of money into Mexico than both total tourist expenditures inside Mexico
and total foreign direct investment in Mexico. That has remained the case through 2007. Only oil and other
exports brought in more money. And the prospects for Mexico's future oil production are declining while those for many other Mexican exports
are being dimmed by devastating competition from Chinese and other Asian exports. Remittances
grew many times faster -Mexico over the last decade, thus becoming an ever more
important support for an otherwise increasingly dysfunctional economy. The consensus estimate of researchers is
peaking at $24 billion in 2006 -- than gross domestic product in
that 20 per cent of Mexican families -- many among the nation's poorest -- now depend significantly on remittances for their basic incomes.
Since many transfers are made through illegal and other channels not counted by the gatherers of statistics, it is
certain that all official estimates are in fact underestimates of the actual remittance flows and their
importance. On July 30, 2008, the Mexican central bank reported a 3 per cent drop in remittances this year.
As jobs shrink in the US economy -- initially in the construction and housing industries and then spreading to the retail and other
industries that employ many Mexican immigrants -- immigration into the US is slowing and remittance flows to
Mexico will shrink further. Either alone is a threat to Mexico; both together may explode its economy and society. Already the
signs of explosion are proliferating. Drug traffic and the vast network of employment opportunities it
generates in Mexico are growing far faster than the Mexican government can manage. Crime is so
widespread and the corruption it generates is so deeply entrenched among business leaders and government agencies
that mass demonstrations demand increasingly basic change just when economic flows steadily
worsen Mexico's social situation. Globalized capitalism is a chain as strong as its weakest link. The
economic crisis that began with the subprime mortgage collapse in the US has since spread via the
globalized credit and trade system to the rest of the world. Its terrible economic and social costs and
consequences will soon expose the currently weakest links in the chain. Mexico may prove to be one
of them.
Mexican Growth Good
Economic growth is key to prevent large-scale instability in Mexico
Barnes ’11 Joe Barnes, Bonner Means Baker Fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
at Rice University, “Oil and U.S.-Mexico Bilaterial Relations,” April 2011,
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-BarnesBilateral-04292011.pdf
In summary, the slow decline of Mexican oil production, in and of itself, is unlikely to have a dramatic impact on international
petroleum markets or prompt any dramatic response from the United States. There is, however, one set of circumstances which this decline
would capture Washington’s attention. That is the extent to which it contributes to significant instability in
Mexico. There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability in Mexico. As noted, the
country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the Mexican government
eventually succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be expensive,
bloody, and corrosive
in terms of human rights. A
period of feeble economic growth, combined with a fiscal
crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex, could create a “ perfect storm ” south of the
border. If this were to occur, Washington would have no choice but to respond. In the longer-term, the United States has a clear
interest in robust economic growth and fiscal sustainability in Mexico.34 There is at least one major example of the
U.S. coming to Mexico’s aid in an economic emergency. In 1994, the United States extended US$20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico when
the peso collapsed, in large part to make U.S. creditors whole.35 Not least, a
healthy Mexican economy would reduce the
flow of illegal immigration to the United States. To the extent that prospects for such growth and sustainability are
enhanced by reform of Pemex, the United States should be supportive. It might be best, in terms of U.S. economic and commercial interests,
were Pemex to be fully privatized, but even partial reforms would be welcome. Not all national oil companies are created equal: Pemex’s
development into something like Norway’s Statol would mark an important improvement.36
Terrorism IL
High risk of cross-border WMD terror
McCaul ’12 REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL T. McCAUL, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT,
“Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence and Terror at the Southwest Border,” ONE HUNDRED
TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, November 2012,
http://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=725796&advanced=advanced
Terrorism remains a serious threat to the security of the United States. The Congressional Research Service
reports that between September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 homegrown violent jihadist plots within the United States. Of
growing concern and potentially a more violent threat to American citizens is the enhanced ability of
Middle East terrorist organizations, aided by their relationships and growing presence in the Western
Hemisphere, to exploit the Southwest border to enter the United States undetected. This second edition
emphasizes America’s ever-present threat from Middle East terrorist networks, their increasing presence in Latin America, and the growing
relationship with Mexican DTOs [Drug Trafficking Organizations] to exploit paths into the United States. During the period of May 2009 through
July 2011, federal law enforcement made 29 arrests for violent terrorist plots against the United States, most with ties to terror networks or
Muslim extremist groups in the Middle East. The
vast majority of the suspects had either connections to special
interest countries, including those deemed as state sponsors of terrorism or were radicalized by
terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. American-born al Qaeda Imam Anwar al Awlaki, killed in 2011, was personally responsible for
radicalizing scores of Muslim extremists around the world. The list includes American-born U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, the accused Fort
Hood gunman; “underwear bomber” Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab; and Barry Bujol of Hempstead, TX, convicted of providing material support to
al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In
several documented cases, al Awlaki moved his followers to commit
“jihad” against the United States. These instances, combined with recent events involving the Qods
Forces, the terrorist arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Hezbollah, serve as a stark
reminder the United States remains in the crosshairs of terrorist organizations and their associates. In
May of 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that intelligence gleaned from the 2011 raid on Osama bin
Laden’s compound indicated the world’s most wanted terrorist sought to use operatives with valid
Mexican passports who could illegally cross into the United States to conduct terror operations.3 The
story elaborated that bin Laden recognized the importance of al Qaeda operatives blending in with American society but felt that those with
U.S. citizenship who then attacked the United States would be violating Islamic law. Of
equal concern is the possibility to
smuggle materials, including uranium, which can be safely assembled on U.S. soil into a weapon of
mass destruction.
AT: Terrorists don’t want mass casualties
Wrong—ideology matters for terrorists—killing the Great Satan is ok
Michael ’12 George Michael, associate professor of political science and administration of justice at
The University of Virginia’s College at Wise, PhD in public policy from GMU, “Strategic Nuclear Terrorism
and the Risk of State Decapitation,” Defence Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2012, T&F
By the late 1990s, however, Jenkins came to believe that certain radical terrorist groups were not affected by the same
inducements and deterrents that had constrained the terrorists of the past. For instance, he discovered that
modern terrorist groups informed by religion evinced a greater propensity to produce high casualties.
At first blush, this may seem paradoxical, because after all, one would think that a religious person would be more reluctant to inflict casualties,
especially on innocent people. Presumably, there would be ethical constraints that would inhibit the terrorist from engaging in indiscriminate
killing, but, according to the theory, religiously-inspired
terrorists believe that God is on their side, and as a
consequence, are more self-assured in their mission and thus less averse to mass casualties . 13 Once
the enemy is so demonized, terrorists believe that nearly all measures are justified to bring about his
defeat. 14 Ominously, the past few decades indicate a shift from secular terrorism to religiously-inspired terrorism.15 Echoing Jenkins, the
noted terrorism scholar, Walter Laqueur, observed a nihilistic trend among contemporary terrorists and believes that the reluctance to use
WMD is loosening. As he observed ‘not only have the arms become far more lethal, the targets have become much softer’. 16 According
to the terrorism analyst Adam Dolnik, ideology is the most important factor in predicting terrorist group
innovation insofar as it frames the group’s core objectives and the strategy for how they are to be
achieved. Furthermore, it determines the identification of the ‘enemy’ and the means by which to defeat
him. 17 Several different extremist subcultures have considered the utility of nuclear terrorism.
AT: Terrorists Defeated
No strategic defeat – al Qaeda is resilient and threatens the US
Riedel 13 (Bruce, Senior Fellow for Middle East Policy at Brookings, professor of South Asian Studies at
Johns Hopkins, and senior advisor on Mid East Policy to the last four US presidents. “New Al-Qaeda
Generation May Be Deadliest One” Brookings 1/24/13
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/24-al-qaedariedel?rssid=riedelb&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Brooking
sRSS%2Fexperts%2Friedelb+%28Brookings+Experts+-+Bruce+Riedel%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)
The dramatic attack in Algeria this month on a natural gas facility underscores the emergence of a
new generation of al-Qaeda across the Arab world, "al-Qaeda 3.0" or the movement's third generation. Despite Osama of bin
Laden's death, al-Qaeda has exploited the Arab Awakening to create is largest safe havens and
operational bases in more than a decade across the Arab world. This may prove to be the most deadly
al-Qaeda yet. And at the center of the new al-Qaeda remains the old al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri still hiding in Pakistan and still providing
strategic direction to the global jihad. The first generation of al-Qaeda was the original band in Afghanistan created by bin Laden in the 1990s.
The second emerged after 9/11 when the group re-emerged in Pakistan, Iraq and then across the Muslim world. Now a third iteration can be
discerned in the wake of bin Laden’s killing by U.S. Special Forces and the Arab Awakening. The
fastest growing new al-Qaeda is
in Syria. Using the cover name Jabhat al-Nusrah, al-Qaeda has become perhaps the most lethal element of the opposition to Bashar alAssad’s brutal dictatorship. For al-Qaeda, Assad and the Alawis are a perfect target since many Sunnis believe Alawis to be a deviationist sect of
Islam that should be suppressed. While al-Qaeda is only a part of the opposition in Syria, it brings unique skills in bomb making and suicide
operations. Every week it gets stronger and better armed. Now jihadist websites are reporting every day that new al-Qaeda
"martyrs" from Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Egypt have died in the fighting in Damascus and Aleppo. Reliable reports from journalists speak of
bands of jihadists operating in Syria with a loose affiliation to al-Qaeda and composed of Muslim fanatics from as far away as Pakistan,
Bangladesh and elsewhere. The Syrian al-Qaeda franchise has sought to learn from the mistakes of the earlier al-Qaeda generations. It avoids
open association with the brand name and seeks to work with other Sunni groups. It is well armed, uses bases in Iraq for support and supply,
and benefits from weapons supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the opposition. Its leader uses the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al Golani,
a reference to the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights The longer the civil war in Syria goes on, the more al-Qaeda will benefit from the chaos
and the sectarian polarization. It will also benefit from the spillover of violence from Syria into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan that is now
inevitable. Like the rest of the world,
al-Qaeda was surprised by the revolutions that toppled dictators in
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Its ideology of violence and jihad was initially challenged by the largely nonviolent revolutionary
movements that swept across North Africa and the Middle East. But al Qaeda is an adaptive organization and it has
exploited the chaos and turmoil of revolutionary change to create operational bases and new
strongholds. In North Africa, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) — originally an Algerian franchise of the
global terror organization — has successfully aligned itself with a local extremist group in Mali named Ansar Dine, or
Defenders of the Faith, and together they have effectively taken control of the northern two-thirds of Mali. When they tried to march on the
capital, Bamako, France finally intervened with jets and troops. AQIM is also at work in Libya, especially around Benghazi. A faction
of al-Qaeda led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar staged the Algerian attack from Libya. Belmokhtar is a first-generation al-Qaeda leader who has
survived. He began his career in Afghanistan with the legendary jihadist thinker Abdullah Azzam in the late 1980s. He is an avowed admirer of
the Jordanian founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who took Iraq to the edge of civil war in 2006. In Egypt, another thirdgeneration al-Qaeda jihadist stronghold is in the desert of the Sinai Peninsula. Long a depressed and angry backwater in Egypt, after the
revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, disaffected Bedouin tribes in the Sinai cooperated with released jihadist prisoners to begin
attacks on security installations and the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline. The jihadists in the Sinai have pledged their allegiance to Zawahiri and
Zawahiri has repeatedly endorsed their attacks on Israeli targets. In
Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) exploited the
fall of Ali Abdullah Saleh’s dictatorship to take over remote parts of the south and east of the country. It lost
control of several towns to government counterattacks last summer but it struck back with deadly attacks on security targets in Sanaa, Aden
and other major cities. Increasingly drones are attacking AQAP in the deserts of Yemen, most famously killing its American-born operative
Anwar al Awlaki, but group is
resilient. Iraq’s al-Qaeda franchise is the essence of resilience. The 2007 surge was
supposed to destroy al-Qaeda’s franchise, the Islamic state of Iraq, but it didn’t. Despite enormous pressure
and the repeated decapitation of its senior leadership, the group has survived and recovered. It appeals to
the Sunni Arab minority which feels oppressed by the Shiite-dominated government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has rebuilt its sanctuaries in
some Sunni regions and its leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, has promised more attacks in Iraq and in the United States. The
third generation of al-Qaeda's success in capitalizing on revolutionary change in the Arab world comes despite a lack of broad popular support.
Al-Qaeda 3.0 remains an extreme movement that appeals only to a small minority, but terrorism is
not a popularity contest. Al-Qaeda today is stronger at the operational level in the Arab world than it
has been in years. Back in Pakistan, the old al-Qaeda leadership, what jihadists call al Qaeda al Um or "mother al-Qaeda"
is rebuilding. Since President Barack Obama came to office in 2009, there have been almost 300 lethal drone strikes in Pakistan flown from
bases in Afghanistan, most of which targeted al-Qaeda operatives. Along with the raid on Abbottabad that killed bin Laden in 2011, the
But it is not dead, nor alone. Al-Qaeda’s allies in Pakistan, such as Lashkar-e Tayyiba —
under little or no pressure and are
helping the mother ship recover. Zawahiri regularly issues statements ordering the faithful to go to Syria or Mali to fight. His orders
offensive has put it on the defensive.
the group that attacked Mumbai in 2008 — and the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, are
are obeyed as there is no challenger to his authority. AQ 3.0 is a complex and decentralized enemy that requires strategies tailored to each
franchise. There is no one answer to each challenge. There
is no "strategic defeat” of al-Qaeda in sight.
Solvency
Solvency
Mexican collab is key to regional renewables adoption and expansion
Wood ’10 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable
Energies,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, December 2010,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf)
The need for integration of North American renewable energy markets is real and immediate .
Although the region has extensive renewable energy resources, their geographic distribution, and
their nature (intermittent and of variable strength), mean that it makes sense to integrate both supply and
distribution across national borders. This has long been the case with energy; electricity grids have
seen extensive integration across the U.S. northern border, and pipelines have brought Canadian
natural gas and oil to the United States for a long time. As U.S. demand for renewable energy
increases, satisfying that demand will require importing energy from its neighbors, and Mexico offers
a reliable and relatively low-cost supply from its wind energy farms in the north.
Increasing concerted bilaterial investment in renewable energy massively expands
clean production and industry development
Wood ’10 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable
Energies,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, December 2010,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf)
This report argues that U.S. involvement in the Mexican renewable energy sector has paid substantial
dividends in terms of improving access to energy for poorer communities and in terms of building up
the wind energy sector. In the future, it is likely that both Mexico and the United States will benefit from imports of Mexican wind
energy into California, and from the expansion of renewable energy opportunities south of the border. Further, this report argues that one of
the factors that currently prevent the realization of the potential for integration of renewable energy
markets is the absence of a comprehensive bilateral agenda for developing renewable energy on the
border. Although the Border Governors Conference and the North American Development Bank have made efforts in this direction, it will
require executive leadership on this issue to make meaningful progress. The emphasis by the U.S. Department of
State on a “New Border Vision,” announced in March 2010, provides an opportunity to do just that. In addition to the report’s numerous
recommendations specifically focusing on geothermal, wind, solar and biofuels, two general recommendations stand out. First, it
is vital
that financing opportunities are increased for renewable energy projects. This can be achieved
through bilateral mechanisms at the border, through international mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
and through the Mexican government’s renewable energy fund, announced in November 2008. The second general policy
recommendation is to enhance current programs designed to build human capital in renewable
energy. Through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program, the work of USAID, and through the U.S.-Mexico TIES program, investments
in human capital are bringing long-term benefits to Mexico’s renewable energy sector, and more
should be done in this regard, both through facilitating more and closer collaboration between
university-level programs and through support for Mexico-based training programs in the issue area.
US assistance in developing regional renewable energy solves growth, energy
shortages, and stability
Amidst the darkening cloud of violence that grips the US-Mexico border region, a surprising ray of
sunlight illuminates a prosperous, cleaner future. Quietly above the hustle of Boulevard Tomas Fernandez in Ciudad Juárez,
25-year resident Daniel Chacón is greeted each day by what he calls “giant sun flowers,” solar panels that flank his office at the US-Mexico
Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). The
dance, as Daniel would say-runs
serene landscape of solar panels turning with the sun-in a
in stark contrast to the Ciudad Juárez that America perceives: a city besieged
by crime. Headlines from his hometown have reflected the strained relations between the U.S. and Mexico in their efforts to thwart the
violent trade of narcotics across the border. Daniel sees a new and vital path in clean energy, and a path the US must facilitate. A brighter
future of bilateral trade and collaboration lies in the creation of environmentally sustainable business
opportunities that address the critical need for clean energy in the region. This collaborative
partnership to create sustainable economic opportunity and jobs exists on both sides of the border.
The sun doesn’t recognize political boundaries. Together the countries can use clean energy to
alleviate the poverty and suffering in the border region and at the same time produce clean,
emissions-free energy to power one of Mexico’s most important industrial centers. The US-Mexico
Border region has tremendous solar resources . A constant flood of intense sunrays provide an annual
average of 7-8 kilowatt hours per square meter daily. That’s enough energy to power municipalities,
airports, colleges, and industrial complexes. With intelligent development efforts into renewable
energy, the region could be a showcase for sustainable economic development and trade. BECC grasps that
idea and is taking positive steps to promote it. Chartered to integrate environmental solutions to preserve and enhance human health and the
environment, BECC has taken the next step in fulfilling this commitment by deploying advanced solar energy technology. This is a refreshing
development in the region and BECC’s efforts should be loudly applauded by its board of directors from both nations, which includes
representation from the US Department of State, US Treasury, the US EPA, and their Mexican counterpart agencies. BECC’s offices are
showcasing advanced concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) technology provided by California-based SolFocus. The two CPV arrays installed at the
facility harness the sun’s rays more effectively than traditional solar equipment by concentrating the sun’s power 650 times onto tiny, highly
efficient solar cells. Daniel checks the meters on these systems daily, and finds them powering roughly one-third of the office building’s needs.
With the war on narcotics claiming so many lives, coupled with the devastation of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its unknown effects on
the Gulf ecosystem, the people and businesses in the border region desperately need positive, grass-roots efforts to inspire a sustainable
economic future. Daniel has seen firsthand the power that clean energy has to inspire his community. Local schools, officials, family members,
and curious residents visit the site to get a glimpse of the giant “girasols” panels flanking the BECC offices. The
opportunity is real
and the time is now to change border communities to places where individuals like Daniel’s three granddaughters can have
well-paying careers and a clean and healthy environment. Today US aid flows to President Calderón in support of antinarco trafficking enforcement. While important, providing aid to support solar energy project development
in the region would be a more effective means to creating a peaceful, prosperous, cleaner future.
Says Yes
Mexico will say yes – the plan builds on decades of successful energy cooperation
Wood ’10 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable
Energies,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, December 2010,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf)
The history of cooperation between Mexico and the United States in renewable energy is surprisingly
long and multi-faceted and it has been a vital, albeit unheralded, dimension to bilateral relations and
a significant boost to rural and later national development for over 18 years. Cooperation in some
areas goes back even further than that, with geothermal energy collaboration extending back to the
1970s. Although it is now seen as crucial in the con- text of efforts to mitigate climate change,
renewable energy in Mexico is and always has been seen as a development tool, helping to bring energy and
employment to marginalized areas that are not connected to the national electricity grid. Beginning in the 1990s, USAID has
invested in long term programs seeking to increase opportunities for renewable energy in Mexico,
focusing mainly on small projects in rural areas but also increasingly on projects that are having a far-reaching impact on Mexico’s energy
profile. The investments made by the U.S. government in mapping Mexico’s wind energy resources in Oaxaca and other parts of the country
have helped to develop a new source of energy for the national grid and for private consumption, and a new source of employment,
investment, technical expertise, and economic growth. Although public entities have also benefited from the development of the wind energy
sector, it is predominantly private companies that have been responsible for the sector’s impressive growth in recent years. The generation of
wind energy for self-supply by private firms has been one of the great successes of the Oaxacan wind projects, and it is likely that this will be
repeated in the north of the country. But it
is not just wind energy that has benefited from bilateral cooperation.
In almost every sector connected with renewable energy, the complementarities between the two
nations, particularly at the border, have generated opportunities for working together—to both develop the
industry within Mexico and to satisfy U.S. demand for renewable energy. In the geothermal sector, electricity produced in Baja California has
been exported to California since the 1970s. With regards to solar energy, cooperation has produced valuable programs that have been
adopted by Mexican government ministries to apply solar technologies to remote areas to assist in agricultural production.
Wind Power Solves
Wind power solves warming
Greenpeace ‘6 (“Wind Power Key to Fight Climate Change,” September 20,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/wind-power-key-to-fight-climat/, SHOUTS
OUT TO MIKE @ UNLV)
Over a third of the world's electricity - crucially including that required by industry - can realistically be
supplied by wind energy by the middle of the century, according to a new report . The 'Global Wind Energy Outlook 2006'
report, launched today by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) (1) and Greenpeace International, provides an industry blueprint that
explains how wind power could supply 34% of the world's electricity by 2050. Most importantly, it concludes that if wind turbine capacity
implemented on this scale it
would save 113 billion tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere by 2050. The
report firmly places wind power as one of the world's most important energy sources for the 21st century. "Wind power will
significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which is key in the fight against dangerous climate change," says Sven
Teske, Energy Expert of Greenpeace International. "The required CO2 reduction of one third by 2020 and half by 2050 can only
be achieved if wind power plays a major role in the power sector. Getting this right will be critical if
governments are going to be able to meet their medium and longer term climate targets - wind
energy is going to play a major role in the future; the only question is whether or not it plays that role
soon enough to help us reach our climate goal of keeping global mean temperature rise below 2o C.
We urge Governments to support wind power development via electricity market reforms and by
cutting down subsidies for fossil and nuclear fuels." In addition to climate change, other challenges such as security of
energy supply and the increasing volatility of fossil fuel prices are important drivers for wind power. "Wind energy is the most attractive
solution to the world's energy challenges. It is clean and fuel-free. Moreover, wind is
indigenous and enough wind blows
across the globe to cope with the ever increasing electricity demand. This report demonstrates that wind
technology is not a dream for the future - it is real, it is mature and it can be deployed on a large
scale," said Arthouros Zervos, GWEC's Chairman. "The political choices of the coming years will determine the world's environmental and
economic situation for many decades to come."
Off Case Answers
Gaucho
No DA’s – Both Obama and Peña Nieto are committed to integration now
Thomson 5/3 Adam, May 3, 2013 Financial Times ‘US and Mexico agree closer economic ties’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01c6d678b37e-11e2-b5a5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2WxaQyAYS BSH
The governments of Mexico and the US on Thursday agreed to form a group to deepen economic
integration as part of efforts to broaden the bilateral relationship and boost North American
competitiveness. At a press conference with US President Barack Obama, Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico said the
group would comprise Mexican ministers and their US counterparts, and include input from Joe Biden, the US vicepresident. It would meet for the first time in the autumn. The Mexican president said the idea was to “act as an
enabler ... in terms of how government can support efforts by the private sector to have a strong
economic integration”. The announcement goes some way to meeting Mr Peña Nieto’s objectives of
widening relations with Mexico’s northern neighbour, which in recent years have been dominated by
security and immigration issues. Mr Peña Nieto, who took office in December, has said that he intends to reorient
his country’s role in the fight against drugs, prioritising efforts that lead to a reduction in violence over
the pursuit of drug-cartel kingpins. Some experts have interpreted that as a deliberate desire to create some
distance from the US on the security issue, with the potential to downgrade what has undoubtedly been a period of cooperation for both countries against organised crime. But on Thursday Mr Obama, who is on a three-day visit to Mexico and
Central America, said he supported Mr Peña Nieto’s intentions of reducing the murder rate, which has almost tripled in the past six years
– largely as a consequence of the military-led fight against the cartels. Saying that he and Mr Peña Nieto had discussed the
security issue “in depth”, Mr Obama added that “it is up to the Mexican people to determine their security
structures ... we support the Mexican government’s focus on reducing violence”. Mr Obama also
commended his Mexican counterpart on an ambitious economic reform agenda including the central goal to raise Mexico’s
annual growth rates to as high as 6 per cent within the next six years. The US leader called Mexico’s reform programme “a
necessary change”. On the high-level working group, Mr Obama said it was necessary to “upgrade and revamp” the
two countries’ trade relationship. Since the signing of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), bilateral trade has
flourished and is now worth about $1.4bn a day. Mr Obama said that it was important to do more. “We can’t lose sight of the
larger relationship,” he said, calling it a “historic opportunity to foster more trade and more jobs on both
sides of the border”. Both leaders spoke of the need to strengthen security along the shared 2,000-mile border, with Mr Obama
arguing that it was a necessary requirement in wider efforts to pass a deep reform of the US’s immigration laws. Mr Obama expressed
optimism about the talks taking place on Capitol Hill. “I’m optimistic that we are finally going to get a comprehensive immigration reform
passed,” he said. The US leader was due to have a private dinner with Mr Peña Nieto later on Thursday before heading to Costa Rica on Friday
to meet with the leaders of other Central American nations.
NAFTA probs non-UQ the DA
Sirkin 12 Harold L. Sirkin is a Chicago-based senior partner of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) August 01, 2012
‘Nafta: After 20 Years, We're Not There Yet’ http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-01/nafta-20-years-and-not-there-yet BSH
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is nearly
two decades old and it’s unclear to many whether the
United States has been a net beneficiary or a net loser from the deal. The answer is: a bit of both. The
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican economies have all benefited from NAFTA. Not as much as they should have,
because—even after 20 years—the three countries still haven’t properly integrated their economies , which makes
them competitive in many areas where they should be cooperative. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have unique strengths
that perfectly complement each other. Canada has abundant natural resources and energy supplies. Mexico has a significant,
comparatively young, low-cost labor force in close proximity to the United States. The U.S. has one of the world’s top higher-education systems
and is the global leader in technology and innovation. For our economies to benefit fully from NAFTA, these strengths need to be integrated.
There have unquestionably been some very positive benefits. From 1993 to 2007, for example, trade among the
NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion, according to (PDF) the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
In 2010 alone, some 61 percent of the more than $301.5 billion in goods that Mexico imported came from the United States, as did more than
50% of Canada’s imports. Still, critics make a valid point: Some
U.S. jobs have migrated to Mexico in the years since NAFTA took
jobs would have moved offshore with or without NAFTA. What the NAFTA experience
tells us is that good intentions are not enough. In many respects, NAFTA’s promise remains unfulfilled. And that’s too bad. The United
States must provide the leadership needed to integrate the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican economies.
effect. But almost all of these
With the Dec. 1 inauguration of Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, the U.S. will have an ally in any such effort. Writing in the New
York Times in early July, Peña Nieto said that building
on NAFTA and “further integrating our economies” will be
a priority for his administration. Until the economies of the three countries are better integrated, the
full benefits of NAFTA will never be realized. We need to move ahead now
AT: T – Economic Engagement
Economic engagement includes energy expenditures
Hormats ’13 Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment,
“U.S. Economic Engagement with the Asia Pacific,” Asia Society Global Forum, 6/12/2013,
http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/210563.htm
But U.S. economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region is not limited to traditional trade and investment
issues. It includes energy
as well. As part of the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, announced by President Obama
at last year’s East Asia Summit, the U.S. Government has earmarked up to $6 billion in a line of credit over four years through the Export-Import
Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This
will drive trade and investment in private sector and
public-private energy-related projects across the region. In addition to these resources, the United States will support
capacity building programs through APEC and ASEAN, as well as with our bilateral partners, in the priority areas of interconnectivity, natural
gas, renewables, and sustainable development.
Counter-interp
Department of State no date “What is Total Economic Engagement?” US Department of State, no
date given, http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/92986.htm
Total Economic Engagement seeks to integrate and coordinate all U.S. economic instruments and programs into
our regional and country strategies. The Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs’ (EEB) broad cross-section of economic disciplines,
interagency contacts, and expertise in such areas as trade,
telecommunications help ensure this coordination.
finance, energy, development, transportation, and
AT: Pivot Turn
Pivot causes aggression and threatens institutional cooperation—risks conflict
outbreak
Heydarian ’12 Richard Javad Heydarian, foreign affairs analyst based in Manila, “Raising the Stakes in
Asia,” Foreign Policy in Focus, 10/25/2012,
http://www.fpif.org/articles/raising_the_stakes_in_asia?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&
utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29
However, facts on the ground put lie to such caution: Vietnam and the Philippines are clearly seeking American
military assistance in the form of greater rotational presence, joint military exercises, arms sales, and
increased military aid. Japan—facing renewed clashes with Beijing over disputed territories in East
China Sea—has sought the United States’ explicit reiteration of its commitment to their Mutual
Defense Treaty. Both sides of the simmering conflict are fully aware that China’s rise is at the center of
the pivot. Ironically, the whole pivot phenomenon is encouraging all stakeholders to take bolder positions visà-vis regional territorial conflicts. Amidst their own leadership transition phase, Chinese leaders are
intent on shoring up domestic popular support by taking a tougher stance towards neighboring
countries. They have been using a combination of paramilitary elements (fishing boats and surveillance vessels),
diplomatic-economic intimidation, and threat of force to assert their territorial claims. America’s allies
are meanwhile invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 2002 ASEAN-China
Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea to place further pressure on China and establish
a more binding regional Code of Conduct (COC) to constrain its behavior. ASEAN itself, supposedly a pan-regional mediator and
an anchor of regional cooperation and security, has been the latest casualty of this brewing conflict. Earlier this month,
Cambodia, ASEAN’s current chair, spared no effort to prove its loyalty to its main economic partner—China—by
blocking the inclusion of the Sino-Filipino conflict over the Scarborough Shoal in the final communiqué
of the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting. The fate of the provisional guidelines for a more binding
regional COC is also in limbo. The incident was a sobering reminder of how hopes for a peaceful
resolution of territorial disputes in the SCS are being undermined amidst growing assertiveness
among the parties, all against the backdrop of an intensifying U.S. pivot to the region. The growing U.S. military
presence may have boosted the morale of allies such as the Philippines, but it is also shifting the focus away
from diplomacy and dialogue towards brinkmanship and competitive alliance-building.
Pivot hikes regional tensions—can’t access stable compellance
Haxel ’13 Philip Haxel, was an intern for the Atlantic Council's Asia Security Initiative under the Brent
Scowcroft Center on International Security, “Economic, Not Security Strategy, Key for Stability in South
China Sea,” New Atlanticist, 1/8/2013, http://www.acus.org/?q=new_atlanticist%2Feconomic-notsecurity-strategy-key-stability-south-chinasea&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+new_atlanticist+%28New
+Atlanticist%29
While it is clear that the United States has a vested interest in the peaceful resolution of these disputes, it is uncertain whether the
current strategy of increased US forces in the region will do anything but exacerbate tensions and
suspicions. In contrast to a military “pivot,” economic and diplomatic programs that provide mutually beneficial incentives—such as joint
resource development, trade agreements, and strengthened multilateral architecture—are a much more effective strategy to manage and
mitigate mounting tension in the region. A
marked escalation of hostility across the Asia-Pacific took place in
2012. In June, disputes over the Scarborough Shoal between China and the Philippines led to a two
month standoff that was only ended by the arrival of typhoon season. More recently, China’s Hainan
province declared its authority to board and search ships within the immediate area of the disputed
islands. India has even joined the fray, as its Naval Chief DK Joshi announced it will defend its interests in the South China Sea,
which include joint exploration ventures with Vietnam, if necessary. This rise in animosities has coincided with the United
States’ announcement that 60 percent of its naval vessels would be stationed in the Asia-Pacific by
2020. Whatever the intentions of this announcement, it is bound to undermine prospects for peace in a region
where military budgets are already increasing across the board. The security-centric pivot has only
served to increase Chinese suspicion and assertiveness, whilst creating a volatile web of entangling
alliances that will embolden smaller nations to take reckless actions. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful
that a US military with shrinking budgets and reduced ambitions will be able to successfully project a
posture of dissuasion in a distant region ripe with rapidly modernizing militaries. Alternatively, the US should
utilize its diplomatic capital to facilitate economic partnership and institutional capacity building, as a means to defuse tensions.
ENERGY NEG
Solvency
Solar Power Fails
Solar power fails - even free panels aren’t economically competitive—costs are too
high
Zehner ’12 Ozzie Zehner, visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, MS/Drs – Science
and Technology Studies from the University of Amsterdam, Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean
Energy and the Future of Environmentalism, 2012, p. 24-25
Free Panels, Anyone? Among the CEOS and chief scientists in the solar industry, there is surprisingly little
argument that solar systems are expensive.46 Even an extreme drop in the price of polysilicon, the
most expensive technical component, would do little to make solar cells more competitive. Peter Nieh,
managing director of Lightspeed Venture Partners, a multibillion-dollar venture capital firm in Silicon Valley, contends that cheaper
polysilicon won't reduce the overall cost of solar arrays much, even if the price of the expensive material dropped to
zero.47 Why? Because the cost of other materials such as copper, glass, plastics, and aluminum, as well as the costs for
fabrication and installation, represent the bulk of a solar system's overall price tag. The technical polysilicon
represents only about a fifth of the total. Furthermore, Keith Barnham, an avid solar proponent and senior researcher at Imperial College
London, admits that unless
efficiency levels are high, "even a zero cell cost is not competitive."48 In other words,
even if someone were to offer you solar cells for free , you might be better off turning the offer down
than paying to install, connect, clean, insure, maintain, and eventually dispose of the modules—especially if you live outside the remote, dry,
sunny patches of the planet such as the desert extending from southeast California to western Arizona. In fact, the unanticipated
costs,
performance variables, and maintenance obligations for photovoltaics, too often ignored by giddy proponents of the
technology, can swell to unsustainable magnitudes. Occasionally buyers decommission their arrays within the first
decade, leaving behind graveyards of toxic panels teetering above their roofs as epitaphs to a fallen dream. Premature
decommissioning may help explain why American photovoltaic electrical generation dropped during the last
economic crisis even as purported solar capacity expanded.49 Curiously, while numerous journalists reported on solar
infrastructure expansion during this period, I was unable to locate a single article covering the contemporaneous drop in the nation's solar
electrical output, which the Department of Energy quietly slid into its annual statistics without a peep.
Intermittencies can’t keep up with demand variations
Jadhav ’11 Nilesh Jadhav, “Solar Energy Intermittency: Grid operator’s nightmare?” Solar Novus
Today, 5/18/2011,
http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2824:solar-energyintermittency-grid-operators-nightmare&catid=75:editors-blogs&Itemid=352
Grid operators are always busy forecasting and matching the supply from the generators to the demand from consumers. Over a day, the
demand profile of a typical city grid goes from a low base load (mostly at night time) to a high peak
demand (mostly during office hours). Supply is managed by “dispatching” generating assets i.e., making
them run harder during peak load demand. When asked about solar energy integration into the grid, they shared that their
number one concern about intermittent sources such as solar energy is that it’s not dependable during peak load conditions. The
production of electricity from solar sources depends on the amount of light energy in a given location
and point of time. Solar output varies throughout the day and through the seasons, affected by
factors such as the cloud cover. When a small amount of solar generators are connected to the grid, the grid operator can manage
the variations in one of the following traditional ways: Automatic generation control (AGC) or frequency regulation to respond to variation on
the order of seconds to a few minutes; Activation of “spinning reserves” to respond to variation on the order of minutes to an hour; Activation
of peak-power generation (usually referred to as reserve margin capacity) to respond to hourly variation. However, grid operators worry when
solar energy forms a significant portion of the generation mix (say 10-30%). The concern is that such a scenario is unmanageable due to the fact
that spinning
reserves and peak power generation capacity may not be sufficiently available. The
conclusion by some grid operators is that solar energy cannot really provide major share of electricity
generation, which could be bad news for grid-connected solar. This leads to the question of whether there is an
upper limit on grid-connected solar systems that is actually much smaller (e.g., <10%) than what many
forecast today?
Wind Power Fails
Wind power is ineffective – benefits are distorted
Zehner ’12 Ozzie Zehner, visiting scholar at UC-Berkeley, “Ozzie Zehner: Alternatives to alternative
energy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68(5), September 2012, pp. 1-7
BAS: The Energy Department’s 2008 report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 has been widely cited as evidence that major
changes to the US energy infrastructure are within easy reach. Why did you write that the report is based on unrealistic
projections of how much electricity turbines can generate under real-world conditions? Zehner: When I was
working on the wind chapter, it seemed like I couldn’t go anywhere without encountering citations from this report, so I thought I’d better go
back and look at it closely. I
discovered discrepancies between Energy Department data and the historical
data in the report. There are capacity factors—the percentage of maximum capacity that you get out
of a turbine in the real world--estimated in this report that are far above any capacity factors found
elsewhere. I couldn’t figure out where they were getting such high numbers. They were even higher than the industry
says are plausible. Just a percent or two can make or break a wind farm. So I decided to do some interviews at the
Department of Energy and also with the firm that was hired to create the data sets. I found that, when they ran up
against figures unfavorable to the wind industry, they crafted different numbers--by extrapolating
from a period of rapid advancement and drawing a straight line up into the future, without
acknowledging the maturation of the industry that had already occurred. That’s like extrapolating the
growth of high school freshmen to show that, by college, they will stand taller than giraffes. BAS: Why did
the Energy Department go along with industry projections instead of government data? This report was written during the Bush administration,
which was not known as an advocate of renewable energy. Zehner: I don’t know what was going on in their minds when they created it, but
there was clearly interest in producing a report that was favorable to the wind industry. It appears that the
Department of Energy’s existing field data and its previous estimates on cost and capacity factors
were too realistic to be used in a report that was going to pump up the prospects for the wind
industry.
Renewables Adv
No Solvency – Renewables
Transmission infrastructure spikes costs – inhibits renewables adoption
Wood 12 (Duncan Wood, 5/20/12 Department of International Affairs, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Senior Advisor, Mexico Institute Renewable Energy Initiative, “RE-Energizing the
Border: Renewable Energy, Green Jobs and Border Infrastructure Project,” Wilson Center,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf)
Lastly, we should point to the significant infrastructure investments that often accompany renewable
energy projects. As wind and solar plants are often located in remote areas, it may be necessary to
build roads and bring in water supplies to make them viable. Of course transmission lines will also be
needed to transport the electrons generated to market. All of this infrastructure spending is another
potential source of employment and income for local citizens and businesses, but also implies a potential obstacle due to
financing limitations .
AT: Warming Impact – Defense
Models exaggerate climate trajectories—new data shows it’s not anthropocentric
Happer ’12 William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, “Global Warming Models Are Wrong
Again,” Wall Street Journal, 3/27/2012,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?mod=googlen
ews_wsj
During a fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this month, President Obama is reported to have said: "It gets you a little nervous about what is happening
to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed
nice weather." What
is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than
10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the
University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globaltemperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees
Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979. The lack of any
statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when
fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or
parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm. Getty Images CO2 is
not a pollutant. Life on earth
flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2
levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming
and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more
prosperous and healthy than those without. The
direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can
be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a
much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water
vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational
evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. There has indeed been some
warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably
come from increased amounts of CO2, but the
timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased
appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to
do with mankind. Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been
claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no
hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually
warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska. Weather conditions similar to 2012
occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of
"General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had. Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for
the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and
1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder. Nightly television pictures of the tragic
destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the
increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is no evidence of
any trend in the number of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures
have risen markedly." Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in
ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño or La
Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc. As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save many more lives
by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly—for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means
for warning the people of endangered areas—than by credulous support of schemes to reduce "carbon footprints," or by funding even more
computer centers to predict global warming. It is easy to be confused about climate, because we are constantly being warned about the
horrible things that will happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels. But these ominous predictions are based
on computer models.
It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what
computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions. We
need high-quality climate science because of the importance of climate to mankind. But we should also remember the description of how
science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman: "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then
we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of
the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with
experiment it is wrong." The most important component of climate science is careful, long-term observations of climate-related phenomena,
from space, from land, and in the oceans. If observations do not support code predictions—like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global
temperatures—Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory.
AT: Warming Impact – No Solvency
Can’t solve warming—emission patterns are locked in
Dye 12 Lee Dye, “It May Be Too Late to Stop Global Warming,” ABC News, 10/26/2012,
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/late-stop-globalwarming/story?id=17557814&singlePage=true#.UI58icXR5DA
Here's a dark secret about the earth's changing climate that many scientists believe, but few seem eager to discuss: It's
too late to stop global
warming. Greenhouse gasses pumped into the planet's atmosphere will continue to grow even if the
industrialized nations cut their emissions down to the bone. Furthermore, the severe measures that would
have to be taken to make those reductions stand about the same chance as that proverbial snowball
in hell. Two scientists who believe we are on the wrong track argue in the current issue of the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming is inevitable
and it's time to switch our focus from trying to stop it to figuring out how we are going to deal with its consequences. "At present, governments'
attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy
sources are probably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming," Jasper Knight of Wits University in Johannesburg, South
Africa, and Stephan Harrison of the University of Exeter in England argue in their study. Those efforts, they continue, "have little relationship to the real world."
What is clear, they contend, is a profound lack of understanding about how we are going to deal with the
loss of huge land areas, including some entire island nations, and massive migrations as humans flee
areas no longer suitable for sustaining life, the inundation of coastal properties around the world, and
so on ... and on ... and on. That doesn't mean nations should stop trying to reduce their carbon emissions, because any reduction could lessen the consequences.
But the cold fact is no matter what Europe and the United States and other "developed" nations do, it's not going to curb global climate change, according to one
scientist who was once highly skeptical of the entire issue of global warming. "Call me a converted skeptic," physicist Richard A. Muller says in an op-ed piece
published in the New York Times last July. Muller's latest book, "Energy for Future Presidents," attempts to poke holes in nearly everything we've been told about
energy and climate change, except the fact that "humans are almost entirely the cause" of global warming. Those of us who live in the "developed" world initiated
it. Those who live in the "developing" world will sustain it as they strive for a standard of living equal to ours. "As far as global warming is concerned, the
developed world is becoming irrelevant," Muller insists in his book. We could set an example by curbing our emissions, and thus claim in
the future that "it wasn't our fault," but about the only thing that could stop it would be a complete economic collapse in China and the rest of the world's
developing countries. As they race forward, their industrial growth -- and their greenhouse gas
emissions -- will outpace any efforts by the West to reduce their carbon footprints, Muller contends. "China
has been installing a new gigawatt of coal power each week," he says in his Times piece, and each plant pumps
an additional ton of gases into the atmosphere "every second." "By the time you read this, China's
yearly greenhouse gas emissions will be double those of the United States, perhaps higher," he contends.
And that's not likely to change. "China is fighting poverty, malnutrition, hunger, poor health, inadequate
education and limited opportunity. If you were the president of China, would you endanger progress
to avoid a few degrees of temperature change?" he asks.
No modeling – other countries have economic interests in dirty energy
Loris 1-30 Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at Heritage, master's degree in economics
from George Mason University, “No 'Following the Leader' on Climate Change,” Heritage Foundation,
1/30/2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/1/no-following-the-leader-onclimate-change
In his second inaugural address, President Obama pledged that the United States “will respond to the
threat of climate change” and will take the lead for other countries to follow suit. This commitment is a willful
rejection of reality. Congress has been unwilling to address climate change unilaterally through legislation. Multilateral attempts become more
futile each year as major players, especially developing
nations such as China and India, refuse to play ball . And
why should they? Developing nations are not going to curb economic growth to solve a theoretical
problem when their citizens face far more pressing environmental problems — especially when so
many are trapped in grinding poverty and lack access to reliable electricity. This leaves the president with only
one option for making good on his pledge: impose costly regulatory actions. This approach would be as pointless as unilateral legislative action.
Why? Even accepting as fact the theory that Earth is warming and that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are a warming agent
does not make any of the following true: &bull; Man-made emissions are driving climate change and are a negative externality that needs to be
internalized. Greenhouse gas emissions are a warming agent. But that fact doesn’t begin to settle the scientific debate about climate change
and climate sensitivity — the amount of warming projected from increased greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, viewing man-made carbon
dioxide as a strictly negative externality ignores a lot of peer-reviewed literature that identifies many positive effects (e.g., plant growth, human
longevity, seed enrichment and less soil erosion as a result of more robust tree root growth) associated with higher levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. &bull; Earth is cooking at a catastrophic rate. The media breathlessly reported that a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s study found 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States. What they largely failed to report was that,
globally, 2012 was only the ninth-warmest in the past 34 years. In fact, average global temperatures have leveled off over the past decade and
a half. &bull; Sea levels will rise dramatically, threatening America’s coastlines. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the
bible of CO2-reduction proponents, projects sea levels rising 7 inches to 23 inches over the next century. That’s not as alarming as it sounds.
Sea level has risen at the lower end of that projection over the past two centuries. &bull; There will be more extreme droughts, heat waves,
hurricanes and other natural disasters. Natural disasters (they’re called “natural” for a reason, right?) will occur with or without increased manmade emissions. Having failed repeatedly to win legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration appears bent on
taking the regulatory route. The Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating stringent emission standards for new power plants that
would effectively prohibit construction of coal-fired generators and prematurely shut down existing plants. The EPA also has introduced costly
new air-quality standards for hydraulically fractured wells and new fuel-efficiency standards that will make cars and light-duty trucks more
expensive, smaller and less safe. Restricting greenhouse gas emissions, whether unilaterally or multilaterally, will impose huge costs on
consumers and the U.S. economy as a whole. Congress should exercise its seldom-used muscles as regulatory watchdog to keep regulatory
proposals that are not cost-effective from full implementation and reverse the administration’s course on regulating CO2. As for the president’s
suggestion that unilateral action by the U.S. will somehow inspire other countries to emulate our example — the
repeated failure of
U.N. negotiations to produce multilateral climate action demonstrates a near universal disinclination
to sacrifice economic growth on the altar of global warming.
Warming Good – CO2
CO2 not a pollutant, less of it would cause hunger crisis to become worse
Steward 09 H. Leighton Steward, Mr. Steward is also currently an author-partner of Sugar Busters,
LLC, a provider of seminars, books and products related to helping people follow a healthy and
nutritious lifestyle, and Chairman of the non-profit corporations Plants Need CO2 and CO2 Is Green,
providers of information related to carbon dioxide?s impact on the global climate and the plant and
animal kingdoms, 12/4/09, PlantsneedCO2.com,
http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/act/newsletter.aspx/category/In+The+News/menuitemid/312/M
enuGroup/NewsAndMedia/NewsLetterID/26/startrow/4.htm
Congress and federal regulators are poised to make a misguided and reckless decision that will stifle our economy recovery and spur long- term
damage to plant and animal life on earth. In the coming months, the Environmental Protection Agency will hold hearings to justify the
movement to brand carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Congress will also consider cap-and-trade legislation that, if enacted, could also
regulate CO2 as pollution. Why is it such a catastrophic decision? Because there
is not a single piece of evidence that CO2 is
a pollutant. In fact, lower levels of carbon dioxide actually inhibit plant growth and food production.
What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2. For plants, CO2 is
the greatest, naturally occurring air-borne fertilizer that exists. Even schoolchildren learn in
elementary science class that plants need carbon dioxide to grow. During photosynthesis, plants use
this CO2 fertilizer as their food and they "breathe out" oxygen into the air so humans can inhale it,
and in turn exhale CO2. This mutually beneficial and reinforcing cycle is one of the most basic
elements of life on earth. An article appeared recently in the Environment and Energy Daily that claimed a "modeled" nitrogen
deficiency will occur as CO2 rises. Well, CO2 has already risen over 37%, 105 parts per million, and where is the
real world nitrogen deficiency?Why are Earth's forests lush if the added growth that has already
occurred, due to big bursts of CO2, has depleted the nitrogen supply? The nitrogen supply of pristine
ecosystems has been resupplied through natural processes for eons. Computer models, manipulated to produce
desired results, can generate catastrophic, front page, forecasts. We encourage our government's scientists to step back from their models and
observe what is and what has happened in the real world, as well as in actual plant experiments. Doesn't
anyone recognize the
good news that is staring them in the face? It simply defies imagination, let alone science, that the
United Nations has now backed an arbitrary limit on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The chairman of the
politically charged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said he supports efforts to reduce carbon dioxide to 10% below current
levels. In the context of today's political conversations, this recommendation may sound like an acceptable position to save the environment.
But the scientific reality of such a step is quite the opposite. Lowering
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have
catastrophic affects on our food supply. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide support plant life
and helps plants thrive. If our food supply is reduced, the hunger crisis in many parts of the world will
worsen. Not only would lowering CO2 levels be wrong, one can make the argument that even higher
levels would be desirable. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 to about three times the current level in earth's atmosphere
in order to encourage plant growth. We know CO2 is vital for plants, but what about the argument that it is a dominant contributor to the
greenhouse effect? Again, science does not support this argument. CO2 is not even close to being the most important of the greenhouse gases.
Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is more than 30 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2. As further evidence,
we find that as the post-war industrial boom began to put significant volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, global temperatures did not rise.
Since 1945, there have been about 40 years of cooling trend and only 20-plus years of warming. While the warming is significant, it followed an
unusually high period of solar activity. Temperature did rise steeply in the 1920's and in the 1930's in the U.S. and 1934 was the warmest year
of the 20th century. The rate of warming then was also higher than in the 1980's and 1990's, even though CO2 levels were lower. Many
in
the scientific community reject reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million, as Dr. Pachauri of
the U.N. wishes. Thousands of peer-reviewed experiments have demonstrated CO2' s ability to
"green" the earth dramatically. Nonetheless, Dr. Pachauri and those who prefer to debate science with politics are sticking to their
old story and clinging to their inadequate climate models and their headline-grabbing catastrophic forces. Do Americans want to see
their government spend trillions of dollars removing CO2 that will not lower the Earth's temperature
but absolutely will risk harming ecologies, economies and mankind itself?
Lack of CO2 causes widespread starvation and death
Idso 11 Craig D. Idso, Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of
Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate
Scholars, 6/8/11, pg 2, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/food_security.pdf
Global food
security is one of the most pressing societal issues of our time. The positive impact of
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yields, however, will considerably lessen the severity of the
looming food shortage. It will aid in lifting untold hundreds of millions of people out of a state of hunger and malnutrition, thereby
preventing widespread starvation and premature death. We must not interfere with human
enterprises that release CO2 to the atmosphere; for that course of action will only exacerbate the
future food problem.
Thousands of people die daily because of malnourishment
Idso 11 Craig D. Idso, Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of
Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate
Scholars, 6/8/11, pg 2, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/food_security.pdf
Global food security is one of the most pressing societal issues of our time. It
is presently estimated that more than one
billion persons, or one out of every seven people on the planet, is hungry and/or malnourished. Even
more troubling is the fact that thousands die daily as a result of diseases from which they likely would
have survived had they received adequate food and nutrition.
Warming Good – SO2
Moving away from fossil fuels results in less SO2
Wisconsin Department Of Health Services 10 July 12, 2010
(http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/SulfurDioxide.htm)
Most of the sulfur dioxide released into the environment comes from electric utilities, especially those
that burn coal. Some other sources of sulfur dioxide include petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing,
paper pulp manufacturing and metal smelting and processing facilities. Locomotives, large ships, and some non-road
diesel equipment currently burn high sulfur fuel and release sulfur dioxide into the air. In nature, volcanic
eruptions can release sulfur dioxide into the air.
And, loss of SO2 leads to supercharged Global Warming – Turns the case.
Michaels 11 7/14/11Why Hasn't the Earth Warmed in Nearly 15 Years? by Patrick J. Patrick Michaels, who is senior fellow in
environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of our Government and our Lives. via Cato
Recent Op-eds on.)
There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records
compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there's been no change in fourteen and a half years? If you read the news
stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University's Robert Kaufmann and three
colleagues, you'd say yes, indeed. It's
China's fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have
increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect
away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Further, if this is true, then (as is usual in climate-world), "it's worse than we thought." After all, China will eventually
reduce their sulfate emissions as their population becomes affluent enough to demand something better than miasmic air. Indeed, they are
already beginning to clean things up, and when they finally do, all the cooling particles will be gone and the earth will warm substantially.
Reality may be a bit simpler, or much more complicated. But the reason this is all so important is that if there is no good explanation for the
lack of warming, then an increasingly viable alternative is that we have overestimated the gross sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide in
our computer models. One problem is that we really don't know how much cooling is exerted by sulfates, or whether they are just a convenient
explanation for the failure of the forecasts of dramatic warming. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which grants
itself climate authority, states that our "Level of Scientific Understanding" of the effects range between "low" and "very low," with a possible
cooling between zero (none) and a whopping 3.5 degrees (C) when the climate comes to equilibrium (which it will never do). That's
a
plenty large range from which to pick out a number to cancel about as much warming as you'd like.
Kaufmann's team looked into how sulfate uncertainty impacted its results and decided that it was relatively minor. However, we can't find any
independent test showing that the geographic "fingerprint" of a dramatic recent increase in sulfate cooling is actually being observed. More on
this in a minute. The
other problem — and climate flatliners hate me for pointing this out — is that the beginning of the
period of "no warming" includes the warmest year in the instrumental record, caused by the great El Niño of
1997-1998. In a modestly warming world, starting off at or near an anomalously high point pretty much assures little or no warming for years
afterward. Kaufmann's team (and others) have duly noted that El Niño cycles are one factor partially responsible for the lack of recent warming.
There's little doubt of this. Further,
if you back out solar changes and volcanism, as they did, you can convince
yourself that there is still an underlying "residual" warming trend, but it is masked by all these
variables. This has been done repeatedly in the scientific literature, which, until now, did not include increasing the sulfate effect on recent
temperatures. Where is the test of the hypothesis that sulfates are indeed responsible for the lack of
warming? In this paper, it's simply "modeled-in" as it fits the data well. That's correlation, not
causation. There is very little exchange of air between the northern and southern hemispheres, and basic climate science shows that most
sulfates from China will rain out before they get across the thermal equator. In fact, there is a great deal of literature out there published by
luminaries like the Department of Energy's Ben Santer and NASA's James Hansen claiming relative cooling of the northern hemisphere from
sulfates, compared to the southern. So, if
it is indeed sulfates cooling the warming, given that there is no net
change in global temperature, then the northern hemisphere should be cooling since 1998 (the first year in Kaufmann's paper)
while the southern warms. Here are the sad facts: The opposite is occurring. Why this test was not performed eludes me. Perhaps that is
because it provides yet another piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that we have simply
overstated the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide.
SO2 cancels out CO2 – holding back a wave of warming.
Pearce 04 24 July 2004 by Fred “Harbingers of doom?” Magazine issue 2457.
http://www.realscience.org.uk/harbingers-of-doom.html)
As well as pumping gases into the atmosphere, we are also filling it with huge volumes of microscopic particles, mostly from burning forests,
crop waste and fossil fuels. Depending on their characteristics, these aerosols can scatter or absorb solar radiation and may influence the
formation, colour and reflectivity of clouds. The precise nature of their involvement in global temperature has been hotly disputed for a
decade. But most researchers now believe that the dominant effect of these aerosols is to suppress warming by shading the planet. "We
are
dealing with a coiled spring, with temperatures being held back by aerosols," says Solomon. "If you
shut off aerosols, temperatures would increase rapidly, but we don't yet know exactly how coiled the spring is." The best
guess until recently was that this "parasol effect" was holding back a quarter of the warming so far, or about 0.2 °C. But critics say this
calculation is little more than a guess. The first efforts at directly measuring the parasol effect suggest the spring may be much more tightly
coiled. In an assessment last year, Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen argued that aerosols could be disguising between half
and three-quarters of present warming (New Scientist, 7 June 2003, p 7). That
suggests the coiled spring is already holding
back warming of anything up to 2 °C. "The two major pollutants have been almost cancelling each
other out," says Cox. This is doubly bad news. First because it shows that cleaning up aerosols would release a burst of warming. But
secondly, it suggests that the climate system is much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we
thought. Crutzen's estimate would put the true warming effect of doubling CO2 at between 7 and 10
°C, which Murphy's graph predicts, albeit at a low probability. Some climate scientists find these new figures disturbing not just for what they
suggest about the atmosphere's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, but also because they undermine existing predictions. Uncertainty about those
predictions is stopping politicians from acting to halt global warming. So, they argue, even suggesting that the model results are less certain
could be politically dangerous.
Econ Adv
N-UQ – Mexico Econ
Mexico’s economy growing
Garza 13 Antonio ‘A More Ambitious Vision for Mexico’ February 22, 2013 Fox News Latino
: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/02/22/more-ambitious-vision-for-mexico/#ixzz2WxgyzWVd BSH
Mexico’s economic resurgence is gaining widespread attention. Optimism about the country’s prospects
is on the upswing, as evidenced by the term “Aztec Tiger,” a clever coinage by the Financial Times. It’s a welcome change in
focus and tone. And by adding dimension to the country’s story, without diminishing the security
challenges Mexico faces, it allows a more balanced and accurate portrayal to emerge. President Enrique
Peña Nieto has been in office just three months, yet there’s a sense of urgency attached to his ambitious
agenda. Substantial challenges loom and surmounting them will require the president’s and the administration’s
full complement of skills: from political deal making and legislative maneuvering to strategic communications and diplomacy.
There’s some trepidation on the domestic front given the scope of change and the sectors it will touch, but there’s
also optimism. I see five reasons Mexico should be able to maintain its new momentum and also
transition to a higher-profile global leadership role. 1. An Open Economy Mexico’s economy ranks among the
world’s most open and competitive. Since opening its economy in the mid-1990s, Mexico’s trade with the world has risen rapidly:
registering a 475 percent increase in exports between 1994 and 2011 and a 342 percent increase in imports. Trade makes up a bigger
portion of Mexico’s gross domestic product (63 percent) than of any other large country’s, including the U.S. and China.
Annual exports of manufactured goods are roughly equal to the value of all exports by the rest of Latin America. Mexico currently
boasts 12 Free Trade Agreements that provide preferential access to 44 countries (more than any other country). It was the
first Latin American country to gain preferential access to the European Union (2000). Its agreement with Japan (2005) was
the first comprehensive trade pact that country had signed with any nation. And Mexico continues to lead. Last year, it joined
negotiations for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the multilateral free trade agreement that the U.S. considers
central to its “Asia Pivot.” Mexico views the TPP as an opportunity to be part of the first 21st century Free
Trade Agreement, implying both an opportunity to “update” the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and to build out a more
strategic approach to hemispheric trade relations. 2. Shared Democratic Values Mexico has developed its stature on the
international stage largely through trade. In contrast to other countries in Latin America, Mexico’s pursuit of trade alliances
hasn’t been driven by ideological concerns but by a pragmatic focus on economic policy and strategic
geopolitical interests. With NAFTA, Mexico became a pioneer among emerging markets of economic
integration and trade liberalization. The agreement provided an institutional framework —in essence a “rule of law” governing
trading practices— on which the country has built a global presence while developing closer connections with the world’s largest and most
dynamic economy. NAFTA
also facilitated meaningful change in Mexican society. The country is now
majority middle class: 17 percent of Mexicans joined the middle class from 2000 to 2010 according to the World Bank. This new
middle class is younger, more educated, wealthier and healthier and far more likely to protect their
economic gains and hold their government accountable. Today, as Europe and Asia look to build
stronger ties to Latin America, Mexico is of priority interest because of its core values and its strong
record of promoting trade and investment along with growth and effective institutions. 3. Solid
Economic Fundamentals Mexico’s economic transformation under NAFTA has been profound. Few
countries have an economic record as impressive as Mexico’s: more than 17 years of macroeconomic
stability, low inflation and interest rates, manageable debt, record high international reserves,
economic openness and increasing competitiveness. Though Mexico suffered a brutal recession during the
global financial crisis, it has clawed its way back. GDP growth has been in the 4 percent range for three years running,
making the country a top performer regionally. And Mexico has supplanted Brazil as the main focus for economic optimism in the region: over
the first nine months of 2012, its stock market received five times as much investment as Brazil’s. 4.
Pragmatic Leadership The
global economic turmoil of recent years has made this much clear: arguably the most important
determinant of economic success is leaders who understand and can implement the reforms required
for growth. It’s far too early in the Peña Nieto administration to declare success, but the president and his team have been highly effective
thus far. Labor, accounting and education reform measures passed during the transition were substantive
accomplishments and signaled a break from years of inaction and gridlock. The "Pacto por México," announced after hours of the
inauguration, saw the three main political parties presenting a unified front for the first time in decades. Fiscal and energy reform
are top priorities, as both are essential if the country is to accelerate growth and improve its
competitiveness. The mere fact that a PRI government is willing to tackle both underscores the generational shift within the party and
growing acceptance of the need for change in how the country manages its economic affairs. 5. A Favorable Convergence of
Issues A short list of the issues and developments that appear to be trending positively includes: a
recovering U.S. economy; growing global demand for U.S. and Mexican manufactures; a likely reform
of U.S. immigration policies; the rising costs of doing business in China and transatlantic interest in
deepening trade and investment ties with Latin America. Mexico faces brighter prospects than it has
in decades. But to fully realize the promise of what the president has termed “Mexico’s moment,” the administration must do more than
ensure progress on the economic front. It must also modernize institutions, strengthen its commitment to good governance, assert the rule of
law, support human rights, lead on the environment and promote greater inclusiveness. Mexico
has set its sights high. By
aiming even higher, it just might find itself not only growing, but leading in Latin America and
transitioning into a real leadership role in the world.
AT: Terrorism IL
Organized crime won’t support terrorism against the US
Curtis ’11 Yalí Noriega Curtis, “Terrorism and Organized Crime: The Case of Mexico,” 2011,
http://www.academia.edu/2426241/Terrorism_and_Organized_Crime_The_Case_of_Mexico
In October 2011, the United States announced that it had uncovered a plot in which a couple of suspected
Iranian terrorists had tried to hire a person belonging to a Mexican drug cartel known as Los Zetas , to carry out
the assasination of the Saudi ambassador to the US, in US territory. During the course of the investigation, however, it became
apparent that the man they had contacted was in fact an under-cover DEA agent who did not belong
to the Zeta cartel – or to any other cartel –, and no conclusive proof that the suspected terrorists were
officially sent by Iran was to be found (or at least, made available to the public) (Savage & Shane 2011).Despite this lack
of evidence, news outlets both in the United States and in Mexico had a field day. They reported as a fact that
Islamic terrorist groups had established links with the largest Mexican drug cartels. In their view, it was (and still is) very likely that the next
terrorist attack in the United States would be carried out through this kind of cooperation. Terrorism
and crime experts on both
sides of the border have denied these claims, since there is no conclusive proof that the cartels have
any ties at all with the terrorists. These experts also argue that the Mexican drug cartels are not
interested in carrying out terrorist activities, especially in the United States, where they have their
largest market, for fear of the response they would undoubtedly elicit. Through the following paper I will explore
the claims about possible links between international terrorist groups, specifically the Islamists, and Mexican organized criminal organizations,
as well as the possiblity of the drug cartels transforming into terrorist organizations.
AT: Nuclear Terrorism
No nuclear terror—deterrence and prevention solves
Mearsheimer ’10 John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Professor of Political
Science at the University of Chicago, “Imperial by Design,” The National Interest, 12/16/2010,
http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-by-design-4576
This assessment of America’s terrorism problem was flawed on every count. It was threat inflation of the highest order. It made no sense to
declare war against groups that were not trying to harm the United States. They were not our enemies; and going after all terrorist
organizations would greatly complicate the daunting task of eliminating those groups that did have us in their crosshairs. In addition, there was
no alliance between the so-called rogue states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with Washington after 9/11 to help quash
Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a genuine
connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim for the simple reason that it did not
exist. The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups, in part because they might turn on them
someday, but also because countries cannot control what terrorist organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into
serious trouble. This
is why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon to
terrorists. That regime’s leaders could never be sure that they would not be blamed and punished for
a terrorist group’s actions. Nor could they be certain that the United States or Israel would not
incinerate them if either country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability
to carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down to it, there is only a
remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic bomb. The most likely way it would
happen is if there were political chaos in a nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends were able to take
advantage of the ensuing confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even then, there are additional obstacles to
overcome: some countries keep their weapons disassembled, detonating one is not easy and it would
be difficult to transport the device without being detected. Moreover, other countries would have
powerful incentives to work with Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious
implication is that we should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more unlikely. Finally,
the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland has been blown out of all proportion. In the
nine years since 9/11, government officials and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that
another major attack on American soil is probable—even imminent. But this is simply not the case.3
The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by individuals with links to al-Qaeda like
the “shoe bomber,” who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the
“underwear bomber,” who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do
have a terrorism problem, but it is hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor threat. Perhaps the scope of the
challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Mueller’s telling comment that “the number of Americans killed
by international terrorism since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the
same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”
No motivation for nuclear terror
Gavin ’10 Francis J. Gavin, professor of international affairs and director of the Robert S. Strauss
Center for International Security and Law at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of
Texas at Austin, “Same As It Ever Was,” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 3, Winter 2009/2010, MUSE
A recent study contends that al-Qaida’s interest in acquiring and using nuclear weapons may be overstated.
Anne Stenersen, a terrorism expert, claims that “looking at statements and activities at various levels within the alQaida network, it becomes clear that the network’s interest in using unconventional means is in fact
much lower than commonly thought.”55 She further states that “CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear]
weapons do not play a central part in al-Qaida’s strategy.”56 In the 1990s, members of al-Qaida
debated whether to obtain a nuclear device. Those in favor sought the weapons primarily to deter a
U.S. attack on al-Qaida’s bases in Afghanistan. This assessment reveals an organization at odds with
that laid out by nuclear alarmists of terrorists obsessed with using nuclear weapons against the
United States regardless of the consequences. Stenersen asserts, “Although there have been various reports
stating that al-Qaida attempted to buy nuclear material in the nineties, and possibly recruited skilled
scientists, it appears that al-Qaida central have not dedicated a lot of time or effort to developing a
high-end CBRN capability. . . . Al-Qaida central never had a coherent strategy to obtain CBRN: instead,
its members were divided on the issue, and there was an awareness that militarily effective weapons
were extremely difficult to obtain.” 57 Most terrorist groups “assess nuclear terrorism through the lens
of their political goals and may judge that it does not advance their interests.”58 As Frost has written, “The
risk of nuclear terrorism, especially true nuclear terrorism employing bombs powered by nuclear
fission, is overstated, and that popular wisdom on the topic is significantly flawed.”59
AT: Terrorism  Retaliation
Obama’s retaliation wouldn’t be nuclear
Rowley ’10 Michael Rowley, senior correspondent and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time,
“Obama and Nuclear Deterrence,” The New Republic, 1/5/2010, http://www.tnr.com/node/72263
As the story notes, some experts don't place much weight on how our publicly-stated doctrine emerges
because they don't expect foreign nations to take it literally. And the reality is that any decisions about using nukes will
certainly be case-by-case. But I'd still like to see some wider discussion of the underlying questions, which are among the most consequential
that policymakers can consider. The questions
are particularly vexing when it comes to terrorist groups and
rogue states. Would we, for instance, actually nuke Pyongyang if it sold a weapon to terrorists who used it
in America? That implied threat seems to exist, but I actually doubt that a President Obama--or any
president, for that matter--would go through with it.
No public or international support
Bremmer ‘4 Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute,
September 13, 2004, New Statesman, “Suppose a new 9/11 hit America…,” p. Lexis
What would happen if there were a new terrorist attack inside the United States on 11 September 2004? How would
it affect the presidential election campaign? The conventional wisdom is that Americans - their patriotic defiance aroused - would rally to
President George W Bush and make him an all but certain winner in November. But consider the differences between the context of the
original 9/11 and that of any attack which might occur this autumn. In 2001, the public reaction was one of disbelief and incomprehension.
Many Americans realised for the first time that large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil were not only conceivable; they were, perhaps,
inevitable. A majority focused for the first time on the threat from al-Qaeda, on the Taliban and on the extent to which Saudis were involved in
terrorism. This time, the public response would move much more quickly from shock to anger; debate over how America should respond would
begin immediately. Yet it
is difficult to imagine how the Bush administration could focus its response on an
external enemy. Should the US send 50,000 troops to the Afghan-Pakistani border to intensify the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and 'step
up' efforts to attack the heart of al-Qaeda? Many would wonder if that wasn't what the administration pledged to do after the attacks three
years ago. The president would face intensified criticism from those who have argued all along that Iraq was a distraction from 'the real war on
terror'. And what if a significant number of the terrorists responsible for the pre-election attack were again Saudis? The Bush administration
could hardly take military action against the Saudi government at a time when crude-oil prices are
already more than $45 a barrel and global supply is stretched to the limit. While the Saudi royal family might
support a co-ordinated attack against terrorist camps, real or imagined, near the Yemeni border – where recent searches for
al-Qaeda have concentrated – that would seem like a trivial, insufficient retaliation for an attack on the US mainland. Remember
how the Republicans criticised Bill Clinton's administration for ineffectually 'bouncing the rubble' in Afghanistan after the al-Qaeda attacks on
the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990s. So what kind of response might be credible? Washington's concerns about Iran are rising.
The 9/11 commission report noted evidence of co-operation between Iran and al-Qaeda operatives, if not direct Iranian advance knowledge of
the 9/11 hijacking plot. Over the past few weeks, US officials have been more explicit, too, in declaring Iran's nuclear programme
'unacceptable'. However, in
the absence of an official Iranian claim of responsibility for this hypothetical terrorist attack,
the domestic opposition to such a war and the international outcry it would provoke would make
quick action against Iran unthinkable. In short, a decisive response from Bush could not be external. It
would have to be domestic. Instead of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, leading a war effort abroad, Tom Ridge,
the homeland security secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general, would pursue an anti-terror campaign at
home. Forced to use legal tools more controversial than those provided by the Patriot Act, Americans would experience stepped-up
domestic surveillance and border controls, much tighter security in public places and the detention of a large number of suspects. Many
Americans would undoubtedly support such moves. But concern
for civil liberties and personal freedom would ensure that the
government would have nowhere near the public support it enjoyed for the invasion of Afghanistan.