2014 NDI – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative
Natural Gas Negative
**Case Debate**
Artic Advantage
Artic Cooperation Now
Military procedure only proves cooperation
VOR 2/1/14 (Voice of Russia, “Military cooperation in Arctic doesn't mean militarisation of region - Russian Ambassador”,
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_01/Military-cooperation-in-Arctic-doesnt-mean-militarisation-of-region-Russian-Ambassador-0170/)
The development of the military cooperation among the Arctic countries should not be considered
the region's militarisation , Russia's Ambassador at Large and representative at the Arctic Council /AC/ Anton Vasilyev said in an
interview with Itar-Tass. He had participated in the Council's meeting on organisation of the Arctic Economic Council. "The demand for
further improvement of military cooperation among the Arctic countries is evident ," the ambassador said.
"What forms it will have will depend on practical agreements." "Take for example Russia, with its 20,000-kilometres' borders
along the Arctic Ocean. Formerly, the border was protected fully by the ice and severe climate. Now the climate is milder, the ices are
melting. Thus emerges the task of adding our military presence there to secure the country from illegal border crossing, illegal emigration,
organised crime and terror. Secondly, we
have been developing actively navigation along the Northern Sea
Route. We see it our obligation to secure the navigation . We have started extracting oil on the shelf. The economic
activities in the Arctic have been growing. However, growing are also man-made catastrophes. We also see higher demand for additions efforts
in search and rescue of people in the region. Thus, the
first legally binding agreement among the Arctic countries was on
search and rescue of people. This is complicated to do without assistance from the military." "As heads of
the Air Force headquarters from the Arctic Council's countries had their first meeting in April 2012 at Canada's Goose Bay aviation base, they
agreed the first task for cooperation would be missions in search and rescue," the Russian diplomat said. "This is very important. They also
agreed then to have meetings of the kind every year. Last year, it was in Ilulissat /Greenland/. This year, another annual meeting is due in
Iceland in June." " Higher
attention from the AC countries towards the military factor in the Arctic should
not be considered as militarisation ," the ambassador continued. "It is implementation of national
sovereignties of the countries, which share responsible approaches to the region's security. Everything
has been done transparently, logically, and is not aimed against any neighbours, is not of a
destabilising character and does not cross any 'red lines'.
No Russia Impact
It’s a safe space! no war impact & accidental war between the US and Russia.
Rybachenkov 4/3/13 (Vladimir, Counselor for nuclear affairs at the Russian embassy in Washington, Lecturere at CarnagiePlowshare, “The Arctic: region of multilateral cooperation or platform for military tension?”, http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_03/The-Arcticregion-of-multilateral-cooperation-or-platform-for-military-tension/)
Some western media have recently been highlighting the view that military conflicts in the struggle
to secure the Arctic's natural resources are inevitable. Russia is carefully monitoring developments in polar region and
considers the general situation in the area to be positive, stable and, on the whole, predictable, based on the assumption that
there are no immediate issues that might call for a military solution. This assessment has recently
been confirmed in a report by the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI), which refuted recent
conjecture about a polar arms race.¶ It is commonly recognised that there are currently three major factors determining the
the end to military and political confrontation from the Cold War when the Arctic was
almost exclusively seen in the context of flight trajectories for strategic nuclear weapons as well a route for nuclear submarine patrols. Now
the threat of a global nuclear war is substantially reduced, with US–Russian arms control treaties
being a key element in the gradual movement towards a world without nuclear weapons. Impartial
assessment of the arms control proces s shows that both countries' nuclear potentials have steadily
Arctic situation; Firstly,
diminished over the last 20 years.
The START 1 treaty resulted in the removal of about 40% of the nuclear weapons deployed in
Russia and the USA while the 2010 New START treaty provided for their further fourfold reduction. Substantial
efforts have also
been made by both countries to reduce the likelihood of accidental nuclear launches due to
unauthorised actions or misunderstandings: strategic nuclear bombers were taken off full time alert
and “Open
ocean targeting" was mutually agreed, meaning that in the event of an accidental launch, the missile
would be diverted to land in the open ocean.
Two other factors were contributing to the opening up of new opportunities in
the Arctic: the emergence of new technologies and rapid thawing of the Arctic ice, both rendering natural resources and shipping routes more
accessible. It should also be noted that the ice-cap depletion also has a military dimension, namely the gradual increase of US multipurpose
nuclear submarines and the deployment of missile defence AEGIS warships in the Northern Seas may be considered by Russia as a threat to its
national security. Russia
was the first Arctic state to adopt, in 2008, a long term policy report in response to
the new realities, it pointed to the Arctic region as a, “strategic resource base for the country" which
would require the development of a new social and economic infrastructure as well as an upgrading of military presence
in the region to safeguard the Arctic territory. The document however underlined that there was no question of
militarising the Arctic and expressed the importance of sub-regional and international cooperation to
form a favourable social, cultural and economic space.¶ All other Arctic states have adopted similar
strategies with the key common point being a statement that the national interests of each Arctic state
can only be met through multilateral cooperation.¶
A “race" for territory, energy and seafood has been curtailed by
historical decisions taken at the 2008 Ilulissat (Greenland) meeting when five Arctic coastal states declared that their basic framework for
future cooperation, territorial delimitation, resolution of disputes and competing claims would be the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS ).
No Artic Impact
No Arctic conflict by any nation
Fries, 2012 – Tom, Senior Fellow at the Arctic Institute, MBA from Georgetown University, ‘Perspective Correction: How We Misinterpret
Arctic Conflict’, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/04/perspective-correction-how-we.html
War and conflict sell papers -- the prospect of war, current wars, remembrance of wars past. Accordingly, a
growing cottage industry devotes itself to writing about the prospect of conflict among the Arctic nations and between those nations and non-Arctic states, which is
mostly code for “China.” As a follower of Arctic news, I see this every day, all the time: eight articles last week, five more already this week from the Moscow Times,
Scientific American or what-have-you. Sometimes this future conflict is portrayed as a political battle, sometimes military, but the
portrayals of the
states involved are cartoonish, Cold-War-ish...it’s all good guys and bad guys. I’m convinced that this is nonsense , and I feel
vindicated when I see the extent to which these countries' militaries collaborate in the high North. From last week's meeting of all eight Arctic
nations' military top brass (excepting only the US; we were represented by General Charles Jacoby, head of NORAD and USNORTHCOM) to
Russia-Norway collaboration on search & rescue; from US-Canada joint military exercises to US-Russia shared research in the
Barents...no matter where you look, the arc of this relationship bends towards cooperation. But there's a
bigger misconception that underlies the predictions of future Arctic conflict that we read every week .
This is the (usually) unspoken assumption that the governments of these states are capable of acting quickly,
unilaterally and secretly to pursue their interests in the Arctic. False. This idea that some state might
manage a political or military smash-and-grab while the rest of us are busy clipping our fingernails or
walking the dog is ridiculous. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the governments of the Arctic states are, like most massive
organizations, bureaucratic messes. Infighting between federal agencies is rampant all around, as are political shoving matches between federal and
state/provincial/regional governments. Money is still scarce, and chatter about military activism isn’t backed up by
much: Canada is engaged in a sad debate over the downgrading of the proposed Nanisivik port; the United States’ icebreaker fleet is barely worth mentioning and
shows little sign of new life in the near-term future; US Air Force assets are being moved 300+ miles south from Fairbanks to Anchorage; and
Russia’s talk
about a greater Arctic presence has been greatly inflated for the sake of the recent elections . In a more
general sense, we have viciously polarized governments in the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada, as well as numerous
“hotter” wars elsewhere that will take the lion’s share of our blood and treasure before the Arctic
gets a drop of either. The smaller states might be able to act more nimbly, but Norway and Denmark are successful
Scandinavian social-market economies with modestly-sized militaries who aren’t likely to put military
adventurism in the Arctic at the top of their to-do lists. They’re also patient decision-makers who are
making apparently sincere (if not always successful) efforts to incorporate their resident indigenous
communities into national politics. This makes fast, unilateral, secret action unlikely. And then there is Russia.
From the outside, it can often seem as though the Russian government rules by fiat. This reasonably leads to the concern that someone might take it into his head
to assert Russia’s military might or otherwise extend the country’s sovereignty in the Arctic. But it is fairly clear that Russia’s
success is currently, and for
on its position within the constellation of global hydrocarbon suppliers. To
continue to develop its supply base, Russia needs the assistance of the oil majors of neighboring states, and indeed it is
the near-term future, dependent
showing signs of warming up to foreign engagement with its Arctic hydrocarbons in significant ways.
Its political relationships with its regular customers are also critical to its future success . Russia isn’t
likely to wantonly sour those relationships by acting aggressively against all four of its wealthy, wellnetworked littoral brothers in Europe and North America. It’s not only the handcuffs of many colors
worn by the Arctic states that will keep them from getting aggressive, it is also the good precedents
that exist for cooperation here . Russia and Norway recently resolved a forty year-old dispute over
territory in the Barents. There are regular examples of military cooperation among the four littoral
NATO states and between Norway and Russia. Even the US and Russia are finding opportunities to
work together . Meanwhile, the need to develop search-and-rescue capabilities is making cross-border
cooperation a necessity for all Arctic actors. There are numerous international research and private-
sector ventures, even in areas other than hydrocarbons. These will only grow in importance with time. In fact, it would
seem that for many of these countries, the Arctic is a welcome relief - a site where international
collaboration is comparatively amicable.
Warming Advantage
Warming I/L Turn
US and global emissions are decreasing now --- shift to fossil fuels reverses the trend
Willis 10/31/13 [Ben, Renewable energy transition behind ‘remarkable’ slowdown in CO2 emissions, http://www.pvtech.org/news/renewable_energy_transition_behind_remarkable_slowdown_in_co2_emissions]
The increase in global carbon dioxide emissions slowed last year because of a shift towards
renewable energy usage , a major new study claims. A report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre found that in 2012 the increase in global
emissions slowed to 1.1%. This was less than half the average annual increase over the past decade
of 2.9% and, significantly, appeared to suggest a break in the link between global economic growth and
increasing emissions . Global GDP grew by 2.5% last year. The report said this “remarkable” trend was
most pronounced in the world’s three worst emitting areas – China, the US and Europe. China’s
emissions increased by 3% last year, compared to an average of 10% over the past decade, while the
US and EU emissions decreased by 4% and 1.6% respectively. The study ascribed this trend to a shift to
less fossil fuel-intensive activities and a greater deployment of renewable energy , which accounted
for 2.4% of the global energy mix in 2012. The study said the trend could herald a “permanent” slowdown
in CO2 emissions as long as these three countries and regions continue to cut total energy use and
increase the amount of renewable energy they use.
Exports intensify warming and makes it irreversible.
Rom, 2012 (Joe, climate expert, is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, “Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Is Bad For The Climate” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/18/500954/exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-is-bad-for-theclimate/)
The surge in U.S. production of shale gas is creating a surge in permit requests to build liquefied natural gas
(LNG) terminals. That’s because the glut of U.S. gas has dropped domestic prices sharply below global price levels. But if avoiding
catastrophic climate change is your goal, then spending huge sums on even conventional natural gas
infrastructure is not the answer , as a recent International Energy Agency report made clear: The specific emissions from
a gas-fired power plant will be higher than average global CO2 intensity in electricity generation by
2025, raising questions around the long-term viability of some gas infrastructure investment if climate
change objectives are to be met. And liquefying natural gas is an energy intensive and leaky process. When you factor in shipping
overseas, you get an energy penalty of 20% or more . The extra greenhouse gas emissions can equal
30% or more of combustion emissions, according to a 2009 Reference Report by the Joint Research Centreof the European
Commission, Liquefied Natural Gas for Europe – Some Important Issues for Consideration. Such extra emissions all but
eliminate whatever small, short-term benefit there might be of building billion-dollar export
terminals and other LNG infrastructure, which in any case will last many decades, long after the electric grid
will not benefit from replacing coal with gas. Furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration concluded in a 2012
report on natural gas exports done for DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy that such exports would also increase domestic
g reen h ouse g as emission s : [W]hen also accounting for emissions related to natural gas used in the liquefaction process, additional
exports increase CO2 levels under all cases and export scenarios, particularly in the earlier years of the projection period.
Asserting any
net benefit for the importer requires assuming the new gas replaces only coal — and isn’t used for ,
natural gas vehicles , which are worse for the climate or that it doesn’t replace new renewables. If
even a modest fraction of the imported LNG displaces renewables, it renders the entire expenditure
for LNG counterproductive from day one. Remember, a major new 2012 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
say,
study on “technology warming potentials” (TWPs) found that a big switch from coal to gas would only reduce TWP by about 25% over the first
three decades (see “Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage“). And that
is based on “EPA’s latest estimate of the amount of CH4 released because of leaks and venting in the natural gas network between production
wells and the local distribution network” of 2.4%. Many experts believe the leakage rate is higher than 2.4%, particularly for shale gas. Also,
recent air sampling by NOAA over Colorado found 4% methane leakage, more than double industry
claims. A different 2012 study by climatologist Ken Caldeira and tech guru Nathan Myhrvold finds basically no benefit in the switch
whatsoever — see You Can’t Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need ‘Rapid and Massive Deployment’ of Zero-Carbon Power. So spending
vast sums of money to export natural gas from this country is a bad idea for the climate. A new paper published last week by Brooking’s
Hamilton Project, “A Strategy for U.S. Natural Gas Exports,” asserts a different conclusion, primarily because it ignores all of the issues
discussed above. Indeed, the paper rather amazingly asserts “Natural gas, though, has the same climate consequences whether it is burned in
the United States, Europe, or Asia,” which would be true for exported U.S. gas only if we could use magic to take the U.S. shale gas and put it
into European or Asian gas-fired power plants. In the real world, it
takes a massive amount of energy and greenhouse
gas emissions to get gas from here to those markets, as is well known in the climate policy arena. BOTTOM LINE: Investing
billions of dollars in new shale gas infrastructure for domestic use is, at best, of limited value for a short period of time if we put in place both a
CO2 price and regulations to minimize methane leakage. Exporting gas vitiates even that limited value and so investing billions in
LNG
infrastructure is, at best, a waste of resources better utilized for deploying truly low-carbon energy. At worst, it helps accelerates
the world past the 2°C warming threshold into Terra incognita — a planet of amplifying feedbacks and
multiple simultaneous catastrophic impacts .
XT – Warming I/L Turn
Plan causes more warming –
1. Extraction causes methane emissions which massively accelerate warming.
Brun, 2014 (Maria, PhD student at the University of California, Davis in the Ecology Graduate Group and Department of Environmental
Science and Policy studying energy policy, member of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior and the Institute for Transportation
Studies, B.A. in Economics at the University of Minnesota, Morris and a Master of Science in Development Studies at the London School of
Economics, “Natural Gas – A Bridge Fuel to Faster Climate Change?” 2/18/2014 http://egsa.ucdavis.edu/blog/2014-02-18-natural-gas-a-bridgefuel-to-faster-climate-change/)
Just a decade ago, clean energy champions talked almost exclusively of the familiar wind, solar, and biomass energy generation options. Since
the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) boom just a few years ago, the clean energy debate has become a bit muddied. Beyond arguing that domestic
natural gas production is good for energy and natural security, proponents
of fracking and natural gas have been appealing to
that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” to a lower carbon society. But
skeptics of this line of reasoning are numerous. A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that
fugitive (uncaptured or accidental) natural gas emissions from fuel extraction and processing are much higher
those concerned about climate change, arguing
than previously thought, bolstering natural gas skepticism. For a bit of background, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions consist primarily (84% as of
2011) of carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane and Nitrous Oxide (yes, laughing gas) make up the majority of the remainder contributing 9% and 5%
to total emissions respectively. Used as a substitute for gasoline and diesel, compressed natural gas primarily consisting of methane has lower
greenhouse gas emissions and much lower CO2 emissions in particular. Moreover, electricity generation from natural gas can be run either to
cover base load demand or with variable output, a key characteristic to be compatible with intermittent electricity sources like wind, solar, and
other renewable energy generation methods. As a result, even MIT’s Energy Initiative center and our now Secretary of Energy advocated the
natural gas was a low-carbon alternative that should be pursued to bridge the country toward renewable energy and to slow global warming.
But low-carbon
energy is misleading . When it comes to climate change, a gas’s warming potential is of
key importance. Using a relative scale, CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 and all other gasses are compared to CO2’s ability to trap
heat and warm the planet. Methane – the primary component of natural gas – has 25 times the warming
potential of CO2 . In other words, not fully combusted, natural gas is worse for climate change. The new report, demonstrating that
methane emissions are actually higher than previously thought, calls to question where the “bridge” built by natural gas is actually leading us.
Though the EPA recently decided to cut its estimates of these fugitive emissions, the report argues that these emissions are actually 2-8 times
higher than the EPA originally estimated. Many
of these emissions come from fuel extraction , including natural gas
drilling and fracking. Moreover, other articles have argued that an increase in natural gas use hasn’t really been seen as connected to more
renewable energy. Renewables only account for around 8% of total energy consumption in recent years, most of which comes from large
hydropower which is not new nor considered renewable by many environmental organizations. As a nation, we need to find alternatives to
fossil fuels. In the West, this means focusing less on natural gas plant development; elsewhere, it means less coal. The debate over clean energy
shouldn’t be muddied with half-truths about natural
regulations and practices,
gas. It’s still a fossil fuel , it’s still non-renewable, and under current
it could be much worse for climate change
even if it can claim to be low carbon. Instead, the U.S.
should start focusing on investing more in renewable technologies and giving nuclear options a closer look.
2. Coal trade off
Walsh, 2011 (Bryan, is a senior writer for TIME magazine, citing a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “Natural
Gas Can Save the Climate? Not Exactly” http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/09/09/natural-gas-can-save-the-climate-not-exactly/)
So the fact that technological advances had enabled the U.S. and many other countries to tap vast new reserves of shale natural gas should be
good news, at least for the climate. As a fuel natural gas is cleaner and significantly less carbon-intensive than coal, while much cheaper than
most renewables, at least at this point. While some studies have tried to argue that the manufacturing process for shale gas—which includes
controversial hydrofracking—means that the fuel might be dirtier over the long term than coal, the general consensus is that natural gas emits
about half as much carbon over its lifecycle as coal. Therefore, cheaper
shale gas than enables utilities to switch from
coal generation to natural gas should slow the warming of the climate—right? Maybe not so much. In
a
new study that will appear soon in the journal Climatic Change Letters, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) researcher Tom
Wigley crunches the numbers and finds that switching from coal to natural gas will do little to cool the
climate—in fact, depending on production methods, it might actually speed up warming . Here’s why: it’s true that coal
contains far more carbon than natural gas, and when coal is burned to produce electricity, that carbon ends up in the atmosphere, intensifying
the greenhouse effect. But there’s more than just carbon in coal—an average lump also contains large amounts of sulfur, ash other pollutants.
When the coal is burned, those sulfates and other particles are also emitted into the atmosphere, and
the smog and pollution they produce actually helps block incoming sunlight—cooling the Earth, and
offsetting some of the warming effect of the carbon. But natural gas contains far fewer such pollutants. Using complex climate
modelling, Wigley found that a 50% reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas would lead to a slight increase in global
warming over the next 40 years of about 0.1 F because of the reduction in the sulfates and other sunlight-blocking pollutants contained in coal.
The amount of warming changed depending on how much methane might leak on average from natural gas drilling. (Natural gas is essentially
methane, which is itself a powerful greenhouse gas—during the natural gas production process, small amounts of methane can escape into the
atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.) If the amount of methane leakage is about 2%—fairly optimistic—the
switch to natural
gas will keep adding to warming until the end of the 21st century, and the more methane that leaks,
the longer that warming trend continues. Says Wigley: Whatever the methane leakage rate, you can’t get
away from the additional warming that will occur initially because, by not burning coal, you’re not
having the cooling effect of sulfates and other particles.
This particle effect is a double-edged sword because reducing
them is a good thing in terms of lessening air pollution and acid rain. But the paradox is
when we clean up these particles, it
slows down efforts to reduce global warming.
3. Kills climate diplomacy
The Hill, 2012 (Citing Michael Levi, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment @CFR “Natural-gas boom could isolate US on climate
change” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/237601-natural-gas-boom-could-hurt-us-climate-change-efforts)
The domestic national-gas boom might thin the ranks of climate change advocates and put the U nited
S tates at odds with the international community
natural gas
on the issue, an expert said Thursday. America's insistence that
will play an important role in easing the effects of climate change runs
counter to European views and will
likely invite “friction ,” Michael Levi, program director on energy security and climate change with the Council on Foreign Relations,
said during a discussion hosted by the New America Foundation. He said Europeans view natural gas as a dirty energy source.
That could
isolate the United States in international climate talks , Levi said. “For the most part, people in the United States who
care about climate change think that natural gas is good news,” Levi said. “That is not the view in Europe. In Europe, natural
gas is generally seen as a bad thing for climate change and a bad direction for the climate. On the
international level, that will put us in some problems.”
Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than oil or coal when
burned as an energy source. But some environmentalists fear that emissions of methane -- a potent greenhouse gas -- at well sites could erode
the climate benefits of the fuel. Climate change has garnered more attention in recent weeks as abnormal weather — including droughts, fires,
windstorms and record temperatures — sweeps the country. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano last week said there could be
a link between the extreme weather and climate change.
The expansion of natural gas might also cause
environmentalists most concerned about resource scarcity to drop from a coalition of groups that
push for climate change policies, he said. “If that piece of the coalition that wants climate policy in place
vanishes because of this sense of abundance, then I think it becomes more difficult to put good climate
policy in place, ” Levi said.
4. Deforestation and Construction processes
Charman, 2010 (Karen, environmental journalist, Trashing the Planet for Natural Gas CNS December 2010
http://karencharman.com/resources/TrashingThePlanet.pdf)
Proponents argue unconventional natural gas is clean and needed as a “bridge fuel” that will help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to help curb global climate destabilization until we can transition away from coal. But this claim neglects to account
for both the energy required and the resulting emissions from extracting, processing, and distributing
the gas—i.e., the use of fossil fuels to build pipelines, truck the enormous amounts of water needed
for hydrofracking, drill wells, manufacture the chemicals for the fracking fluids, run the compressors,
and treat and transport the wastewater. 57 Nor does it consider the loss of carbon sinks from forests
cleared for drilling. 58 No scientific peer-reviewed analyses of greenhouse gas emissions measuring
the entire fuel cycle for shale and other unconventional gas sources have yet been completed and
published. Cornell ecologist Robert W. Howarth is analyzing total greenhouse gas emissions from Marcellus Shale gas development. His
preliminary data suggest that because of the difficulty of obtaining the more diffuse shale gas, these additional
emissions are likely to be at least three times the greenhouse gas emissions for extracting,
processing, and transporting diesel fuel and gasoline. 59 Much more of a concern, however, is the
leakage of methane into the atmosphere during all stages of drilling, processing, transporting and burning the gas. Methane,
which is 72 times more powerful a greenhouse gas per molecule than CO2 , 60 is the major
component of natural gas. Howarth notes that the numerous incidents of explosions and contaminated wells in shale gas drilling
areas in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Ohio in recent years reveal pathways for methane to escape into the atmosphere: “The
concentrations of methane necessary for an explosion are at least 10,000-fold higher than those
normally in the atmosphere, and this leakage from contaminated groundwater is probably quite
significant in terms of the greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas.” 61 Although Howarth’s study is not yet complete, his
preliminary results indicate that the greenhouse gas footprint of Marcellus Shale gas is “probably at least twice as great as
the emissions from just burning the gas. That is, shale gas is not a clean fuel and appears to be a poor
choice as a transitional fuel over the coming decades if the U.S. is serious about addressing global
climate disruption.” 62
5. Trades off with renewables and displaces emissions.
Harvey 2012(Fiona, Environmental Correspondent for The Guardian, 'Golden age of gas' threatens renewable energy, IEA warns, 5-2912, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-boom-renewables-agency-warns)
A "golden age of gas" spurred by a tripling of shale
gas from fracking and other sources of unconventional gas by 2035 will stop
renewable energy in its tracks if governments don't take action, the International Energy Agency has warned. Gas is
now relatively abundant in some regions, thanks to the massive expansion of hydraulic fracturing – fracking – for shale gas, and in some
areas the price of the fuel has fallen. The result is a threat to renewable energy, which is by
comparison more expensive, in part because the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are still
not taken into account in the price of energy. Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA, said the threat to renewables was plain:
"Renewable energy may be the victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their
renewable support schemes." Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, told a conference in London: "Policy
measures by governments for renewable energy have to be there for years to come, as it is not always
as cost-effective as it could be." Shale gas fracking – by which dense shale rocks are blasted apart under high pressure jets of water,
sand and chemicals in order to release tiny bubbles of methane trapped inside them – was virtually unknown less than ten years ago, but has
rapidly become commonplace. In places like the US, the rising price of energy has made such practices economically worthwhile. On current
trends, according to the IEA, the
world is set for far more global warming than the 2C that scientists say is the
limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. "A
golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate," warned Birol. The IEA report comes as the
Guardian revealed that gas has been rebranded in secret documents as a form of green energy by the EU. Gas produces only about half of the
carbon emissions of coal when burnt, which has led some industry lobbyists to attempt to rebrand it as a "clean" or "low-carbon" fuel. But its
effect on the climate is less clear-cut than the direct comparison with coal would suggest. In the US, gas-fired power stations have taken over in
some areas from coal-fired power, reducing the nominal carbon emissions from US power stations. But that does not necessarily equate to a
global cut in emissions. Last year, the consumption
of coal in Europe rose by 6%, according to Birol, which was a result of
an excess of cheap coal on the market because of less consumption in the US, while the price on carbon
emissions under the EU's emissions trading scheme – supposed to discourage coal – was too low to have any effect. That rise in coal
consumption will have increased emissions in the EU, though the data has not yet been fully collected. This example
shows that gas can simply displace emissions rather than cut them altogether, according to Birol. "Gas cannot
solve climate change – we need renewable energy," he told the Guardian. Another important factor is the release of
methane – natural gas – from shale gas fracking operations. Methane – a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as potent
as carbon dioxide in terms of global warming – leaks from fracking sites, and is rarely captured by the
gas companies because the technology to capture it costs money and they face no penalty for the
leaks.A report by Scottish Widows found that these "fugitive emissions" were enough to offset the global warming benefits of switching from
coal to gas-fired power generation.
AT: Plan Causes Renewables/Bridge
1. Doesn’t lead to effective renewable development and even if they do those
renewables fail.
Bell, 2013 (Larry, correspondent citing: Murry Salby, climate scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, EIA Figures, Patrick Genevein,
CEO of the Dallas-based Tang Energy Group, US DOE, and the Sierra Club, “ Natural
Gas: Pipeline To Prosperity...Bridge Fuel
To Nowhere ” 7/23/2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/07/23/natural-gas-pipeline-to-prosperity-bridge-fuel-to-nowhere/)
Climate Crisis Confusion: First of all, while there can be no doubt that America is truly blessed with huge natural gas abundance, there is
no basis whatsoever for conflating this enormous energy resource either with climate benefits over coal, or
with disadvantages relative to non-fossil “alternatives”. At long last, even the New York Times reported on June 6 that “The rise in the surface
temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred
even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Reporter Justin Gillis went on to admit that the break in
temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system”, whereby the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery
to climate scientists.” Should lack of actual recent observed warming be taken to mean that climate doesn’t change, or that warming won’t
occur again? No. But it does mean that the highly theoretical climate models upon which all crisis claims are entirely based can’t be trusted.
Let’s recognize that the global climate has warmed in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age which lasted from about 1400 with 1700
AD. That warming began some time before American industrialization brought carbon-stoked smoke stacks and SUVs….and that development
occurred long after comparable or even warmer global temperatures existed during the Medieval Warm Period about 1,000 years ago. Some
notable scientists attribute the Little Ice Age and recent flattening of global temperatures to periodic ebbs and wanes in the Sun’s energy
output. In fact, scientists at Russia’s prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg have stated that solar activity is now waning to such an
extent that the global average yearly temperature will begin to decline into a very cold and protracted climate phase. Observatory head
Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of the world’s leading solar scientists, member of the Russian Academy of Science, and director of the Russian
segment of the International Space Station, points out that over the last 1,000 years deep cold periods have occurred five times. Each is
correlated with declines in solar irradiance much like we are experiencing now with no human influence. “A global freeze will come about
regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity
as a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.” Murry Salby, a climate scientist at Macquarie
University in Sydney agrees about the cause and effect reversal: “in the real world, global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, as it
is in the model world…in significant part CO2 is controlled by global temperature, as it is in the proxy record.” Salby points out that when
models that have been predicting CO2-induced heating differ from direct observations, then they’re wrong, calling practices that claim
otherwise a “cult science.” And What Fossil Alternatives Lie Across the Natural Gas Bridge…..? According to 2012 EIA
figures, slightly more than 42 percent of U.S. electrical power came from coal, 25 percent from natural gas, 19 percent from nuclear, about 3.4
percent from wind, and about 0.11 percent from solar. Both wind and solar are unreliable time-of-day, season and weather-dependent, as well
as geographically very limited, typically in areas remote from urban population centers where demands are greatest. They are also very costinefficient compared with coal, natural gas and nuclear, requiring heavy subsidies and utility mandates to even begin “leveling” fields of
competitive pricing. Since 2009 American taxpayers have shelled out $14 billion in cash payments to solar, wind and other renewable energy
project developers. This includes $9.2 billion to 748 small and large wind projects, and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects, which
will add just 48 terawatt hours of electricity. Despite all of the sequester hype, the Obama administration’s Department of Energy has awarded
more than $1.2 billion in charity to 435 new renewable energy projects since January 1, including 381 solar awards. In addition, DOE is pressing
ahead with plans to throw in $150 million more for renewable projects which was left over from a separate 48C tax credit stimulus program. At
least one green energy developer recognizes that these stimulus subsidy programs have a record of doing more harm than good, and he isn’t
reluctant to say why. Patrick Jenevein, CEO of the Dallas-based Tang Energy Group, posted a Wall Street Journal article arguing that” the
sequester offers Washington a rare opportunity to roll back misguided subsidies and maybe help reverse wind power’s stalling momentum.”
Jenevein noted that since 2009, wind farm developers like his company have been able to get a cash grant or tax credit covering up to 30% of
their capital investment in a new project, and that through May 2012 Washington had spent $8.4 billion on cash grants. He welcomes the fact
that the cash-grant program will be cut back 8.7% between March 1 and September 30. Viewing this as a positive policy change, he wrote:
“Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs. In turn, the industry produces a product
that isn’t as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development.” Patrick
Jenevein points out that: “After the 2009 subsidy became available, wind farms were increasingly built in less-windy locations… The average
wind-power project built in 2011 was located in an area with wind conditions 16% worse than those of the average… Meanwhile, wind-power
prices have increased to an average $54 per megawatt-hour, compared with $37 in 2005.” He continued, “If our communities can’t reasonably
afford to purchase and rely upon the wind power we sell, it is difficult to make a moral case for our business, let alone an economic one… Yet as
long as these subsidies and tax credits exist, clean-energy executives will likely spend most of their time pursuing advanced legal and
accounting methods rather than investing in studies, innovation, new transmission technology and turbine development.” Is White House
Natural Gas Support Really Just a Promotional Pipe Dream? As the Obama administration blows more and more taxpayer money into the wind
and pumping sunshine, it continues to unrelenting wage war on oil and gas drilling. This mission is accomplished through its EPA, Interior
Department and an alphabet soup of other agencies, including: attempts to preempt state and private land rights; permitting complexities,
delays and uncertainties on federal lands which discourage enterprise; punitive taxes on fossil fuels, and multi-agency regulatory threats
against fracking. As Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of the Institute for Energy Research in Washington, D.C., observed in an interview I posted
last March, the apparent intent is to make heavily subsidized, unreliable and costly “renewable” energy programs they are pushing more cost-
competitive. “This is the Tonya Harding approach to energy… break your opponent’s kneecap if you can’t win fair and square.” Projects
purportedly intended
to serve as transition bridges from fossil-fueled energy use to so-called “clean
renewables” often don’t receive as much love as we might expect from environmental organizations either. A 2011 U.S.
Chamber of Commerce report titled “Project/No Project” found 140 renewable projects that had stalled, stopped, or been outright killed due to
“Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) environmental activism and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents. The Chamber study
concluded that it is just as difficult to build a wind farm in the U.S. as it is to build a coal-fired plant, with
about 45% of all challenged projects being “renewable energy”. This is accomplished by a variety of strategies, including organizing local
opposition, changing zoning laws, preventing permits, filing lawsuits, and using other long delay mechanisms, effectively bleeding projects dry
of their financing. The
projects
report also confirmed that there were very few “shovel ready” renewable energy
that were truly qualified for support under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus funding). And
according to the U.S. Department of Energy, even if
all renewable sources (including hydro) were to grow at three times
the pace of all others, they would still make up just 16% of all domestic supplies by 2035 . Incidentally,
most environmental organizations really seem to hate hydro. Absolutely
no energy options are immune from
environmental challenges . No, it’s certainly not just “dirty” coal, oil and natural gas, that are being challenged…or those
“hazardous” nuclear plants. Hydroelectric dams are under assault for killing fish, biomass burning produces greenhouse gases just as fossils do,
and geothermal power releases toxic ground and water contaminates. Wind turbines slaughter birds and bats, solar power disrupts fragile
desert ecosystems. As Mike Garland, CEO of Pattern Energy Group, a wind farm developer observed, “We are starting to see all renewable
energy projects, no matter how well planned are being questioned.” In 2012, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
Defenders of Wildlife filed suit to stop a 663 megawatt 4,600-acre Calico solar plant from being built on 7.2 square miles in the Mohave Desert
northeast of Los Angeles. Originally planned to provide 850 megawatts of electricity generated by 30,000 solar dishes standing 40 feet high, the
project was scaled back over concern about impacts on desert tortoises. Regardless, the deal ran into more problems with the Sierra Club,
which joined with California Unions for Reliable Energy over the developer’s hiring of non-union labor. Together, they petitioned the state
Supreme Court to block the project on environmental grounds. After those efforts failed, Tessera sold the project to a K Road Power, a New
York firm, which decided to switch to solar panels. That still wasn’t enough, and the Sierra Club sued the BLM, FWS and the Department of
Interior over threats to tortoises and other wildlife. The union group, which had signed a labor agreement with K Road, didn’t participate in the
latest litigation. And what about those solar environmental advantages…like protecting the planet from climate-ravaging carbon dioxide
emissions? Well, maybe not after all…at least not according to a letter of protest from three environmental organizations to BLM over new
Department of Interior rules to streamline approval for solar energy projects on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land. The letter
complains that “ no
scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce
greenhouse emissions .” In fact, the letter issued by the Western Lands Project, Basin and Ranch Range, and Solar Done Right
indicates that “…the opposite may be true. Recent work at the Center for Conservation Biology at the University of California, Riverside,
suggests that soil disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era
caliche deposits that release carbon
to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements, thus
negat[ing] the solar
development C[arbon] gains.” And if this isn’t bad news enough, the letter says that the environmental impacts from the solar
panels “..are long-term (decades to centuries)” and threaten the habitat of “…endangered species, including the
desert tortoise, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, golden eagle and desert bighorn.” So should it really be all that vexing for
anyone, even for the Sierra Club, to wonder why electricity and fuel prices have and will continue to skyrocket as a direct result of those
“green” alternative energy dreams they have aggressively championed? Wasn’t that the idea all along?
2. This isn’t offense for the aff – there is natural gas now which should solve the
transition.
And renewables will die out due to natural gas – lack of diverted funding for
renewables
Jenkins and Trembath 4/30/12 (*Alex, Alex Trembath is a policy analyst in the Energy and Climate Program at Breakthrough,
Alex is a graduate of University of California at Berkeley where he received his Bachelor's in Environmental Economics and Policy. *Jesse, Jesse
Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is a candidate for a Masters of Science in
Technology & Policy. “Gas Boom Poses Challenges for Renewables and Nuclear”
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/gas_boom_poses_challenges_for)
From a recent high of over $13 per mmBTU in 2008, natural
gas prices have plummeted to under $2.50 per mmBTU.
These cost declines have been paralleled by similar drops in prices for wind- and solar-generated electricity, but improvements for
clean tech have not yet achieved full cost-parity with natural gas. the While gas prices are not expected to remain
project them to hover in the $4-6 per mmBTU range for at least the
medium-term, still very low by historical standards. By our calculations, natural gas prices at these levels yield a levelized
at these markedly low levels, experts
cost of energy (LCOE) of between $52-72 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a combined cycle gas plant. Wind power, which competes directly with
combined cycle peaking gas plants, ranges between $60 and $90 per MWh in the best wind sites. The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC)
brings wind's LCOE down to $33-65 per MWh, but this credit is scheduled to expire at the end of this
year.
Solar power doesn't compete directly with combined cycle gas plants. Utility-scale solar plants instead compete with combustion
turbine gas plants, which have an LCOE range between $72 and $104 per MWh. We estimate levelized costs for utility-scale central-station
solar photovoltaic range from $111 to $289 per MWh. The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) brings this range down to an estimated $81 to
$131 per MWh, helping solar compete in select markets. But the ITC, like the PTC, is temporary, and even with its support the broad market for
utility electricity generation favors combustion turbine-generated electricity from natural gas. Residential and commercial rooftop solar have to
contend with a broad range of retail electricity prices, from $80 to $193 per MWh. Residential rooftop solar, in comparison, ranges between
$213 to $345 per MWh. The ITC brings this range down to $153 to $248, making rooftop solar competitive in some markets with high local
electricity prices and high solar irradiance, including California, New Jersey, and Arizona. Residential rooftop solar is already competitive
without subsidy in Hawaii, which has the nation's highest residential electricity prices and bountiful solar resource. There are line-of-sight cost
reductions ahead for wind and solar. Analysts project the cost of wind turbines to decline between 10 and 30 percent over the next three years,
pushing wind into wider cost parity with combined cycle gas. Solar too can achieve significant cost declines, with $1.00 per watt total installed
costs possible by 2020, compared to over $3.50 per watt today. But these improvements will require sustained commitments to technological
innovation, as well as improvements in transmission, balance-of-systems, and financing costs. Nuclear power faces perhaps the biggest
challenges of all low-carbon power. Although nuclear has proven itself the most scalable source of zero-carbon baseload power, providing 20
percent of America's electricity generation, high capital and financing costs combine with high public risk perception and regulatory burdens
that make new nuclear power comparatively expensive. Projected levelized costs for new nuclear power going online between 2016 and 2020
range between $112 and $130 per MWh. A federal Production Tax Credit for nuclear brings this down to $94 to 102 per MWh. With gas prices
expected to remain well below these levels for the foreseeable future, the outlook for new nuclear power in the United States remains
challenging. Zero-carbon
power sources require continued improvements in technology costs and
performance to achieve full market competitiveness. These challenges are amplified by astonishingly
low natural gas prices in the wake of the ongoing shale gas revolution . However, lessons for zero-carbon power
advocates can be found in the history of shale gas itself: just as the sustained public and private research and commercialization efforts drove
breakthrough innovations in hydraulic fracturing and microseismic mapping technologies that enabled the shale revolution, so must the
nation initiate smart and strategic public-private partnerships to drive technical improvements and
cost declines in solar, wind, nuclear, and other zero-carbon energy technologies.
No – coal switch and liquefication means an increase in CO2.
EIA 2012(Energy Information Administration, Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets, January 2012,
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/pdf/fe_lng.pdf)
On average from 2015 to 2035 under Reference case conditions, decreased natural
gas consumption as a result of added exports are
countered proportionately by increased coal consumption (72 percent), increased liquid fuel consumption
(8 percent), other increased consumption, such as from renewable generation sources (9 percent), and decreases in total consumption (11
percent). In the earlier years, the
amount of natural gas to coal switching is greater, and coal plays a more
dominant role in replacing the decreased levels of natural gas consumption, which also tend to be greater in the
earlier years. Switching from natural gas to coal is less significant in later years, partially as a result of a greater proportion of switching into
renewable generation. As a result decreased natural gas consumption from added exports more directly results in decreased total energy
consumption via the end-use consumer cutting back energy use in response to higher prices. This basic pattern similarly occurs under the Low
Shale EUR and High Economic Growth cases – less switching from natural gas into coal and more into renewable than under Reference case
conditions, as well as greater decreases in total energy consumption as a result of added exports. While
lower domestic natural
gas deliveries resulting from added exports reduce natural gas related CO2 emissions, the increased
use of coal in the electric sector generally results in a net increase in overall CO2 emissions . The exceptions
occur in environments when renewables are better able to compete against natural gas and coal. However, when also
accounting for emissions related to natural gas used in the liquefaction process, additional exports increase CO2
levels under all cases and export scenarios, particularly in the earlier years of the projection period. Table 2 displays the
cumulative CO2 emissions levels from 2015 to 2035 in all cases and scenarios, with the change relative to the associated baseline case.
Makes runaway warming inevitable – displaces clean tech and lock in
Massey 2012 (Nathanael, "Golden Age" for Natural Gas Might Prove Climate Challenge, Scientific American, 3-30-12,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=golden-age-natural-gas-might-prove-climate-challenge)
The world is on the brink of a "golden age" for natural gas, with demand for the low-carbon fossil fuel slated to rise by
50 percent -- as much as demand for coal, oil, nuclear power combined -- over the next two and a half decades, according to a recent report by
the International Energy Agency. Should
those trends manifest, however, the world will have little chance of
halting global warming at 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels, the limit most scientists say is necessary if
runaway climate change is to be avoided. "We are not saying that it will be a golden age for humanity -- we are saying it will be
a golden age for gas," Fatih Birol, lead author of the study "Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Natural Gas" told the BBC. Driven by increased
exploration in North America and China, production
of shale gas could triple to 1.6 trillion cubic meters during
that period, swelling gas's share of the global energy mix to nearly a quarter by 2035 . Advocates for natural
gas often point to its potential as a "bridge resource" -- a low-carbon alternative for baseload power that can displace coal and oil until
renewable energy sources like solar and wind become economically scalable. Yet deploying
natural gas on the scale projected by the
mean building infrastructure that locks the world into gas for decades to come, the IEA
notes. The report notes, as well, that "lower natural gas prices lead to slightly higher overall consumption of
energy and, in some instances, to displacement of lower-carbon fuels, such as renewable energy sources
and nuclear power." Gas no panacea for global warming The study projects an overall greenhouse gas increase of 20 percent compared
to 2010 levels, slightly lower than projected if the current fuel mix, including coal, were to persist. "Overall, the projections [in the
high-end usage scenario] involve only a small net shift in anticipated levels of greenhouse gas
emissions," the study notes. Those projections see atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations stabilizing at 650 parts per million, resulting
IEA report would
in a temperature rise of 3.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Those conclusions have drawn criticism from environmental groups,
including Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund, which argue that the analysis leaves out the important roles that energy
conservation and renewable energy could play in the future. "We know how to build gas plants, how to get permits. There's a lot of momentum
there, obviously," said Marty Spitzer, U.S. climate policy director at the World Wildlife Fund. "But I think we need to have a conversation about
this and ask ourselves, just because we have the gas, just because know how to use it, does that really mean we should?" Spitzer agreed that
gas might function as a bridge but only if it could somehow be used without locking the world into several decades of gas-fired infrastructure.
"You need baseload capacity to offset things like solar and wind, so there's a good marriage there with gas," he said. "But even then, gas
can't just replace all the other fossil fuels as the baseload. We need to be deploying wind, solar,
geothermal at the same time."
AT: Warming Impact
No impact to warming
Stafford 3/11/2013 (James, 2013, interviewing Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran "Climate Change without
Catastrophe: Interview with Anthony Watts," http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Climate-Change-without-Catastrophe-Interview-with-AnthonyWatts.html)
Anthony Watts: The premise of the issue for proponents can be summed up very simply: You put CO2 in the atmosphere and it makes it warmer, that’s bad. The
reality is that the Earth’s
climate system is far more complex than that: It isn’t just a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, it is a
dynamic ever-changing one, and climate is tremendously complex with hundreds of interactive variables and feedbacks. Predicting an
outcome of a chaotic system over the long term is a very, very big task, one that we’ve really only
scratched the surface
of. Dr. Judith Curry
of Georgia Tech describes it as a “wicked problem”. But it is being
popularly portrayed as a simple black-and-white problem and few really delve much beyond the headlines and the calls for action to understand that it is really
many shades of grey. Oilprice.com: As a former TV meteorologist and a developer of weather data dissemination technology, can you tell us more about how your
background lends to your “pragmatic scepticism” on climate change? Anthony Watts: In TV, if I was wrong on the forecast, or the temperature reported was
inaccurate, I’d hear about it immediately. Viewers would complain. That immediate feedback translates very quickly to making sure you get it right. With climate,
the forecast is open-ended, and we have to wait years for feedback, and so the skill level in forecasting often doesn’t improve very much with time. Also, I’ve
had a lifetime of experience in designing and deploying weather instrumentation, and like with forecasting, if
we don’t get it right, we hear about it immediately. What I learned is that the government weather service (NOAA) had it right at
one time, but they’d dropped their guard, and my recent study (preliminary) shows that not only is the deployment of weather stations faulty in siting them, but
that the adjustments designed to solve those issues actually make the problem worse. Oilprice.com: Is there any way to remove the “camp” element from the issue
of climate change? How far do disastrous weather events—like Hurricane Sandy—go towards reshaping the climate change debate? Anthony Watts: The idea that
Hurricane Sandy, a minor class 1 storm, was somehow connected to CO2 driven “climate change” is ludicrous, especially when far worse storms existed in the same
area in the past when CO2 was much lower. Hurricane Hazel in October 1954 is a case in point. In my view, the only way to null out the “camp” element is via
education. Looking
at the history of severe weather, there really aren’t any trends at all. Both the IPCC and
The Journal Nature say this clearly, but activists persist in trying to link severe weather and CO2 driven “climate change” because
since temperature increases have paused for about 15 years, it is all they have left. But even that doesn’t hold up when you study the data history: There is also
some peer-reviewed analysis which goes into some depth on this subject. This analysis concludes that " there
is no evidence so far that
climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Oilprice.com: Your message on climate change
has been controversial among those who believe this issue is the gravest one facing us today. In what way do you think your message is misunderstood? Anthony
Watts: They think and promote that I’m categorically a “denier” in the pay of “big oil” (for the record, I’m
paid nothing for this interview) in an
was actually on the proponent side of warming at one time. Now, I’d
describe myself as a lukewarmer. Yes, it has gotten warmer, CO2 is partially a factor, but catastrophic predictions of the future just
effort to minimize my views, while ignoring the fact that I
haven’t held up when you look at the observed data compared to the early predictions.
No warming and not anthropogenic
Ferrara, 2012 (Peter, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and
Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National
Center for Policy Analysis, served in the White House Office of Policy Development, graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School ,
5/31/2012, "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling," http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-globalwarming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because
natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already
been declining for more than 10 years , and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or
more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I
serious natural science,
contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to
attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured
justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are
you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and
data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend
their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s
online. What
explaining reams of
see if the alarmists really do have any response. The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in
conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the
irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have
20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down
pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed
central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of
none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently. Check out the
naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late
1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s,
the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to
milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface
Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle
where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global
temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to
temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on
Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of
Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures
would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did
not think significant. Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a
climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don
presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and
All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal
attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their
views in public debate. Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree ,
full explanation of it.
and the gap was widening . That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the
future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could
be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines
Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to
continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and
cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. But
that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is
associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to
logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well. Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years,
1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).
Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to
50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The
impacts of the sun on the
earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the
Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz
Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun. Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle
will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder
Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death. Such
Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.
Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts---warming won’t cause war
Singer et al 2011 Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, and a Member of the International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with
more than thirty years professional experience; and Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American
Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of American Geographers, et al, 2011, “Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,” online: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf)
Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human well-being, including the percent of
developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates, and deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic
improvement during the twentieth century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on society's adaptability (adaptive capacity),
which is determined by, among other things, the wealth and human resources society can access in order to
obtain, install, operate, and maintain technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts.
The IPCC systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take into account the greater
wealth and technological advances that will be present at the time for which impacts are to be
estimated. Even accepting the IPCC's and Stern Review's worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded annual growth
rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in developing countries in 2100 would be
double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple that level in 2200. Thus, even developing countries' future
ability to cope with climate change would be much better than that of the U.S. today . The IPCC's embrace
of biofuels as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found "even the best biofuels have the
potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity" (Delucchi, 2010). Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it
generates, competes with food crops and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the world's demand for
fuels. The
- that is,
notion that global warming might cause war
and social unrest is
not only wrong, but even backwards
global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in the past, whereas global warming has coincided
with periods of peace, prosperity, and
social
stability .
Natural Gas Adv
US Oil Independent Now/Has Enough Capacity
US shale deposits are sufficient – ensures US price dominance, solves manufacturing,
and the free market will fill in.
Bryce, 11/14/2013 (Robert, senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute, NYT,
“OPEC Is Yesterday’s News” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363900/opec-yesterdays-news-robert-bryce/page/0/1)
While we continue to hear rhetoric about America’s lack of a comprehensive energy policy, the
fact remains that other countries would
love to be in America’s position. In 2012, the U.S. produced more natural gas — an average of nearly
66 billion cubic feet per day — than it has at any time in its history. The flood of natural gas now
being produced from shale deposits
has driven
down prices (they’re now at about $3.60 per million BTU) and has given
the U.S. a price advantage over nearly every other country on the planet , with the possible exception of Qatar. That
cheap gas is fueling a resurgence in American manufacturing in everything from steel to fertilizer.¶ The surge in
natural-gas production has occurred alongside huge increases in oil output . Last year, U.S. oil production
rose by about 800,000 barrels per day, the biggest annual increase since 1859. And it is expected to rise by another
600,000 barrels per day this year. That increased oil production has led to a huge increase in U.S. oil
exports. In July, the U.S. exported an average of nearly 3.9 million barrels of refined products per day. Back in 1973, those exports were a paltry 211,000 barrels
per day. Shultz and Smith want readers to believe that over the last four decades, OPEC members have been dining out on America’s credit card.
Here’s the reality: Since 1973, the OPEC countries have largely stayed poor while we got richer. OPEC member countries have a combined
population of some 429 million. Their combined GDP is some $3.3 trillion, or about a fourth that of the U.S. The per capita GDP for all the
member countries is $7,800. That’s about 62 percent of the world-average per capita GDP and less than one-sixth of the per capita GDP in the
U.S., which is nearly $50,000.¶ In short, there’s
a near-total disconnect between the reality of today’s global
energy market and the OPEC-centric worldview that’s being promoted by Shultz, Smith, and their
alarmist allies . The depth of the disconnect can be seen in their promotion of electric cars. The two are advocating electric vehicles even
though the history of the electric car is a century-plus of failure tailgating failure. How much more in the way of subsidies do Shultz and Smith
want? The Obama administration has already provided about $6.5 billion in handouts for what is clearly a failed concept.¶ It’s worth
mentioning that Smith, as the head of FedEx, has an economic interest in getting the government to support the development of alternative
fuels because his company uses enormous quantities of petroleum in its airplanes and trucks. Last year, Smith predicted that biofuel produced
from algae would become a big deal. My prediction: Don’t count on it.¶ If
the U.S. wants to reduce the amount of oil it
uses domestically (and thereby increase its exports), the best course is to simply let the free market
work . Indeed, it’s already working . Proof of that can be seen by looking at the soaring popularity of
NGVs. All over the world, consumers and fleet owners are using more natural gas to fuel their vehicles
because the fuel reduces emissions and, in many cases, it’s cheaper than refined oil products.¶ In June, the International
Energy Agency estimated that global demand for natural gas in the transportation sector will nearly double, to about 9.6 billion cubic feet per
day, by 2018. The agency also revealed a remarkable fact: “ The
expansion of gas as a transport fuel has a bigger
impact on reducing the medium-term growth of oil demand than both biofuels and electric cars
combined .Ӧ In July, Simmons & Co., a Houston-based investment-banking firm, projected that by 2020 the number of heavy trucks in the
announced it would spend $50
million on new liquefied-natural-gas refueling stations that will be used to fuel 1,000 of the logistics
company’s long-haul trucks. Doing so will save the company about 24 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. Depending on where
U.S. fueled by natural gas will increase sixfold to some 170,000 vehicles.¶ In October, UPS
you are in the U.S., a natural-gas gallon-of-diesel equivalent is $1.00 to $2.00 cheaper than diesel fuel. If we assume a $1.00 differential, UPS
could recover its capital investment in about two years. And here’s the most important part: UPS
is making the switch not
because of government mandates or subsidies, but because doing so saves money.¶ The takeaways here
are obvious: First, the world’s consumers are diversifying away from oil because they have an
economic incentive to do so. Second, the energy superpower of today is the United States, not
OPEC . Third, providing more subsidies and mandates for inefficient and uneconomic oil substitutes will only result in a waste of taxpayer
dollars.
XT – US Oil Independent/Has Enough Capacity
And the most recent data is on our side --- IEA predictions.
Institute for Energy Research, 11/18/2013 (A not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the
functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and
effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society, citing the IEA energy
reports, “IEA Predicts the U.S. Will Be the World’s Largest Oil Producer by 2015” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59323)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) just released it World Energy Outlook 2013 and moves up the
date by which the United States will become the world’s largest oil producer. In last year’s Outlook, the agency
predicted the United States to be the number one oil producer by 2017, but it now predicts we will achieve that ranking two years
in 2015, and we will then be producing 11 million barrels per day. The shale oil renaissance enabled by
hydraulic fracturing coupled with directional drilling technology is the reason that the United States can
reclaim that position from the current oil production leaders–Russia and Saudi Arabia. The United States
remains the world’s largest oil producer for much of the IEA forecast period to 2035. Improved energy
efficiency and a boom in unconventional oil and gas production enable the United States to meet almost
earlier,
all of its energy needs from domestic resources
by 2035. Also, IEA points out that in 2035, fossil fuels still remain the major fuels on
which the world relies, supplying 76 percent of primary energy demand in 2035. ¶ Oil Supply and Demand¶ Over the next decade, increasing
production in North America and Brazil
oil
reduces the need for OPEC oil due to technological advancement.
According to the IEA, technology is opening up new types of resources, such as tight oil and ultra-deepwater offshore fields that were considered too difficult and
expensive to access until recently. Through this decade, the oil boom in North and South America threatens revenues for OPEC’s members, whose production is at
its lowest in two years, but OPEC will resume its major position towards the end of IEA’s forecast period as it remains the only major source of relatively low cost oil.
IEA expects oil production in the United States to peak at almost 12 million barrels per day in 2025 and plateau thereafter. Despite new resources opening up,
national oil companies and their host governments still control 80 percent of the world’s proven-plus-probable oil reserves.
Energy boom now – The US sq drilling can sustain our energy production.
Offner, 2014 (Jim, Mcclatchy News Service, “Will the U.S. Declare Oil Independence in 2037?”
http://www.govtech.com/transportation/Will-the-US-Declare-Oil-Independence-in-2037.html)
Mark the year 2037 on your calendars. That’s the year the U.S. will not have to import any more oil, according to the U.S. Department
of Energy. RELATED High-Tech Buoy System Tracks Galveston Bay Oil Spill The U.S. Navy has developed a method for extracting what from
seawater? “ The
new Independence Day ,” joked Phil Flynn, energy analyst with Chicago-based Price Futures Group. But, he actually
was serious. “Since the Arab Oil Embargo, it’s been our nation’s goal to become energy independent, and there’s been a lot done in that time to
use less oil and become more fuel-efficient.” Advances
in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling get much of the
credit. Technology now can squeeze oil out of rocks . And, with net oil imports down from 13 million barrels a
day in 2006 to about 5 million now, the
U.S. is rising as a power player in the energy business, where it once was a craven
U.S. is now actually positioning itself as the
world’s dominant – and reliable -- energy producer. Flynn compares this national accomplishment to landing a man on the
customer that would pay whatever price one despot or another commanded. The
moon. “A few years ago it was pessimism, with people asking what happens when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil; now, we’re going to be the
world’s biggest oil producer," he said. It already has begun. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, total U.S. net imports
of energy, measured in terms of energy content, declined in 2013 to their lowest level in more than two decades. Growth in the production of
oil and natural gas displaced imports and supported increased petroleum product exports, driving most of the decline. Net energy imports
decreased by 19 percent from 2012 to 2013. Here's the irony: The federal government has fought this expansion. The number of drilling leases
on federal lands that the Bureau of Land Management fell from more than 9,000 in 1988 to 1,468 last year. The number was 3,499 as recently
as 2007. The Obama Administration has clamped access to oil and gas riches on federal property. Production, meanwhile, is booming in the
Eagle Ford and Bakken formations -- the former in Texas and the latter in North Dakota and Montana. “President Obama said we couldn’t drill
our way to energy independence, but we are,” Flynn said. The motoring public will note gasoline prices continue to rise. But Flynn says prices
are lower than a year ago and could be much higher now without the increased U.S. output. Were it not for the riches fracking
technology has unlocked, gas probably would be $8 a gallon now, instead of $3.50, Flynn said. “It’s keeping a lid on prices," he
said. Forty years after the oil embargo, petroleum is still powering the U.S. economy. Big Green argues that it has a better solution, but it's Big
Oil that has the goods, here and now, and there's more to come. Meanwhile, Flynn notes, Russia isn't trying to take over Ukraine over wind
mills; it's all about oil and gas. “Everybody’s heard about the shale gas revolution, but they haven’t realized that, with
these same
technologies, we’re producing a heck of a lot of oil
out of these same rocks,” Flynn said. In practical terms, this new oil and
gas boom is keeping the national economy afloat. “I shudder to think how the economy would be doing without it," Flynn said. "Let’s face it:
This is one of the few growing industries in the country. The industry that has been revolutionized that is going to change the world is this
energy boom in the United States."
US production is high
Cala 7/11/2013 (Andrés Cala is an award-winning Colombian journalist, columnist and analyst specializing in geopolitics and energy. He is the lead
author of America’s Blind Spot: Chávez, Energy, and US Security, “US Energy Renaissance Shifts Power”, July, 9th, 2013,
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/07/09/us-energy-renaissance-shifts-geopolitics/)
The surge in U.S. output from shale gas and so-called “tight oil” is reshaping global economics by
making Americans less dependent on foreign oil and freeing President Barack Obama to reorient the
nation’s geopolitical strategies accordingly.¶ The supply-and-demand math of this new equation is simple. The U.S. economy has
historically been configured to run on cheap energy, but for the past half century, rising oil prices have caused economic dislocations domestically while funneling
trillions of American dollars to energy-rich regions around the world.¶ The U.S. government also ramped up its security involvement in these areas, especially the
oil-rich Middle East, frequently protecting ruling autocrats in exchange for steady supplies of oil. ¶ Early in this new century, an expanding world economy and an
expectation that energy supplies would dwindle kept prices high, enriching oil and gas producers, including American rivals such as Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, high
oil prices put pressure on the economies of big consumers like the United States, often distorting U.S. global strategies. President George W. Bush partially justified
his invasion of Iraq in 2003 by citing a concern over who would control that nation’s vast oil reserves. ¶
Adding to energy-price inflation was
the historic growth in the economies of nations such as China and India.
Oil prices soared to records of nearly $150 a
barrel before crashing in 2007-08 as the global economic crisis hit. Still, revived expectations of tight supplies and a resurgent demand lifted crude prices again,
threatening the fragile U.S. economic recovery taking hold during the early years of the Obama administration. ¶ However, by
then, decades of
private U.S. investment finally was delivering technological breakthroughs in the use of “fracking”
technology to release shale gas and “tight oil .” By 2010, it was increasingly clear that the great
potential of shale reserves was materializing and triggering a profound reassessment of global output
forecasts for this decade and beyond.¶ A bullish price climb toward $200 a barrel, which was expected as recently as two years ago, has
turned into a bearish price outlook of between $80 and $100 a barrel. This new reality is underscored by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013 Outlook,
which projects that U.S. primary energy consumption will remain mostly flat for the next 30 years while the country’s gas and oil production will grow steadily.¶
In May 2013, U.S. crude output increased 20 percent from a year before to 7.3 million barrels per day ,
the highest since 1992 , while oil demand has shrunk as the result of the economic crisis, increased
fuel efficiency, more use of natural gas in transportation, and reducing consumer demand trends.¶
“Tight oil” output will contribute 2.4 million bpd by 2020 , similar to Norway’s and Venezuela’s output, and similar to Iran’s
exports before sanctions took hold.
Natural gas production is also surging, and the U.S., which last decade built gas
import infrastructure, is now expected to become a net exporter. ¶ That means U.S. energy imports
will decrease while exports increase , changing the old rules of the energy game not just for the
United States but for the world’s other major energy producers and consumers.
Manufacturing High Now
US manufacturing is on a sustainable rise – most recent data proves
Tradeonlinetoday, 6/20/2014 (Online News source citing the Commerce Department report, Bloomberbusinessweek, and
the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, “Report says U.S. manufacturing is bouncing back”
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2014/06/report-u-s-manufacturing-bouncing/)
A new Commerce Department report says the U.S. manufacturing sector has turned a corner, with
outputs and exports surpassing pre-recession peaks and employment growing
for the first time since 1998.
steadily , the department’s economics and
statistics administration reported. Manufacturing output has grown by 38 percent since the end of the Great Recession and the
sector accounts for 19 percent of the rise in real gross domestic product since then. Through May, the sector has added 646,000 jobs and
manufacturers are actively recruiting to fill another 243,000 positions. “The steady growth across all three of
For the first time in more than 10 years, output and employment are growing
these areas might have seemed like wishful thinking just a few years ago, when manufacturing was hit especially hard,” the report stated. “Yet
manufacturing output and exports have surpassed their pre-recession peaks and employment has begun to grow again for the first time since
1998.” The news comes as some studies
show that the U nited S tates is becoming increasingly competitive as a
manufacturing ground. Several reports, such as a Bloomberg Businessweek report that ran in April, make the case that
the U nited S tates is just as cheap for manufacturers as China. Analysis by the President’s Council of
Economic Advisors indicates that this is more than a cyclical rebound . The U nited S tates has gained about
four times as many manufacturing jobs since 2009 as would be expected from cyclical factors
alone.
Nonetheless, although the manufacturing expansion is robust, some industries and U.S. states have fared better than others. About 87 percent
of the job gains in manufacturing have been in three durable goods industries: transportation equipment, fabricated metal products and
machinery. Job gains in manufacturing have occurred throughout the country. More than half of the jobs added were in five states: Michigan,
Texas, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. Foreign investors also are helping to build the U.S. manufacturing sector . As
of 2012, total direct investment in the United States from abroad totaled $2.7 trillion, of which $899 billion (34 percent) was placed in the
manufacturing sector.
XT – Manufacturing High Now
Manufacturing is high now and on the rise –
New federal initiatives
Shanghai Daily, 6/18/2014 (News Source, “U.S. announces new measures to boost manufacturing”
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=225032)
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Xinhua) -- The Obama administration unveiled
a raft of measures
on Tuesday to
strengthen
manufacturing industry and shore up job growth. Manufacturing entrepreneurs will be able to access more
than 5 billion U.S. dollars worth of advanced equipment in federal research and development facilities that they may
use to develop new technologies and launch new inventions, the White House said in a statement. It means entrepreneurs could
potentially use NASA's National Center for Advanced Manufacturing to produce the high-strength, defectfree joints required for cutting-edge aeronautics . Five federal agencies will invest more than 150 million U.S.
dollars in research to support the Materials Genome Initiative, a public-private endeavor that aims to cut in half the time it
takes to develop novel material, to support the administration's investment in the manufacturing of advanced materials. Across federal
agencies, the
administration has supported an increase in federal investment in manufacturing research and
development by 35 percent in three years, from 1.4 billion U.S. dollars in 2011 to 1.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2014. According to the new
White House National Economic Council Report on manufacturing industry, manufacturing represents 12 percent of U.S. GDP, yet accounts for
75 percent of all U.S. private sector research and development, and the vast majority of all patents issued in the United States. U.S.
manufacturing is more competitive
than it has been in decades as
output has increased 30 percent
since the end
of the recession, growing at roughly twice the pace of the economy overall -- the longest period where manufacturing has outpaced U.S.
economic output since 1965. Since February 2010,
pace of job growth
since the 1990s.
the manufacturing sector has added 646,000 jobs, the fastest
Manufacturing I/L Turn
Plan kills the manufacturing industry before it solves.
Holland, 6-7-12¶ (Andrew, Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate Policy at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank
based in Washington, DC, “Will Dutch Disease Follow-on the American Energy Boom?,”
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/06/07/will-dutch-disease-follow-on-the-american-energy-boom/)
An ongoing discussion among some of us analysts at Consumer Energy Report has been about
whether having natural resources like oil or coal is actually beneficial to a country (see Are Countries With Vast
Oil Resources Blessed or Cursed?, Oil Dependence — Tom Friedman’s False Narrative, and Oil — Easy to Produce, But Not Easy to Buy).¶ The
argument which I’ve made is that a
boom in natural resources production can cover up some short-sighted
economic policies; in effect, the earnings from producing oil mean that countries do not have to invest
in their education or produce their own manufactured goods. The other side of the argument is that it can only be a
good thing for new resources to be found.¶ Leaving aside the question of whether natural resource wealth undermines institutions or causes
corruption (and there is good evidence of a resource curse among developing countries) there
is one thing that increased
production of oil does, once it gets to be a big enough sector of the economy: it pushes up the value of
that country’s currency.¶ All else equal (as economists always have to say), new production of natural resources
strengthens the domestic currency. That’s because those resources are either exported or are used to
replace imports.¶ Dutch Disease Phenomenon¶ Now – I should mention that I like a strong dollar, personally: it means I can afford to
travel abroad more, and buy more when I get there. It also means that French wine (for example) becomes cheaper relative to Californian wine.
I like French wine, and would welcome being able to buy more. However, that shows the
problem with having a strong
currency — it undermines domestic manufacturing and production (of Californian wine, in this example) by
driving up prices of American-made goods and services.¶ This phenomenon is called “Dutch Disease.”
Coined by The Economist in 1977 to describe how finding natural gas in the North Sea in 1959 affected the Netherlands’ economy over the
ensuing decades. The
symptoms of the ‘disease’ are when commodity exports push up the value of a
nation’s currency, making other parts of the economy less competitive. This leads to a current-account
deficit, which makes the economy even more dependent upon the commodity. The disease is
especially pernicious for commodities like oil, coal, and natural gas because these industries are very
capital-intensive, and actually do not generate that many jobs.¶ There are two major industrialized
countries that have undergone commodities booms over the past decade: Canada and Australia. They
are both showing signs of suffering from Dutch Disease, with the Canadian dollar increasing in value
vs. the American dollar (Canada’s #1 trading partner by far) by over 50% in the last ten years, and the Australian
dollar increased in value compared to world currency rates by almost 70% in the past decade.¶ Exports vs.
Domestic Manufacturing¶ Canada’s boom, related to the exploitation and exports of Alberta’s Oil Sands, has brought boom times to the
resource-rich areas of Western Canada. However, an article in the Global Post highlights how the
boom is dividing Canada:
Western politicians are pushing for more oil-centered exports, while politicians in Ontario and
Quebec, Canada’s traditional manufacturing heartland, are saying that increased oil exports have
undercut their ability to manufacture. The article says:¶ The debate was reignited last month by Tom Mulcair, leader of the
federal New Democratic Party, the main opposition to the ruling Conservative government. The high dollar , he said, has
“hollowed out the manufacturing sector” and cost a half-million jobs. ¶ Australia too, is having
problems with its currency. Steve LeVine writes in EnergyWire that “A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Energy
Policy Unfolds in the Land Down Under” (paywalled). While Australia’s boom is not related to oil, it is
exports of coal and iron ore – much of it exported to fuel China’s dramatic economic expansion – as well as becoming an
important new exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Levine writes:¶ Australia’s dollar has surged 69 percent in
value in the past decade, cutting into tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured
products. Its manufacturing base has shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years,
according to government figures.
XT – Manufacturing I/L Turn
Demand increasing domestically now---exporting gas is the lowest economic value and
cuts the manufacturing sector short
Cicio 9/27/12 (Paul N., President, Industrial Consumers of America, Cicio graduated from Youngstown State University with a BS in
Business Administration and Economics. “The 10% 10% in 2016 Gas Export Problem” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/sizing-up-therole-of-natural.php
The shale gas boom is the greatest opportunity for economic expansion that we will ever see in our lifetimes.
There is a brewing problem however, that no one is talking about, that could squander this once in a lifetime economic opportunity.
I call it the “10% 10% in 2016 Export Problem.” The first 10% in the name of the problem comes from the 6 bcfd
increase in demand we know is coming from already announced manufacturing capital projects totaling $80 billion in
investment. That investment and the thousands of jobs it will create are all due to the favorable U.S. natural gas price. This is just the first
“down payment” of manufacturing investment that is betting on continued favorable natural gas prices.
This does not include the
increase in demand we know is coming from the power and transportation sector. As an aside, the
domestic demand projections used by EIA that projects demand as flat or increasing only slightly in the future,
couldn’t be more different than what I hear from my members , who are responding to low prices by
increasing consumption . The second 10% in the problem comes from a January EIA report that analyzed
(on the low end) a 6 bcfd increase in demand due to LNG exports by 2016. (For your information, a total of 19 companies
have applied to export potential volume that would increase demand by 42 percent.) The 2016 in the problem is that both the
10% increase in demand due to manufacturing investment and the 10% increase in demand due to
LNG exports would both come onstream by 2016. The 10% and 10% increase in demand by 2016 will be the
single largest increase in demand in U.S. history in a very short time frame. To put this increase in
demand in perspective, from 2000 to 2011 total U.S. natural gas demand increased by only 4.4
percent. We have an abundant supply – but we also would have explosive short-term demand. The
question the problem raises is can the U.S. export 6 bcfd of natural gas without jeopardizing the 10% increase in demand from the
manufacturing sector; and without spiking electricity and natural gas prices for homeowners? The
best bang for our buck is using
natural gas in the manufacturing sector where it provides the highest return on investment in job
creation; economic development and value-added product exports by leveraging the newfound competitive advantage. The lowest
economic value is using it as a fuel and/or exporting it.
Exporting natural gas ends competitiveness, causes oil dependence and collapses the
chemical industry
Makey 9/28/12 (Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/sizing-up-the-role-of-natural.php#2246213)
The boom in American natural gas production is causing a seismic shift in the entire American
economy. Developed wisely, these resources have the potential to bolster America’s manufacturing
competitiveness, eliminate oil imports from the Persian Gulf, and radically reduce emissions of global
warming pollution. Just four years ago, coal generated half of our electricity. Now it’s down to 35 percent. Why? Because electric utility
executives have decided to replace dirty old coal-fired power plants with cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient natural gas, which has grown
from 21 percent to 30 percent of U.S. electricity generation in that time. Coal
is also being edged out of the electricity market by
wind, which has grown from virtually none of our power to 4 percent today. Solar is doubling every
year. And when it comes to heating homes during the winter, natural gas wins in landslide. Last winter, families spent an estimated $2,238 to
heat their homes, compared to $629 to heat with natural gas. That’s why 1.4 million households in the Northeast have switched away from
heating oil in the last 8 years. Most of them are choosing natural gas. Yet, the Republican Party is oblivious to the free market revolution taking
place. They are focused on making it easier for the coal industry to pollute while voting to extend more taxpayer subsidies for big oil, nuclear
and coal. When
you add up hydro, wind, solar, other renewables, and throw in natural gas and other
gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity. But just like Governor Romney has given up on 47 percent of Americans, House
Republicans are giving up on 44 percent of our electricity sector. In truth, the switch to natural gas is happening for one
simple reason: it’s cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent since 2008. Coal’s gotten 17 percent more expensive
during that time. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas than from coal. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s competition. Low price
natural gas is driving an American manufacturing renaissance. The
competitiveness of American steel, fertilizer, and
petrochemical industries that use huge amounts of natural gas for fuel and feedstock has surged . Many of the 500,000 U.S.
manufacturing jobs created since 2010 are a direct result of low natural gas prices. Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates we’ll create another 1
Exporting natural gas will do one thing: raise prices . In
fact, that is just what the oil and gas industry wants. By shipping American made natural gas to Japan and Korea,
they can fetch prices 6 times higher than ours. In Europe, prices are 3 times higher . Ultimately, some natural gas
producers may hope to create a global natural gas market that maximizes their profits. But if that happens, natural gas consumers
will be exposed to higher prices and greater market volatility -- in much the same way that the global oil market
million jobs by 2025 as a result of abundant, low-cost natural gas.
routinely rips off consumers at the pump. Eighteen applications have been submitted to the Department of Energy seeking to export 40 percent
of our current natural gas consumption. Exporting less
than half that amount could send domestic natural gas
prices skyrocketing by more than 50 percent, according to the Department. If all 18 or more are approved, and if electric
utility demand and home heating demand continue on their current course, we could again see a huge price spike in natural gas. This
would be painful for American consumers and catastrophic for the fertilizer manufacturers, the
chemical and plastics producers, and the steelmakers that rely on low-priced natural gas. It would make it
harder to convert our heavy- and medium-duty trucks and buses onto natural gas, which has the potential to reduce our oil imports by 2.4
million barrels per day. But don’t take it from me, billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens had this to say about exporting natural gas: “If we
do it, we’re truly going to go down as America’s dumbest generation. It’s bad public policy to export natural gas.” I agree. That is why I believe
we need a time out on approving additional LNG export terminals so that we can think through the consequences of expanded LNG exports for
our own domestic prices and economic growth. We’ve had 5 votes on the House floor in the past year and half on exporting American energy
resources. Republicans have voted in favor of exporting every time. The current natural gas drilling bonanza is radically reshaping our energy
portfolio. We must ensure that this American resource is used to bring our troops home and protect the wallets of consumers, and not used to
simply further enrich big oil and gas companies.
The plan’s increased exports causes deindustrialization killing manufacturing by
shifting resources towards oil drilling and encouraging importation of foreign
manufactured goods over the domestic industry.
Smith 10 (G. Jason B.S., University of Louisville, Department of Political Science University of Louisville Louisville, KY December 6,2010
“DO SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS MITIGATE AUTHORITARIAN RULE? A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS AND THE
RESOURCE CURSE”, http://digital.library.louisville.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd/id/2015/filename/4812.pdf)
Dutch Disease occurs when a state experiences a rapid increase in resource exportation that
culminates in indirect and direct deindustrialization . I Indirect deindustrialization occurs within the
labor market of the afflicted state by pushing workers out of the manufacturing sector into the
resource extraction and service sectors (Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Corden, 1984). Increased
demand for resources by world markets boost wages in the resource-extraction sector of the economy.
Higher wages then attract skilled labor from manufacturing companies resulting in a shift of educated
personnel from the industrial sector to the resource extraction sector
1982; Corden, 1984). As the situation continues,
(Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs,
the state's workforce loses its comparative advantage in tradable
manufactured goods further promoting deindustrialization (Krugman, 1987). The spending effect further
impedes labor movement into the industrial sector by increasing employment demand in the service
sector as the state uses its new-found commodity wealth to boost government expenditures on public and social services
(Ross, 1999; Ross 2001). Increased demand for labor in those employment areas elevate wages and creates an incentive for
unskilled workers to enter the service sector over the industrial secto r
(Krugman, 1987).
Rising incomes
increase internal demand for manufactured goods and services that leads to price escalation and
domestic inflation
(Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Van Wijnbergen, 1984).
Inflation combined with elevated global
demand for resources increase the real exchange rate of the state's currency resulting in direct
deindustrialization (Van Wijnbergen, 1984). The process of direct deindustrialization unfolds as follows. An increase in the real
exchange rate makes goods manufactured in the resource-rich state relatively more expensive on the
global market than goods produced in countries without inflation problems. Higher exchange rates also make imports
relatively cheaper than domestic production for the resource-rich state (Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Krugman, 1987). The resulting
economic situation incentivizes the importation of manufactured goods over domestic production
for Dutch Disease afflicted states.
Over time,
these circumstances erode the ability of the inflation-
distressed state to export manufactured goods leading to direct deindustrialization . The cycle
continues with each peak in commodity prices leaving resource exporting states ever more
vulnerable to deindustrialization (Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Corden, 1984; Van Wijnbergen, 1984;
Krugman, 1987; Auty, 1990; Auty, 1993; Auty, 2001). Concentration of labor resources in the commodity extraction
sector of the economy does not produce the type of occupational specialization conducive to
democratization because of the unique nature of that industry . Specifically, technical advances and
worker productivity tend to increase slower in resource-extraction jobs than in the traditional manufacturing
sector (Ross, 1999). Limited exposure to technological development prevents employees from developing
the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge the government because workers are not required
to continue their education beyond the initial learning process (Lipset, 1959; Inglehart, 1960; Deutsch, 1961; Ross, 1999; Ross,
evolution of worker productivity inherent in the resource extraction sector tends to
further hinder occupational specialization through a separate process (Ross, 1999). To maximize worker efficiency
2001). The slow
under the Dutch Disease circumstances, employees are not shifted around to different jobs. As such, unions and other industrial groups do not
form to protect workers.
Australia proves
LeVine 6/7/12 (Steve, Environment & Energy Publishing, “A cautionary tale for U.S. energy policy unfolds in the Land Down Under,”
http://eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/06/07/2)
Coal and iron ore have transformed Australia into a regional powerhouse, propelling a 51 percent economic expansion
over the past two years alone and spearheading an expected further gusher of export wealth from liquefied natural gas. Yet the remarkable boom
has come at a price: Australia's dollar has surged 69 percent in value in the past decade, cutting into
tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured products. Its manufacturing base has
shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years, according to government figures. As the boom has built,
Australians have gone deeply into debt -- last year, they owed an average of 156 percent of their
disposable household income, more than triple their 49 percent debt load in 1991. It's a dilemma that
could be replicated in the United States. Swiss investment bank UBS said in a research note this week that the U.S.
energy boom could raise annual economic growth almost 1 percent but also strengthen the U.S. dollar,
raising the price of American exports and making them less competitive abroad (EnergyWire, June 5).
Australians call it their "two-track economy." A 19-year run of economic growth fueled by China's industrial and commercial boom has
delivered unprecedented wealth to the country of 22.3 million people. But, driven mostly by mining and drilling exports from just
two rural provinces, it has also weighed on the rest of the economy, including in large cities outside the resource belt such
as Melbourne and Sydney. Now, with flagging economic growth in China, Australia's reliance on cyclically priced
commodities is reverberating broadly in the country. Economic growth has slowed -- in the last quarter of 2011, it
was just 0.4 percent -- as Australian companies are receiving 17 percent less for thermal coal than a year ago and 31 percent less for iron ore. But the slump
has been unevenly dispersed: Airline, banking and engineering companies recently announced
thousands of layoffs. Yet Australia's natural resource companies, pushing ahead with record capital investment
despite the Chinese slowdown, have begun to recruit abroad to fill $100,000-a-year-and-up skilled labor jobs. "What do you
call a credit bubble built on a commodity bull market built on a much bigger Chinese credit bubble? Leveraged
leverage? A [collateralized debt obligation] squared? No, it's Australia," Dylan Grice, an analyst with Société Générale,
said in a note to clients last month. U.S. economists and energy analysts, taking stock of growing production in shale oil and shale gas fields,
have begun to forecast a broad-based American economic revival, including hundreds of thousands of
new jobs. But Australia illustrates that such booms do not necessarily produce broad-based job
growth, and that they can prove debilitating in unexpected ways to other important industries .
Backstopping---exports cause supply cut backs globally---collapses the economy and
independently turns the case
Korin 12 (Anne Korin is co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a think tank focused on energy and security, “Should
the U.S. Export Natural Gas?” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577561300198957854.html)
The U.S. gas bonanza is giving Washington a key geostrategic opportunity to reposition itself in Asia and
the Pacific, to slowly back away from the Middle East and help key allies. The U.S. may have a future role to play for governance over natural-
But as LNG plays a larger part in international
natural-gas trading and the commodity becomes fungible, the other gas giants—Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
and the U nited A rab E mirates—will have every incentive to concretize their discussions on forming an
gas flow in Asia, especially if it becomes a key LNG exporter. MS. KORIN:
OPEC-like natural-gas cartel. They'll be able to restrict supply to the market and counterbalance the
U.S . That will drive the newly global natural-gas price—and thus prices in the U.S .— higher than it
would have gone otherwise. That will certainly benefit those who own and sell the gas, but through
higher electricity and chemical prices, it would overall be a drain on the economy.
Economy I/L Turn
Plan kills the US economy
Glaeser,7-11-12(Edward, Harvard Econ professor, “What the U.S. Can Learn From Australia’s Coal Mines,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-australia-s-coal-mines.html,)
A recent paper I co-wrote with William Kerr and Sari Pekkala Kerr examined the long-run impact of mining across
the U.S. Fifty years ago, the economist Benjamin Chinitz noted that New York appeared even then to be more
resilient than Pittsburgh. He argued that New York’s garment industry, with its small setup costs, had
engendered a culture of entrepreneurship that spilled over into new industries. Pittsburgh, because of
its coal mines, had the huge U.S. Steel Corp. (X), which trained company [people] men with neither the
ability nor the inclination to start some new venture. A body of healthy literature now documents the
connection between economic success and measures of local entrepreneurship, such as the share of
employment in startups and an abundance of smaller companies.¶ Our new paper documents Chinitz’s
insight that mineral wealth historically led to big companies, not entrepreneurial clusters. In Australia,
iron ore and coal are mined by giant corporations such as Rio Tinto Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd., and giant enterprises
typically work best with other big companies. Across U.S. metropolitan areas, we found that historical
mining cities had fewer small companies and fewer startups, even today in sectors unrelated to
mining or manufacturing, and even in the Sunbelt. These mining cities were also experiencing less
new economic activity.¶ Low Taxes¶ Australia’s economic future depends on using its mineral wealth wisely, following the example of
Iowa farmers who once used their corn profits to fund high schools. Yet Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, was ousted in a
backdoor political coup in 2010 partially because of his support for an extra mining tax. I’m against almost all industry-specific taxes, but the
share of miners’ “resource profits” returned to the Australian government in the form of taxes and royalties fell from about 40 percent in 2001
to less than 20 percent seven years later.¶ It
is a fiction that U.S. economic woes could be solved if only the nation
adopted a “drill, baby, drill” attitude toward natural resources. Less than 0.6 percent of American jobs
are in natural-resource extraction. Even a vast increase in drilling employment would have a trivial
impact on U.S. jobs. Oil prices are set in the world market, so American production can do little to
radically decrease the global price of petroleum.¶ The wealth that comes out of the ground is a shortterm windfall, not a long-term source of economic growth. The U.S. and Australia should both
recognize that their futures depend on training smart, innovative entrepreneurs and reducing the
barriers that limit their success.¶ *Gender Modified
XT – Economy I/L Turn
Natural resource extraction crowds out entrepreneurship and undermines economic
growth.
Glaeser et al, Professor of Economics at Harvard, 12 (Edward. Sari Pekkala Kerr, Wellesley College, William R.
Kerr, Harvard Business School, July, “Entrepreneurship and Urban Growth: An Empirical Assessment with Historical Mines,”
http://conference.nber.org/confer//2012/SI2012/PRENT/Glaeser_Pekkala_Kerr_Kerr.pdf, page 1, accessed 8-5-12)
We tackle this problem by using an idea suggested in Chinitz’s original account. Chinitz claimed that
Pittsburgh’s dearth of entrepreneurs in the 1950s reflected its historical concentration in steel, which
in turn reflected proximity to large deposits of coal and iron ore (White, 1928). The steel industry has
significant returns to scale, and Chinitz argued that its presence crowded out more entrepreneurial
activities. This left Pittsburgh with an abundance of company men but few entrepreneurs. Moreover,
Chinitz emphasized how this dampening of entrepreneurship comes through both static factors (e.g., access to inputs for new businesses) and
dynamic factors (e.g., the transmission of skills and attitudes from parents to children).¶ We
systematically investigate the
connection between historical mineral and coal deposits and modern entrepreneurship. There are
returns to scale in many extractive industries and their industrial customers, not just coal and steel.
The process of bringing ores out of the earth is a capital-intensive operation that often benefits from
large-scale operations. Transforming and transporting ores also typically requires large machines and
production facilities. Therefore, we hypothesize that cities with a historical abundance of nearby mineral
and coal mines will have developed industrial structures with systematically larger establishments
and less entrepreneurship. These early industrial traits can in turn influence modern entrepreneurship
through persistence and intergenerational transmissions that we elaborate on further below.
AT: Low Prices K2 Manufacturing
No offense---prices are low enough now to support the US manufacturing base, all of
our uq ev proves
The DOE says exports increase prices and hurts our domestic economy
Markey 4/18/12 (Ed, Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, “Exporting Gas = Exporting Jobs”
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-should-us-policy-be-on-en.php)
Right now, America’s
natural gas is about six times as cheap as it is in Asia and four times as cheap as Europe.
That is a competitive advantage for U.S. companies, leading to an American manufacturing
renaissance. Nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs have returned to the U.S. in the last two years and cheap natural gas is a major reason
why. What’s the number one way this progress could be stopped? By exporting America’s natural gas. The
D epartment o f E nergy has already approved one export terminal, and has eight more under
consideration. If all of these export terminals were approved and full export capacity utilized, the Energy
Department says natural gas prices could rise by up to 54 percent . And those price increases are just
the result of approving the first eight terminals. If subsequent export applications are approved,
natural gas prices in the U.S. could go even higher. Right now, major oil companies are also nearing
agreement on a plan to send American natural gas from Alaska to China. So in addition to cheaper
Chinese labor and predatory Chinese trade practices that put American manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage, Chinese companies would also have low-cost American energy. If China won’t
give us their rare earths to put into our solar panels and cars, why should we send them our cheap natural gas? That would be a oneway ticket to manufacturing oblivion.
No exports key warrant---unexported supply alone displaces enough demand to
suppress prices
Kasey 8/16/12 (Pam, staffwriter, “Study: Natural gas exports likely unprofitable for decades”
http://www.statejournal.com/story/19297893/study-natural-gas-exports-likely-not-very-profitable-for-decades)
"LNG trade in 2011 totaled 32 (billion cubic feet per day, or bcfd)," Madlock wrote. "Currently, in the U.S. alone there is over 17 bcfd of export
capacity in various stages of proposal and development," he continued. "If even one-third of this capacity is built and placed into operation, it
will dramatically alter the ability to supply the Asian market with natural gas." Indeed, even
without being exported, U.S. shale
gas has been reducing prices in Europe and Asia by displacing gas that could have been imported here.
"LNG supplies whose development was anchored to the belief that the United States would be a
premium market have been diverted to European and Asian buyers," Madlock wrote.
Upward price trend key to natural gas drilling – massive jobs benefit
Dlouhy 12 (Jennifer A., report at Hearst Newspapers, Bachelor of Journalism, Journalism, Political Science at University of MissouriColumbia, “Natural gas glut a dilemma for Obama,” FuelFix, 7-16-12, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/07/16/natural-gas-glut-a-dilemma-forobama/)
Energy companies and analysts have argued that current U.S. natural gas prices are unsustainable. It
closed Friday at $2.874 per million British thermal units in trading on the New York Mercantile
Exchange. The opposing argument is that exports could cause prices to spike, sending electricity bills upward and jeopardizing a resurgence
in domestic manufacturing tied to abundant, cheap natural gas. Manufacturers that use natural gas to fuel their plants
and as a building block to make other products were hit hard over the past two decades by volatile
swings in prices, which last peaked over $15 in 2005. Because any position risks alienating important constituencies –
energy producers and manufacturers as well as voters – few elected officials are pushing the issue. ‘Safer for politicians’ “It’s a lot safer for
politicians who don’t want to be on the wrong side to defer it,” said Kevin Book, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners. Even
key
stakeholders in the debate are keeping low profiles. Several major energy industry groups have kept mostly quiet, possibly
for fear of advocating an export strategy linked to higher prices. Many manufacturers, meanwhile, are wary of visibly opposing energy exports
and being painted as free trade foes. Some companies also are torn because their foreign operations could benefit from an influx of cheaper
U.S. natural gas. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney also have avoided making big pronouncements.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Gene Green, whose east Houston district includes several chemical plants, says
the key is finding a threshold that keeps prices low enough for manufacturers and high enough to
sustain production levels. “I don’t want our gas prices to get so outrageous as seven years ago, when
the chemical industry was transferring jobs to other places,” said Green, who backs case-by-case approvals. “I don’t
want to kill the good things we’re doing, but I also know we want to keep those drillers working .”
Advances in drilling technology have allowed energy companies to extract natural gas from dense rock formations coast to coast and tap what
analysts widely describe as a 100-year supply of the fossil fuel. A few congressional critics are pushing for a timeout. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.,
has introduced legislation that would halt new natural gas exports until 2025. Markey argues that the domestic natural gas explosion gives the
U.S. a major global advantage that would be squandered by exports. “This is our biggest game-changing moment in a generation,” he said.
“Low-priced natural gas is driving an American manufacturing renaissance.” Linking U.S. natural gas production with global markets would
hamper moves to power more cars and produce more electricity with the gas, Markey said. “Natural
gas producers do not want
low prices. They want a global natural gas market that maximizes consumer pain domestically in the
same way the global oil market does,” Markey added. “That would be painful for American consumers and catastrophic for the
fertilizer manufacturers, the chemical and plastic makers, and the steel manufacturers who are relying on low-priced natural gas.” Prices to
rise? Many
analysts contend natural gas prices are destined to rise even without more exports, as
companies scale back production. Bob Ineson, the head of North American natural gas research for IHS CERA, said he
anticipates U.S. natural gas prices will rise without exports and stabilize around $3.50 to $4. “The
current price environment is unsustainably low ,” he said, because in some areas, gas costs more to
produce than its price. A bipartisan group of lawmakers from areas rich in natural gas drilling warned
the Energy Department in a letter earlier this month that if prices don’t rise, it could jeopardize
domestic natural gas production and all of the jobs and economic activity tied to it.
AT: Econ Impact
No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border
conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead
states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global
economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise ,
however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from
the 2012 report is that “The
average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38
Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military
expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any
increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers
Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion
that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains
unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily
due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of
other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great
Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One
financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however.
Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great
Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff
concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and
not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42
Global economic governance institutions guarantee resiliency
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
Prior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global economic governance.
Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring that we live in a “G-Zero” world. This paper takes a closer look at
the global response to the financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic picture . Despite initial shocks that
were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance structures responded quickly
and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, global economic
governance has displayed surprising resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions performed
well in crisis situations to reinforce open economic policies, especially in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas
where governance has either faltered or failed, on the whole, the system has worked. Misperceptions about global economic
governance persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies – and because the efficiency of past
periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system has worked better than expected remains an open
question. The rest of this paper explores the possible role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international regimes, and the
resilience of economic ideas might have played.
No empirical support for diversionary theory
Tir, 2010 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor in the
Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”, The
Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2, April 2010, Pp. 413–425, Chetan]
According to the diversionary theory of war, the cause of some militarized conflicts is not a clash of salient interests
between countries, but rather problematic domestic circumstances. Under conditions such as economic
adversity or political
country’s leader may attempt to generate a foreign policy crisis in order both to divert
domestic discontent and bolster their political fortunes through a rally around the flag effect (Russett
1990). Yet, despite the wide-ranging popularity of this idea and some evidence of U.S. diversionary behavior (e.g., DeRouen
unrest, the
1995, 2000; Fordham 1998a, 1998b; Hess and Orphanides 1995; James and Hristolouas 1994; James and Oneal 1991; Ostrom and Job
1986), after five decades of research broader empirical support for the theory remains elusive (e.g., Gelpi
1997; Gowa; 1998; Leeds and Davis 1997; Levy 1998; Lian and Oneal 1993; Meernik and Waterman 1996). This has prompted one scholar
to conclude that ‘‘seldom has so much common sense in theory found so little support in practice’’ (James 1987, 22),
a view reflected in the more recent research (e.g., Chiozza and Goemans 2003, 2004; Meernick 2004; Moore and Lanoue 2003; Oneal and
Tir 2006). I argue that this puzzling lack of support could be addressed by considering the possibility that the embattled leader may
anticipate achieving their diversionary aims specifically through the initiation of territorial conflict2—a phenomenon I call territorial
diversion.
AT: Heg Impact
No heg impact
Fettweis, 2010 (Christopher J. Professor of Political Science at Tulane, Dangerous Times-The International Politics of Great Power
Peace, pg. 175-6)
If the only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military presence, then an adjustment in grand strategy would be
exceptionally counter-productive. But it is worth recalling that none
of the other explanations for the decline of war –
nuclear weapons, complex economic interdependence , international and domestic political institutions ,
evolution in ideas and norms – necessitate an activist America to maintain their validity. Were
American to become more restrained, nuclear weapons would still affect the calculations of the
would be aggressor; the process of globalization would continue, deepening the complexity of economic
interdependence; the United Nations could still deploy peacekeepers where necessary; and democracy would not shrivel
where it currently exists. More importantly, the idea that war is a worthwhile way to resolve conflict would
have no reason to return. As was argued in chapter 2, normative evolution is typically unidirectional. Strategic restraint in such a
world be virtually risk free.
Heg solves nothing
Kagan, 2012 [Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, 1/5/12,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0105_international_relations_kagan.aspx]
isn’t it true that its influence has diminished
The
almost universal assumption is that the United States has indeed lost influence Whatever the
explanation may be
it is broadly
accepted that the United States can no longer shape the world to suit its interests and ideals as it
If the United States is not suffering decline in these basic measures of power,
, that it is having a harder time getting its way in the world?
.
—American decline, the “rise of the rest,” the apparent failure of the American capitalist model, the dysfunctional nature of American politics, the increasing complexity of the international system—
once did Every day seems to bring more proof as things happen in the world that seem both contrary
.
,
to American interests and beyond American control.
what it wants much of the time
And of course it is true that
the United States is not able to get
. But then it never could. Much of today’s impressions about declining American influence are based on a nostalgic fallacy: that there was once a time when the United States could shape the whole
If we are to gauge
America’s relative position today, it is important to recognize that this image of the past is an illusion
There never was such a time. We tend to think back on the
Cold War as a moment of complete
American global dominance. They were nothing of the sort
Yet for every great achievement in the early Cold War, there was at
least one equally monumental setback.
world to suit its desires, and could get other nations to do what it wanted them to do, and, as the political scientist Stephen M. Walt put it, “manage the politics, economics and security arrangements for nearly the entire globe.”
.
early years of the
. The United States did accomplish extraordinary things in that era: the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the United
Nations, and the Bretton Woods economic system all shaped the world we know today.
During the Truman years, there was the triumph of the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, which American officials regarded as a disaster for American interests in the
region and which did indeed prove costly; if nothing else, it was a major factor in spurring North Korea to attack the South in 1950. But as Dean Acheson concluded, “the ominous result of the civil war in China” had proved “beyond the control of the ... United States,” the product of
“forces which this country tried to influence but could not.” A year later came the unanticipated and unprepared-for North Korean attack on South Korea, and America’s intervention, which, after more than 35,000 American dead and almost 100,000 wounded, left the situation almost
exactly as it had been before the war. In 1949, there came perhaps the worst news of all: the Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb and the end of the nuclear monopoly on which American military strategy and defense budgeting had been predicated. A year later, NSC-68, the famous
strategy document, warned of the growing gap between America’s military strength and its global strategic commitments. If current trends continued, it declared, the result would be “a serious decline in the strength of the free world relative to the Soviet Union and its satellites.” The
“integrity and vitality of our system,” the document stated, was “in greater jeopardy than ever before in our history.” Douglas MacArthur, giving the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in 1952, lamented the “alarming change in the balance of world power,” “the
rising burden of our fiscal commitments,” the ascendant power of the Soviet Union, “and our own relative decline.” In 1957, t he Gaither Commission reported that the Russian economy was growing at a much faster pace than that of the United States and that by 1959 Russia would be
Nor
was the United States always able to persuade others, even its closest allies, to do what it wanted, or
to refrain from doing what it did not want
able to hit American soil with one hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles, prompting Sam Rayburn, the speaker of the House, to ask, “What good are a sound economy and a balanced budget if we lose our national lives and Russian rubles become the coin of the land?”
. In 1949, Acheson tried and failed to prevent European allies, including the British, from recognizing Communist China. In 1954, the Eisenhower administration failed to
get its way at the Geneva Conference on Vietnam and refused to sign the final accords. Two years later it tried to prevent the British, the French, and the Israelis from invading Egypt over the closure of the Suez Canal, only to see them launch an invasion without so much as a heads-up to
Washington. When the United States confronted China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Eisenhower administration tried and failed to get a show of support from European allies, prompting John Foster Dulles to fear that NATO was “beginning to fall apart.” By the late 1950s,
Mao believed the United States was a superpower in decline, “afraid of taking on new involvements in the Third World and increasingly incapable of maintaining its hegemony over the capitalist countries.” But what about “soft power”? Wasn’t it true, as the poli tical scientist Joseph S.
Nye Jr. has argued, that the United States used to be able to “get what it wanted in the world” because of the “values expres sed” by American culture as reflected through television, movies, and music, and because of the attractiveness of America’s domestic and foreign policies? These
soft power
the historical truth is
more complicated
great portions of the world neither admired the United States nor
sought to emulate it, and were not especially pleased at the way it conducted itself in international
affairs American media
they were spreading images that were not always flattering.
The
Ugly American painted a picture of American bullying and boorishness
The racism of America was practically “ruining” the
elements of
made other peoples around the world want to follow the United States, “admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness.” Again,
. During the first three decades after World War II,
. Yes,
were spreading American culture, but
In the
1950s the world could watch televised images of Joseph McCarthy and the hunt for Communists in the State Department and Hollywood. American movies depicted the suffocating capitalist conformism of the new American corporate culture. Best-selling novels such as
. There were the battles over segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, the globally transmitted
images of whites spitting at black schoolchildren and police setting their dogs on black demonstrators. (That “used to be us,” too.)
American global image
, Dulles feared, especially
in the so-called Third World
. In the late 1960s and early 1970s came the Watts riots, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert
Kennedy, the shootings at Kent State, and then the government-shaking scandal of Watergate. These were not the kinds of images likely to endear the United States to the world, no matter how many Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen movies were playing in Parisian cinemas. Nor did much of
the world find American foreign policy especially attractive during these years. Eisenhower yearned “to get some of the people in these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us,” but the CIA-orchestrated overthrows of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala did not help. In 1957, demonstrators attacked the vice president’s motorcade in Venezuela, shouting, “Go away, Nixon!” “Out, dog!” “We won’t forget Guatemala!” In 1960, Khrushchev humiliated Eisenhower by canceling a summit when an American spy plane was shot down
over Russia. Later that year, on his way to a “goodwill” visit in Tokyo, Eisenhower had to turn back in mid-flight when the Japanese government warned it could not guarantee his security against students protesting American “imperialism.” Eisenhower’s Democratic successors fared little
better. John F. Kennedy and his wife were beloved for a time, but America’s glow faded after his assassination. Lyndon Johnson’s invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 was widely condemned not only in Latin America but also by European allies. De Gaulle warned American officials
that the United States, like “all countries that had overwhelming power,” had come “to believe that force would solve everything” and would soon learn this was “not the case.” And then, of course, came Vietnam—the destruction, the scenes of napalm, the My Lai massacre, the secret
incursion into Cambodia, the bombing of Hanoi, and the general perception of a Western colonialist superpower pounding a small but defiant Third World country into submission. When Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, visited West Berlin in 1967, the American cultural center
was attacked, thousands of students protested American policies, and rumors swirled of assassination attempts. In 1968, when millions of Europe’s youth took to the streets, they were not expressing their admiration for American culture. Nor were the great majority of nations around
the world trying to emulate the American system. In the first decades of the Cold War, many were attracted to the state-controlled economies of the Soviet Union and China, which seemed to promise growth without the messy problems of democracy. The economies of the Sovi et bloc
had growth rates as high as those in the West throughout much of this period, largely due to a state-directed surge in heavy industry. According to Allen Dulles, the CIA director, many leaders in the Third World believed that the Soviet system “might have more to offer in the way of quick
results than the U.S. system.” Dictators such as Egypt’s Nasser and Indonesia’s Sukarno found the state-dominated model especially attractive, but so did India’s Nehru. Leaders of the emerging Non-Aligned Movement—Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Sukarno, Nkrumah—expressed little admiration
for American ways. After the death of Stalin, moreover, both the Soviet Union and China engaged in hot competition to win over the Third World, taking “goodwill tours” and providing aid prog rams of their own. Eisenhower reflected that “the new Communist line of sweetness and light
was perhaps more dangerous than their propaganda in Stalin’s time.” The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations worried constantly about the leftward tilt of all these nations, and lavished development aid on them in the hope of winning hearts and minds. They found that
aid
guaranteed neither allegiance nor appreciation One result
States steadily lost influence at the United Nations
the
, while eagerly accepted,
.
of Third World animosity
was that the United
after 1960. Once the place where the American war in Korea was legitimized, from the 1960s until the end of the Cold War the U.N. General
Assembly became a forum for constant expressions of anti-Americanism. In the late 1960s, Henry Kissinger despaired of the future. The “increased fragmentation of power, the greater diffusion of political activity, and the more complicated patterns of international conflict and
alignment,” he wrote to Nixon, had sharply reduced the capacity of both superpowers to influence “the actions of other governments.” And things only seemed to get more difficult as the 1970s unfolded. The United States withdrew from Vietnam in defeat, and the world watched the
the inability of the United
people point to America’s failure to bring
first-ever resignation of an American president mired in scandal. And then, perhaps as significant as all the rest, world oil prices went through the roof. The last problem pointed to a significant new difficulty:
States to wield influence effectively in the Middle East
Israelis and Palestinians to a negotiated settlement
. Today
, or to manage the tumultuous Arab Awakening, as a sign of weakness and decline. But in 1973 the United States could not even prevent the
major powers in the Middle East from engaging in all-out war. When Egypt and Syria launched their surprise attack on Israel, it was a surprise to Washington as well. The United States eventually had to go on nuclear alert to deter Soviet intervention in the conflict. The war led to the oil
embargo, the establishment of OPEC as a major force in world affairs, and the sudden revelation that, as historian Daniel Yergin put it, “the United States itself was now, finally, vulnerable.” The “world’s foremost superpower” had been “thrown on the defensive, humiliated, by a handful
of small nations.” Many Americans “feared that the end of an era was at hand.”
No transition wars
Haass, 2010 – President of the Council on Foreign Relations and Ph.D. from Oxford University (Richard N., 2/25/10, "The Weakest Link",
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/25/the-weakest-link.html)
That we should care so much about weak states marks a major change. Much of 20th-century
history was driven by the actions of
strong states—the attempts by Germany, Japan, and, in the century's second half, the Soviet Union to establish
global primacy, and the corresponding efforts of the United States and a shifting coalition of partners to resist.
Those struggles produced two world wars and a Cold War. In the 21st century the principal threat to the global order
will not be a push for dominance by any great power. For one thing, today's great powers are not all that
great: Russia has a one-dimensional economy and is hobbled by corruption and a shrinking
population; China is constrained by its enormous population and a top-heavy political system. Just as
important, China and the other major or rising powers seek less to overthrow the existing global order
than to shape it. They are more interested in integration than in revolution. Instead, the central challenge will
be posed by weak states—Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Mexico, Congo, and others. What they have in common (in addition to
the fact that many, like Iraq, are located in the greater Middle East) are governments that lack the capacity, the will, or both to rule. They are
unable to exercise what is expected of sovereign governments—namely, control over what goes on within their own territory. In the past, this
would have been mostly a humanitarian concern. But as we all know, thanks to globalization, people and things travel. Terrorists, diseases,
illegal migrants, weapons of mass destruction—for all of them, international boundaries are often little more than formalities. On the other
hand, we cannot resolve these problems solely by using the U.S. military. As we learned in Iraq, replacing governments is
easier sought than done, and in many cases there is no clear—much less preferable—alternative to the current authority. Even in a supporting
role, foreign
soldiers can provoke a nationalist backlash against the government they're trying to bolster, making the weakstate problem even worse. Nor is it always clear that doing more militarily will result in lasting improvements
that are commensurate with the investment in blood and treasure. This could well be America's fate in Afghanistan.
No U.S. lashout—decline causes caution and restraint
MacDonald & Parent, 2011 Paul, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College, Joseph, Assistant Professor of
Political Science at the University of Miami, “Graceful Decline?,” International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Spring 2011), Pg. 7-44,
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00034
With regard to militarized disputes, declining great powers demonstrate more caution and restraint in
the use of force: they were involved in an average of 1.7 fewer militarized disputes in the five years
following ordinal change compared with other great powers over similar periods.67 Declining great powers
also initiated fewer militarized disputes , and their disputes tended to escalate to lower levels of
hostility than the baseline category (see figure 2).68 These findings suggest the need for a fundamental
revision to the pessimist's argument regarding the war proneness of declining powers.69 Far from
being more likely to lash out
aggressively,
declining states refrain from initiating and escalating military
disputes . Nor do declining great powers appear more vulnerable to external predation than other great
powers. This may be because external predators have great difficulty assessing the vulnerability of potential
victims, or because retrenchment allows vulnerable powers to effectively recover from decline and still
deter potential challengers .
AT: Chemical Industry
Exporting natural gas ends competitiveness, causes oil dependence and collapses the
chemical industry
Makey 9/28/2012 (Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/sizing-up-the-role-of-natural.php#2246213)
The boom in American natural gas production is causing a seismic shift in the entire American
economy. Developed wisely, these resources have the potential to bolster America’s manufacturing
competitiveness, eliminate oil imports from the Persian Gulf, and radically reduce emissions of global
warming pollution. Just four years ago, coal generated half of our electricity. Now it’s down to 35 percent. Why? Because electric utility
executives have decided to replace dirty old coal-fired power plants with cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient natural gas, which has grown
from 21 percent to 30 percent of U.S. electricity generation in that time. Coal
is also being edged out of the electricity market by
wind, which has grown from virtually none of our power to 4 percent today. Solar is doubling every
year. And when it comes to heating homes during the winter, natural gas wins in landslide. Last winter, families spent an estimated $2,238 to
heat their homes, compared to $629 to heat with natural gas. That’s why 1.4 million households in the Northeast have switched away from
heating oil in the last 8 years. Most of them are choosing natural gas. Yet, the Republican Party is oblivious to the free market revolution taking
place. They are focused on making it easier for the coal industry to pollute while voting to extend more taxpayer subsidies for big oil, nuclear
and coal. When
you add up hydro, wind, solar, other renewables, and throw in natural gas and other
gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity. But just like Governor Romney has given up on 47 percent of Americans, House
Republicans are giving up on 44 percent of our electricity sector. In truth, the switch to natural gas is happening for one
simple reason: it’s cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent since 2008. Coal’s gotten 17 percent more expensive
during that time. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas than from coal. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s competition. Low price
natural gas is driving an American manufacturing renaissance. The
competitiveness of American steel, fertilizer, and
petrochemical industries that use huge amounts of natural gas for fuel and feedstock has surged . Many of the 500,000 U.S.
manufacturing jobs created since 2010 are a direct result of low natural gas prices. Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates we’ll create another 1
Exporting natural gas will do one thing: raise prices . In
fact, that is just what the oil and gas industry wants. By shipping American made natural gas to Japan and Korea,
they can fetch prices 6 times higher than ours. In Europe, prices are 3 times higher . Ultimately, some natural gas
producers may hope to create a global natural gas market that maximizes their profits. But if that happens, natural gas consumers
will be exposed to higher prices and greater market volatility -- in much the same way that the global oil market
million jobs by 2025 as a result of abundant, low-cost natural gas.
routinely rips off consumers at the pump. Eighteen applications have been submitted to the Department of Energy seeking to export 40 percent
of our current natural gas consumption. Exporting less
than half that amount could send domestic natural gas
prices skyrocketing by more than 50 percent, according to the Department. If all 18 or more are approved, and if electric
utility demand and home heating demand continue on their current course, we could again see a huge price spike in natural gas. This
would be painful for American consumers and catastrophic for the fertilizer manufacturers, the
chemical and plastics producers, and the steelmakers that rely on low-priced natural gas. It would make it
harder to convert our heavy- and medium-duty trucks and buses onto natural gas, which has the potential to reduce our oil imports by 2.4
million barrels per day. But don’t take it from me, billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens had this to say about exporting natural gas: “If we
do it, we’re truly going to go down as America’s dumbest generation. It’s bad public policy to export natural gas.” I agree. That is why I believe
we need a time out on approving additional LNG export terminals so that we can think through the consequences of expanded LNG exports for
our own domestic prices and economic growth. We’ve had 5 votes on the House floor in the past year and half on exporting American energy
resources. Republicans have voted in favor of exporting every time. The current natural gas drilling bonanza is radically reshaping our energy
portfolio. We must ensure that this American resource is used to bring our troops home and protect the wallets of consumers, and not used to
simply further enrich big oil and gas companies.
Solvency
Takes too Long
Plan doesn’t solve till 2035 – regulatory hurdles block the flow of gas
Murawski, 2012 (John, News and Observer, “Opening Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling likely” 10/2/2012
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/02/2384560/opening-atlantic-ocean-to-offshore.html)
But even
if the Atlantic Ocean is opened to energy companies, oil and gas production would likely not get
underway for at least a decade . The energy exploration cycle is heavily regulated and requires seismic
testing, environmental assessments, oceanographic mapping, military reviews and other regulatory
hurdles before any oil and gas can start flowing. “ There’s no way to speed this up ,” said Athan Manuel,
director of the Sierra Club’s lands protection program. The latest federal estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the
entire Atlantic coast is between 11 trillion cubic feet and 54 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – well below the 84.2 trillion cubic feet found in the
Marcellus Shale that spans New York and Pennsylvania. The amount of oil is likely between 1.3 billion barrels and 5.58 billion barrels, less than a
year’s supply. With the market price of gas hovering near all-time lows, the Energy Information Administration, a division within the U.S.
Department of Energy, has estimated that no oil or gas
will be produced in the Atlantic or outer continental shelf before 2035 .
Drilling offshore could begin 3 miles beyond the coast, the point at which federal waters begin, extending as far as 200 miles in the ocean. Each
mile away from land increases the cost of pipelines, land-to-rig travel and drilling in ever-deeper waters. $66M to $400M a year Beyond the
engineering and technical challenges, offshore drilling would mobilize state governments to press Congress to change federal law to allow
states to collect royalties on the lease fees, as is done for Gulf Coast states. North Carolina could collect $66 million to $400 million a year for
the life of the reserves, according to a 145-page report issued September 2011 by a scientific advisory panel created by Gov. Perdue. The
revenue amount, at the top end, could approach 2 percent of the state’s $20.2 billion annual budget. “You could scatter that money around all
over state government,” said Weatherspoon of the N.C. Petroleum Council. He said the money could bolster programs such as environmental
regulation, mental health services, community colleges and others that have been hard-hit by budget cuts. Weatherspoon said that offshore
exploration would pit neighboring states against each other to host shore bases that would supply and support the offshore rigs. Such bases
could involve hundreds of jobs in metallurgy, food preparation, transportation and related work. A 2009 report from the Southeast Energy
Alliance, an industry trade group, estimated that offshore drilling could create 6,700 new jobs in North Carolina. Bill Holman, director of the
State Policy Program at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said chances are slim that North Carolina could
compete with larger ports in South Carolina and Virginia. Holman based his assessment on his tenure as a member of another offshore study
panel, the Legislative Research Commission’s Advisory Subcommittee on Offshore Energy Exploration, which prepared a report in 2010. He said
little research has been done on offshore resources, and noted that projected natural gas prices suggest that
little will change in this regard in the near future.
Takes too long to get oil, is infeasible, and won’t be enough to affect prices
Horton, 2008 (Jennifer, howstuffworks, 8/11/2008 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drillingcontroversy.htm)
With gas prices hitting record highs, people are looking high and low -- and offshore -- for a way to bring the costs down. But according to a
study by the Energy Information Association (EIA), they may want to look elsewhere. Even
if the outer continental shelf (OCS)
were opened to drilling, the study found, it would be several years before the country saw any oil . Even
then, the amount of oil probably wouldn't be enough to influence the global market
[source: EIA]. The EIA
gathered its data by preparing a test case to see what would happen if the current ban on offshore drilling was allowed to expire in 2012.
Historically, the ban on drilling the OCS in the Pacific, Atlantic and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico has been reinstated each time it expires,
but the EIA wanted to see what might happen if it weren't. What the group determined contrasts sharply with the assertions coming from
many politicians and oil executives about increased domestic supply bringing prices down. Instead, the EIA found that the increased
drilling would have little impact before 2030. In fact, because of the technicalities involved in leasing wells,
pinpointing where the oil is and actually getting that oil to the surface, production probably wouldn't even start until
2017. And according to the EIA study, even once the oil is flowing, the increased access would bring only
0.2 million barrels
per day more than if the ban were still in place [source: EIA]. Despite the time lag, proponents of drilling say there's
no time like the present. If the government hadn't banned offshore drilling back in 1982, they argue, much of that oil would already be on the
world market. Some also argue that the simple act of legalizing offshore drilling might influence the market to lower prices. Even if the effects
aren't immediate, they continue, drilling should begin now if Americans don't want to see their gas prices climb higher. Not to burst their oil
bubble, but many economists counter that since
oil prices are determined on a global market , a country has to make some
serious additions for its actions to make any appreciable difference. To really affect prices, the United States would have to add significantly to
the worldwide production of oil. Considering that the world produces 82.5 million barrels of oil each day, adding
0.2 million barrels
isn't really going to have much of an impact [source: EIA].
Offshore drilling fails---takes a decade, states block it, the status quo does way more
production than they can increase by
Plumer, 2012 (Brad Plumer “Romney would open federal lands to drilling. How much oil and gas is there?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/25/romney-would-open-federal-lands-to-drilling-how-much-oil-and-gas-isthere/)
The three columns on the left show all of the undiscovered oil and gas that’s estimated to exist on federal lands and waters that are currently
available for drilling. The middle four columns show oil and gas resources on lands that a Romney administration could open up fairly easily.
And the two columns on the right show oil and gas resources that would have to be opened up by Congress. The
basic takeaway here
is that the vast majority of oil and gas on federal lands is already available for leasing, particularly in
the waters off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. There’s certainly room to open up further federal lands,
but the additional resources appear to be fairly modest in comparison. For instance, opening up the rest
of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling would boost offshore oil and gas production in federal
waters by just 3 percent in 2035 . Now, CBO does list some caveats here. For one, these are just estimates of how much oil
actually exists. “It is important to note,” the CBO adds, “that
any projection that involves geologic resources is
inherently uncertain .” Some of these areas may turn out to be too expensive or geologically difficult
to produce. (Many of the Gulf of Mexico resources are in ultra-deep waters that remain technologically
daunting.) Other areas may turn out to have larger resources than expected. But there are also political uncertainties. Even if a
Romney administration opened up the Outer Continental Shelf, states such as California might not
allow leasing regardless . What’s more, the CBO only looked at revenue for the next decade. But if, say,
Congress opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for leasing next year (and that’s not likely), oil
production wouldn’t ramp up for at least a decade. Between 2023-2035, drilling in ANWR might provide the federal
government with an additional $2 billion to $4 billion per year in revenue, depending on how the royalties were split with Alaska. But this
would still be less than one-sixth of the oil and gas revenue the government was getting from other
federal lands. Now, as always, there are all sorts of other issues involved in opening up these lands and
waters. Many politicians in Florida are opposed to opening up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for drilling
because of the risk that oil spills that could tarnish their valuable beaches. And environmentalists are against
opening up ANWR because drilling could threaten the fragile ecosystem there. The CBO report doesn’t get into any of that. Mostly it just tries
to offer a sense of how much oil and gas is actually in the areas being discussed.
States Block
States would block the aff
EIA, 2001(U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Mid-Term Prospects for Natural Gas Supply, Dec,
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/natgas/chapter2.html)
Even if the Federal moratoria were lifted and offshore leasing activity resumed in Federal waters,
States and nongovernmental entities in opposition to offshore oil and gas development could use
other legal means to preclude or at least limit the extent of Federal offshore oil and gas exploration and
production. Although the States and local governments can not directly prohibit the physical development of offshore oil and gas
resources in Federal waters, it would be possible to make their development considerably more expensive. A
primary method for accomplishing this would be to preclude or limit the development of oil and gas
infrastructure within the jurisdiction of the State and local governments by use of restrictive zoning.
The oil and gas infrastructure necessary to develop Federal offshore energy resources include many
elements, such as harbor facilities, onshore separation and treatment plants, oil refineries, and
pipelines for transporting the crude oil and natural gas onshore. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that
local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments would be overcome if Federal access restrictions were lifted, and that
oil and gas development would proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of currently accessible areas.
Coastal Zone Management Act means the states can block energy projects and they
definitely will. There is reverse preemption.
Schroeder 2010 (Erica, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental
Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003, COMMENT: Turning Offshore Wind On 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631)
The CZMA has had some measure of success - almost every coastal state participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as
"unified ecological areas." 230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to
promote offshore wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the Cape Wind project. The
CZMA's failure
with respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is,
without more [*1658] explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA - the development of
CZMPs - while not meeting any particular standards. 231 This
leaves states with substantial discretion, but without a
coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan. In particular, with its decentralized structure and
only brief explicit mention of the national benefits of offshore energy development, the CZMA gives
insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore wind power in their CZMPs. 232
For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that coastal states "anticipate and plan" for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other
adverse effects. 233 However, it fails to specify the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in
such climate-change planning and in state CZMPs. Once
the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has
given "adequate consideration" to the "national interest" in its CZMP, the federal government no
longer has control over energy facility development in state waters. 234 Thus coastal states can block
proposed turbines in state waters and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed
for federal waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply
not encourage, or even address, renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely
on in litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal
state retains a "reverse-preemption power" for federal projects and permits in state and federal
waters, as long as these projects affect the state's coastal zone. 235 Therefore, as projects outside of a
state's CZMP will frequently impact a state's coastal zone, states can also potentially block permitting
and/or construction of turbines not only in their coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their
CZMP's jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms - state CZMPs and federal consistency review - local interests focused on local
costs in coastal states can stall or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and
global reasons to promote it. The CZMA offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a prooffshore wind federal mandate. In addition, the federal government has offered only low levels of funding
for renewable energy activity offshore. 236 When this factor is combined with the regulatory
uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each individual state, it is not surprising that
the CZMA has been an ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind power development.
**Off Case**
Process CP
1NC Shell
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its natural
gas development in the outer continental shelf if and only if the industry agrees to a
full environmental impact statement which allows for meaningful consideration of
site-specific issues at the leasing, exploration, and development stages. Any necessary
modifications will be made prior to implementation of the plan.
Status quo categorical exemptions allow for offshore drilling to circumvent effective
NEPA review – commitment to meaningful review is necessary to prevent devastating
harm.
Hull-LLM University of Florida, 2011 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 ARTICLE: Crude Injustice in the Gulf: Why Categorical
Exclusions for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico Are Inconsistent with U.S. and International Ocean Law and Policy
Given its resources, refining activity, and increasing vessel traffic, the Gulf region is uniquely vulnerable to oil spills. Not surprisingly, more oils
spills have occurred in the Gulf of Mexico than in any other area of the U.S. 102 Although the total number [*18] of oil spills has declined over
the last several decades, the risk of offshore spills remains high. 103 Between 1981 and 2001, no oil spill over 1,000 barrels occurred from
federally regulated offshore facilities. 104 Since 2002, there have been at least seven oil spills over 1,000 barrels from offshore facilities in
federal waters. 105 This is problematic from an environmental perspective, but it is also troubling because the overall decline in spills has also
led to a dangerous shortage of personnel knowledgeable in managing spill clean-up operations, particularly large spills. 106 The decline in oil
spills has also served as disincentive to invest in response technology sufficient to address a catastrophic oil spill like the one that actually
occurred. As the DWH response revealed, the industry simply did not have the technology or knowledge base to immediately regain control of
the well. Attempt after attempt failed, and in the process millions of gallons of oil flowed into the Gulf environment. Another
accident
like DWH could happen again. Today, more than 27,000 oil wells and over 1,000 oil rigs sit abandoned in the Gulf without proper
checks to discover and control leaks. 107 IV. Nepa and Offshore Oil Production Deepwater drilling is subject to
environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). However, current regulatory
practices allow agencies to categorically [*19] exclude certain aspects of proposed activities , such as BP's
exploration plan, from environmental review. 108 As a result, such plans never receive the meaningful
environmental review necessary to protect the ocean environment from harm associated with the
activities . NEPA is considered the cornerstone of U.S. environmental law. 109 Its provisions reflect a national environmental policy that
requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into the decision making processes before taking action. 110 Substantively, NEPA
requires federal agencies to "use all practical means" consistent with national policy to allow Americans to "attain the widest range of beneficial
use of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences." 111 Procedurally,
NEPA requires federal agencies to take a "hard look" at proposals before acting to reduce, mitigate or
eliminate harm to the environment whenever possible and to disclose publicly the details of proposed
agency projects or actions and their likely environmental impacts. 112 Categorical exclusions
circumvent this valuable process by denying the public the opportunity to provide meaningful
comment on certain activities that may have a detrimental impact to the environment. Moreover, in a
tiered review process like the one used for offshore oil leases, categorical exclusions elevate
expediency over meaningful environmental review.
The counterplan’s specific mechanism and genuine nature is key to resolve these
issues.
Murchison, 2011 (Kenneth, B.A., Louisiana Polytechnic Institute; J.D., M.A., University of Virginia; S.J.D., Harvard Law School,
Professor Emeritus at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, “ARTICLE: Beyond Compensation for Offshore Drilling Accidents: Lowering Risks,
Improving Response” 30 Miss. C. L. Rev. 277)
As explained in the preceding part, environmental
employed
assessment has been the principal method that federal law has
for minimizing the risks of offshore drilling . NEPA directs all federal agencies to assess the environmental
consequences of proposed actions 125 and requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for any proposal for a major federal
action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. 126 The Endangered Species Act requires a more particularized
evaluation when a proposed federal action might affect a species that has been listed as endangered or threatened. 127 The Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act provides that development plans must assess the environmental impacts of offshore drilling. 128 Unfortunately, the Minerals
Management Service has applied all three statutes in ways that avoided meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of off shore drilling.
[*291] 1. National Environmental Policy Act. Since 1970, NEPA has required federal agencies to factor environmental considerations into their
decision-making. The primary vehicle for forcing consideration of environmental values is the duty to prepare an environmental impact
statement for all proposals for major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 129 To determine whether a
proposed action is a major federal action for which an environmental impact statement is required, Council on Environmental Quality
regulations 130 ordinarily require that an agency engage in a more informal analysis called an environmental assessment. The Council on
Environmental Quality regulations contain two important exceptions to the general requirements for impact statements and environmental
assessments. When an agency makes a series of decisions related to the same subject, the agency does not have to repeat its environmental
analysis in successive impact statements. Instead, the regulations permit "tiering" of impact statements to avoid repetition; when a prior
impact statement has already considered a particular issue, tiering allows the agency to incorporate the analysis of the prior statement by
reference. 131 A second exception - the categorical exclusion - allows an agency to avoid the environmental assessment if it is unnecessary.
When, an agency can identify a category of actions that never have a significant effect on the environment, the agency can establish a
categorical exclusion for those activities 132 so that neither an impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. Deepwater
drilling seems to be precisely the type of decision into which NEPA intended to force agencies to
incorporate environmental values, and preparation of environmental impact statements slowed offshore drilling during the
1970s. 133 Unfortunately, the M inerals M anagement S ervice managed to blunt the impact of NEPA in the 1980s.
By combining inappropriate use of tiering and unwarranted expansion of categorical exclusions, the Service managed
to apply NEPA in a manner that maintained the form of environmental review without any meaningful substance. The Service prepared
programmatic and multi-lease impact statements at levels too broad to require discussion of specific environmental harms and used those
general statements as the basis for not preparing statements for individual leases. Equally important, in 1986 it expanded a categorical
exclusion that allowed the basis for categorically excluding exploration and development decisions in the central and western Gulf of Mexico to
proceed without impact statements or environmental assessments. 134 [*292] In 2007, the Service actually prepared two environmental
impact statements that included the area where the BP Deepwater Horizon well was located: a programmatic statement on the five-year
leasing plan, which included Alaska and the Pacific as well as the Gulf of Mexico, 135 and a multi-lease statement covering eleven leases in the
Gulf of Mexico, 136 including the one encompassing the BP site. Given the vast areas covered by the two statements, the discussions of
particular environmental concerns are not very specific as shown in a comparison of the discussion of the potential impacts on blue fin tuna and
the Gulf sturgeon, two important species in the region of the BP Deepwater Horizon well. 137 When the Service evaluated the lease for the
area in which the BP Deepwater Horizon well was drilled, it prepared an environmental assessment rather than an impact statement. The
assessment, which did not even mention the blue fin tuna, 138 concluded that the previous impact statements adequately discussed the
relevant environmental issues. The effect of that conclusion was to foreclose detailed environmental analysis at the critical leasing stage. By the
time the inquiry turned to the specific location where BP prepared to drill in 10,000 feet of water to a depth more than 5,000 feet below the
ocean floor, the Service did not even prepare an environmental assessment. Instead, it relied on the categorical exclusion applicable to
exploration plan and development documents in the Gulf of Mexico. 139 One could certainly argue that the categorical exclusion did not apply
to the BP Deepwater Horizon well by its own terms, 140 and one can only describe the [*293] available documentation of the determination of
the applicability of the exclusion as cursory. 141 The more important omission, however, is systemic. By using the categorical exclusion for
exploration plans in the Gulf of Mexico, 142 the agency did not seriously analyze potential environmental problems or invite comments on
those problems from other federal and state agencies or the public. Following the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and Regulatory Enforcement (BOEMRE) 143 - the successor to the Minerals Management Service - conducted a joint review with
the Council on Environmental Quality of the NEPA policies applicable to offshore drilling. 144 Although the report stopped short of finding that
the approach used by the Minerals Management Service was unlawful, it did recommend that the Bureau review its rules for the use of
categorical exclusions for offshore drilling to determine whether they should be revised. 145 On the same day that the report was issued, the
Bureau suspended the use of categorical exclusions for exploration plans that use subsurface blowout preventers or blowout preventers on
floating facilities, 146 and the agency initiated its formal review of the use of categorical exclusions in October. 147 The solution
inadequate NEPA assessments of the past
to the
is to reform the process to include meaningful consideration
of site-specific issues at the leasing, exploration, and development stages . One can suggest at least three
changes. First, the initial programmatic statement on the five-year leasing plan should primarily focus on identifying areas that should be
excluded from leasing because they are especially environmentally sensitive and highlight site-specific issues that can be addressed at later
stages. Second, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement should address the site-specific issues in an impact
statement for each lease rather than preparing a single statement for a large group of leases. Third, the Bureau should eliminate the use of
categorical exclusions and require individualized assessment at the exploration and development stages. At a minimum, the Bureau should
prepared a [*294] written environmental assessment that is circulated for comment to the public and to federal and state agencies with
environmental expertise. 148 Obviously, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement can implement these
requirements by changing its practices. To make the changes permanent, Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
require them. Some might criticize the NEPA proposals as paperwork requirements that will have no impact on minimizing future oil spills
because the NEPA reviews are unlikely to stop leasing, exploration, or development. That view, however, is overly cynical. Replacing
a
categorical exclusion with an environmental assessment circulated to the public and to environmental agencies will at
least make egregious environmental errors less likely . Similarly, an environmental assessment or an impact
statement does not have to stop offshore drilling to be effective. Even if drilling proceeds, careful
assessment can improve environmental safeguards and suggest alternatives that lessen the
environmental impact
or ways to minimize environmental impacts that cannot be avoided. 149
That commitment spills over globally – the impact is resource wars – also gets lobbies
on board to avoid politics
Purvis, 2003 (Nigel, Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, “Greening U.S. Foreign Aid through the
Millennium Challenge Account” Brookings Institute, June, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2003/06/energy-purvis)
Third, the global environment affects the U.S. economy. Dealing with largely preventable threats posed by foreign invasive species, such as the
super-weed kudzu, costs the U.S. economy several hundred million dollars a year. Dealing with pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border is also
costly. In contrast, encouraging
American firms produce
Fourth,
other countries to fight environmental ills helps promote U.S. exports as
some of
the most advanced environmentally friendly technology products .
avoiding international environmental tensions, such as regional conflicts over scarce water in
the Middle East and Africa, can contribute to regional stability and enhance our security interests .
Finally, nature also has an important independent value for most Americans, who value it the way they value freedom—for its own sake.
Human welfare and happiness depend on many nonmonetary intangibles, including a clean environment. Sustainable Development The strong
U.S. interest in global environmental protection has meant that U.S. and international development efforts have been organized for more than
a decade around the principle of 'sustainable development,' not merely economic growth. While the concept can be difficult to apply in
practice and has stirred partisan debate at home, it means roughly meeting the needs of the present generations without compromising the
needs of future generations. Because progress against poverty must be sustainable, economic development must be environmentally
sustainable. To
avoid long-term or irreversible environmental damage, economic growth and
environmental protection must be pursued simultaneously . This concept has been enshrined in international thinking
on development since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The recent United Nations Millennium Development Goals, an ambitious set of
anti-poverty objectives, highlight the centrality of sustainable development and include an extensive set of environmental benchmarks. Despite
the fact that President Bush's MCA announcement came on the eve of a major international gathering in Monterrey, Mexico, dedicated to
advancing those goals, the administration?s proposal neither acknowledges sustainable development nor the importance of environmental
progress. The international consensus around the goal of sustainable development means that developing countries would welcome
environmental aid. They lag behind industrialized nations in the adoption of modern energy technologies and are eager to close the gap. Many
poor nations have created national parks but lack the capacity to keep away illegal squatters, miners, farmers, poachers, and loggers.
Encouraging more action on issues affecting poverty and the environment was the central theme of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development last year in Johannesburg, South Africa. The
signal from the international community could not be
clearer: sustainable development, including its environmental dimension, is the global priority . The
international emphasis placed on environmental protection is primarily a result of U.S. leadership. The
longstanding, bipartisan foreign policy of the United States maintains that economic growth and environmental protection must proceed in
tandem. Not only does the
United States pursue international environmental protection directly through treaties, trade negotiations, and
that its commercial objectives do not produce unintended ecological
foreign assistance, but it ensures
consequences. Moreover, U.S. policymakers have demonstrated, through domestic policies, that sustained progress on the environment
actually contributes to prosperity. For example, air and water have become substantially cleaner over the past two decades, even as the United
States has led the developed world in economic growth. Reorienting the MCA Soon Congress will take up the president's MCA proposal with a
view to enacting initial authorizing legislation that will define the purpose, scope, and modalities of this new U.S. approach to development.
Lawmakers and the administration should use this opportunity to ensure that the MCA builds on U.S. and international sustainable
development efforts. In practical terms, this will require the following changes to the administration's initial MCA proposal: Environmental
Mandate The central objective of the MCA should be promoting sustainable development rather than economic growth alone. Not only would
this bring the MCA in line with widely accepted development policy, but it also would make the MCA consistent with the goals of existing U.S.
foreign affairs and development agencies. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the Export-Import Bank of the United States, for example, have explicit environmental and sustainable
development statutory mandates. To help build a culture that values environmental protection, the MCA?s implementing agency should have a
statutorily established environmental advisory committee for its first two years of operation. The advisory committee would help the agency
establish responsible environmental policies and procedures. Environmental Safeguards The MCA's
implementing agency should
be required to adopt an extensive set of procedural safeguards to ensure
MCA-funded
projects are
environmentally sensible . It should screen projects for environmental risks and disqualify categorically
certain types of environmentally damaging or socially disruptive projects, such as large-scale dams that would
forcibly displace thousands of people. The new agency should conduct technical assessments of the likely environmental effects of grant
proposals. The MCA program would benefit if the agency monitored its overall environmental track record and prepared annual reports on the
long-term environmental consequences of its grants. While the MCA should encourage developing countries to help prepare this analysis and
follow similar procedures, the MCA should be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of environmental assessments.
Environmental safeguards are a well-established part of U.S. development policy. Since 1979, Executive Order
12114 has required U.S. agencies to assess the environmental effects abroad of "major federal action." Because of the executive order's limited
scope, Congress has in recent years required that existing U.S. development agencies follow additional strict environmental assessment and
reporting procedures. Almost all U.S. international agencies (including USAID, the EX-IM bank, and OPIC) must screen projects for
environmental sensitivity, conduct rigorous assessments of possible environmental consequences, and monitor environmental results.
Executive Orders also extend similar requirements to some other U.S. commercial agencies, such as the U.S. Trade Representative. These
assessments are performed by the U.S. agencies themselves based in part on information submitted by recipient nations, and they include
opportunities for public comment. Importantly,
both the environmental and business communities support these
procedures . While some environmental organizations believe U.S. environmental assessments should be strengthened, they appreciate
that these procedures make government decisions more transparent and participatory. The business community has found that governmentsponsored environmental reviews can be commercially timely and add legitimacy to approved projects, which helps win public acceptance. Like
existing environmental review processes in OPIC and elsewhere,
great attention should be paid to making the
MCA?s
environmental screening and assessment procedures as simple and streamlined as possible. Given the success of past
efforts, this would not be overly difficult. Failing to require the MCA's implementing agency to adopt a rigorous environmental
assessment policy not only would depart from general U.S. practice but it would also undermine
longstanding, bipartisan efforts by the United States to convince other countries and multilateral
institutions to conduct their own environmental assessments. The United States has led global efforts to
strengthen the World Bank Group's already extensive environmental assessment procedures. It has also for years urged
industrialized countries to require their export credit agencies to adopt environmental criteria similar to those already used by OPIC and the EXIM bank. As early as 1992, for example, the United States successfully negotiated a common donor statement of the importance of assessing
the environmental impact of foreign assistance programs. Allowing U.S. foreign aid
to be blind to the environment now
would undercut the progress we have made internationally to coordinate donor efforts and ensure a
level international playing field for U.S. companies.
***Solvency***
2NC SQ Circumvents NEPA – CP is Key
Deepwater drilling is exempted – it’s believed to be deep and untested qualifying it for
being exempt.
Lopez, 2011 (Jaclyn, Staff Attorney at Center for Biological Diversity, “ARTICLE: BP's Well Evaded Environmental Review: Categorical
Exclusion Policy Remains Unchanged” 37 Ecology L. Currents 93)
MMS does not have a fixed definition of deepwater. It has been described as depths greater than 400 meters (approximately 1,312 feet), 25
and at other times depths greater than 500 feet. 26 Regardless of the numerical definition of deepwater, MMS regards the areas in the Gulf of
Mexico that are subject to the categorical exclusion policy as "relatively untested or remote" compared to other areas. The MMS further
concedes that the Department of Interior Departmental Manual requires that an EA be prepared for operations proposed in these "relatively
untested deepwater or remote areas." 27 Yet, the
MMS has and continues to approve deepwater drilling pursuant
to a categorical exclusion . Absurdly, it justifies the use of the categorical exclusion policy in an area [*99]
of the Gulf of Mexico, that by its own admission
is deep and relatively untested , by explaining that "[i]mplemention
of this strategy will, over time, result in the grid areas no longer being considered untested or remote,
thereby eliminating this as a trigger for preparing an EA." 28 The exploration plan for the BP Macondo well was approved
pursuant to the categorical exclusion policy despite the fact that the plan called for, and the company drilled, the Macondo well in water over
4,990 feet deep. Approving the plan pursuant to the categorical exclusion policy was in clear contravention of NEPA and the agency's own
policy as the plan called for drilling in deep, relatively untested water.
Even after the BP spill, MMS continues to approve
exploration plans and DOCDs contemplating drilling in deepwater pursuant to this categorical
exclusion policy.
NEPA exemption makes environmental catastrophes like the Gulf spill more likely
Daily Kos 5/24/2010 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/24/869452/-Oil-and-Gas-Exemptions-in-NEPA Oil and Gas
Exemptions in NEPA
With me so far? Now, Administrations
have had their Agencies utilize NEPA in varying degrees, from
practically not at all to more often than not. So, how did oil and gas get an exemption? Not by
Amending NEPA; rather through The Halliburton/Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005 which changed the
rules for oil and gas by creating a "rebuttable presumption" that several oil and gas related activities
ought to be analyzed and processed by the Interior and Agricultural Departments under a less
stringent process known as a "categorical exclusion" (CE). The CE is considerably less comprehensive
than the traditional environmental assessment (EA) or the environmental impact statement (EIS) and
does not allow for any public comment. . . . snip Under the "rebuttable presumption," section 390
effectively shifts the burden from the agency to the public to prove that an activity requires further
analysis. Prior to 2005, the agency had the burden of showing that no harm will occur from the type of
activity at issue. Now, the public has the burden of proving that the above activities occur in an area
with "extraordinary circumstances" and require a full NEPA review. "Extraordinary circumstances" are those in
which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect, thus requiring additional analysis and action. Earthworks' Oil and
Gas Accountability Project at pp. 15-16 Basically,
the Energy Policy of 2005 made it so much easier for Minerals
Management to completely circumvent NEPA by never finding any "extraordinary circumstances" and
rubberstamp drilling activities without benefit of any permit process. If NEPA were fully
implemented , regulations adhered to and science and engineering respected for the last number of
decades back to President Reagan, perhaps the Gulf crime against nature might never have occurred.
Perhaps many other thousands of acres of land and water would not be contaminated.
2NC CP Solves Effectiveness
NEPA as contract approach increases assessment effectiveness by switching burden to
the industry.
BARSA-prof law NU, 2011 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, *LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE
GULF OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
Now imagine
that we re-conceptualize NEPA and related environmental reviews in two important
respects. First, instead of being seen as a process or requirement that the agency manages and takes
legal responsibility for, the NEPA process would be openly recognized as an undertaking of the
company seeking the award of a lease or other benefit from the government agency. BP and other
companies would have to fully own their reviews , and the lack of quality or comprehensiveness in
them. Second, rather than being seen as having no downside consequences, at least in the absence of
a citizen suit, the environmental review would have potentially serious consequences for the
company's bottom line; companies could be severely penalized financially for having conducted a
dishonest or grossly inadequate environmental review as part of the process of obtaining the lease,
exploration plan approval, or permission to drill. Imagine, in particular, a scheme in which a company
such as BP would be required to conduct and publish an environmental review at the time of leasing,
exploration, and drilling, and then its rights to retain any leases, exploration plan approvals, or drilling
permissions would be tied to the quality of the environmental [*240] review it submitted to the
agency. The company also would have a duty to update its reviews, in the same way that agencies
have a duty now to update their reviews under NEPA when new information comes to light. 130 If it
were later discovered that the company's environmental review was conducted in a dishonest or
grossly inadequate way, the lease, approval, or permission could be rescinded without the payment of any
compensation. 131 In the case of a rescinded lease, the government would then be free to re-lease the relevant tract. In the case of a rescinded
exploration plan approval or drilling plan permission, the lease would remain in place but the lessee would need to restart the process of
obtaining the required approval, including the completion of an updated, adequate environmental review. In practice, rescissions
of
approvals of this sort would translate into real delays in resource extraction, and hence significant
foregone revenue. We label our re-conceptualization NEPA-as-contract because it would transform
the NEPA environmental review process into a contractual bargain where the industry actor offers a
realistic, thorough environmental review--including mitigation planning--as consideration for the
receipt of
the lease or
government permission . From a contractual perspective, it is only right that
industry should lose its benefit from the bargain if it is found out that it provided illusory
consideration. 132 One analogy is a contract for insurance coverage. When an individual applies for insurance, the insurance company
requires the disclosure of certain information. 133 If an individual fails to provide the correct information, and the company subsequently
learns that is the case, the company can treat the policy as rescinded and then deny any [*241] claims under the policy. 134 More broadly,
contracts of all sorts may be treated as rescinded by one party if it is discovered that the other party to the contract made material
misstatements at the time the contract was formed. 135 For example, the seller of property implicitly warrants that it has good title and if it is
later found that it does not, the buyer can elect to treat the purchase contract as rescinded. 136
Turns the Case-Backlash
Environmental catastrophe shuts down production---turns the case
Smith, 2012 (James F. Smith is the Communications Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Belfer Center Programs
or Projects: The Geopolitics of Energy Project “New study forecasts sharp increase in world oil production capacity, and risk of price coll”
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-06-26/new-study-forecasts-sharp-increase-world-oil-production-capacity-and-risk-price-c)
The most dramatic increases involve the exploitation of unconventional oils in the U nited S tates, Maugeri
says. For example, the Bakken and Three Forks fields in North Dakota and Montana could become the equivalent of a Persian Gulf-producing
country within the United States. The Bakken formation’s output has grown from a few barrels in 2006 to 530,000 a day in December 2011.
While the surge in production in the Western Hemisphere in coming years will in effect leave the
region self-sufficient in oil, the global nature of the market makes that all but meaningless except in
psychological terms, Maugeri argues. He adds that the industry will need to make major investments to keep
oil production environmentally safe to avoid threatening the new bonanza. The worsening oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico on Thursday threatened not only the shores of five states but also President Barack Obama's plan
to open vast stretches of U.S. coastline to oil and gas drilling. Members of Congress on Thursday issued new calls for
Mr. Obama to abandon his plans for expanded offshore drilling, and White House officials conceded that the spreading oil slick could cause the
president to rethink his position. "We need to figure out what happened," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Would a finding of
something possibly affect that? Of course." In Washington, the White House held a series of high-profile media events aimed at communicating
that the administration was fully engaged in the crisis. At a midday news conference, the administration rolled out two cabinet chiefs and other
senior White House advisers to assert that the government would do whatever it could to help BP stop the leak. The administration is well
aware that the president's campaign victory was built in part on a belief among voters that he would do a better job at responding to disasters
like Hurricane Katrina than did President George W. Bush. "This is in that list: Are you competently running government?" Mr. Gibbs said. He
said the news conference with senior officials was aimed at letting the press and the public "know what we've done to respond." Janet
Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said there were more than 50 vessels as well as aircraft deployed to the area of
the spill and that workers had laid down 174,060 feet of absorbent foam booms and recovered 18,180 barrels of an oily mixture from the gulf's
surface. White House officials said they began holding regular conference calls with BP executives soon after the accident. On Thursday, Mr.
Obama also called the governors of the five Gulf Coast states, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar met with oil and gas industry executives to
appeal for ideas and help. On Friday, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Salazar, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, White House Director of Energy and Climate
Change Policy Carol Browner and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco will travel to the Gulf Coast at the president's request to inspect ongoing
operations dedicated to minimizing environmental risks. Despite these efforts, it remained possible that the leak of oil could continue for as
long as three months, by which time it would rival the size of the 1989 spill from the Exxon Valdez. By that time, the damage from the spill
could be extensive, and the political effect on Mr. Obama's offshore drilling plan and broader climate change agenda uncertain. "I don't know
whether it changes our understanding of offshore oil," David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the accident. "But I think it changes the political debate quite a bit." In backing wider
offshore oil and gas exploration only a month ago, Mr. Obama promised to "employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil
exploration." He acknowledged that his decision would provoke criticism from those who decried the expansion and those who said it did not
go far enough. "Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and
environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place," Mr. Obama said. The
accident in the Gulf may provide more firepower for the critics on the left who for years have lobbied
presidents and Congress to keep in place federal moratoriums on further offshore exploration. Those
moratoriums have expired. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called on Mr. Obama to step back from his expanded offshore drilling plans. In a letter to the
president, Mr. Nelson said he would file legislation to ban the Interior Department from following through on Mr. Obama's proposal for new
seismic and drilling activity. He said the Gulf spill "may be an environmental and economic disaster that wreaks havoc for commercial fishing
and tourism along the Gulf of Mexico coast."
Turns the Case-Backlash-Natural Gas
The CP solves the case and avoids public backlash that would cripple production
Levi-senior fellow for energy and the environment, CFR, 2012 Think Again: The American Energy Boom
Yes, oil and gas made in the USA is surging. But does that really liberate us from the Middle East?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom
"Strong Regulations Would Kill the Boom."
Dead wrong. The technology at the heart of the U.S. oil and gas boom has become central to the battle
between the environmental community and the oil and gas industry. Drillers and their allies have
often resisted new regulation, insisting that the industry is already heavily regulated at the state level
and that fears of fracking are overblown. Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, captures the
sentiment well, warning that more regulation could "kill the technology that's taking us to energy independence." Green groups have hit back
with demands for stricter oversight of fracking, highlighting threats to air and water and disruptions to local communities. The Sierra Club has
gone so far as to launch a "Beyond Natural Gas" campaign to accompany its efforts to move "Beyond Coal" and "Beyond Oil." Some warnings,
like an alarm in early 2011 that Pittsburgh's tap water was radioactive, have been over the top. Executed
properly, development
of shale gas and oil can be done in ways that safeguard the environment and protect communities.
But there are always bad apples and sloppy operators. They require not only solid regulation, which
often exists at the state level, but also strong enforcement and penalties to deter and punish
violators, which too often do not exist. This is not only about preventing bad behavior -- it's a matter
of building public trust . Operators that refuse, for example, to support mandatory disclosure of the chemicals they use in fracking
inevitably raise suspicions. That's true regardless of whether those chemicals actually endanger public health. Industry is at its best when it
helps craft regulations that protect people and the environment while allowing robust development to proceed apace. But those
who
instinctively oppose stricter rules are sowing the seeds of their own misfortune: Robust regulation
might add a few percentage points to the cost of producing natural gas, but weak regulation will sap
confidence , and if communities shut down drilling, the price of natural gas will rise a lot more.
Regulation boosts production – one bad regulatory apple spoils the whole industry
Levi-Brookings Fellow Energy and Environment-5/5/10 http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2010/05/05/why-the-oilspill-might-be-good-news-for-natural-gas/
Second, the oil spill may lead to greater industry support for serious regulation of shale gas
production – and that would be a good thing for production in the long term. If one bad apple causes
a bad shale gas production accident, it will tar the whole industry, leading to severely curtailed shale
gas production. This danger of this dynamic should now be obvious to industry, given the massive
impact that BP’s offshore accident is going to have on ExxonMobil and company’s access to new
acreage for offshore drilling. The lesson should be clear: serious regulation is in the interest of
responsible companies, because it protects them from the consequences of others’ mistakes. If
serious shale gas players didn’t understand this before, they certainly ought to now. Of course, the spill has
some negative ramifications for shale gas too. Some will see the oil spill as a sign that all drilling is dangerous, and become more entrenched in
their opposition to all shale gas production. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the politics tip in that direction. But increased
support
for gas – together with tighter regulation – seems to be the more likely outcome.
Turns their regulation bad arguments---backlash causes moratoriums
Content 5/29/12 (Thomas, energy and cleantech writer for JSOnline.com and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “As shale gas production
soars, where will prices head?” http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/155382455.html#!page=0&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst)
The increase in production of natural gas from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is one of the factors driving down utility costs for natural gas
customers. But questions have emerged over whether the price of natural gas can stay as lowas it’s been. First, there’s the prospect of more
regulation on the environmental impacts of shale gas production. The International Energy Agency on Monday said environmental challenges
with fracking will have to be addressed, even as it forecasts a sizable jump in global production of shale gas. The IEA forecasts that shale gas will
account for 35% of all natural gas in 2035, up from 14% today, according to Bloomberg News. But environmental
concerns about how
prompt more regulation, and have already prompted
moratoriums against fracking in some states. “The concerns of local communities are legitimate ones,”
Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA in Paris, told Bloomberg. “There are some companies that are following
the rules we are suggesting here. The destiny of the shale-gas industry will be decided not by the
to deal with wastewater left over from the production process may
best practices but by the worst practices.”
Turns case-state patch work-natural gas
Absent stable federal regulations of natural gas state patchwork ruins the industry
Freeman, 2012 (Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor, was the White House counselor for energy and climate change in 2009 and
2010. “The Wise Way to Regulate Gas Drilling” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/the-wise-way-to-regulate-hydraulicfracturing.html)
AMERICA’S energy future has been transformed by the production of natural gas made possible by hydraulic fracturing. This gas is a much
cleaner source of electricity than coal. The problem is that the fracturing process used
to extract the gas can, if done
improperly, pollute surface and drinking water and emit dangerous air pollution. States like Texas,
Pennsylvania and New York are now rushing to impose their own rules . But what we really need is a system of
federal oversight that will promote confidence in this technique and provide the industry with uniform
standards without overregulating it. The federal government has the power to regulate some but not all the risks. For example,
the Environmental Protection Agency has set standards to control emissions of toxic and greenhouse gases from the drilling process and is
considering new rules for polluted wastewater. But in 2005, Congress exempted the fracturing process itself — a process in which huge
quantities of water, sand and toxic chemicals are injected into tight shale rock, to force open the rock and capture the gas trapped within —
from federal regulation. The
states have moved forward with a patchwork of regulations — some specific
and prescriptive, others vague and general. Many states require some disclosure of the chemicals the drillers use, but in some
states drillers decide which chemicals constitute proprietary secrets and therefore do not have to be disclosed. Some states allow operators to
store toxic wastewater from the fracturing process in open pits, risking surface or groundwater contamination. Some states simply lack the
experience or resources to enforce their standards.
The uneven approach is bad not only for the environment but
also for industry , because under the current system, mistakes by a few bad apples could lead to
overregulation or even outright bans on drilling. A better approach is one already reflected in many environmental laws:
cooperative federalism. The federal government sets baseline standards, which states can exceed but not fall
below. Ideally, these would be general “performance standards” rather than detailed specifications, giving the states flexibility to meet them.
States might be required to develop comprehensive plans to manage environmental risks. These plans could account for regional differences
and would be based on best practices for disclosure, drilling location, well construction and wastewater treatment. States
would
implement and enforce the rules and issue and oversee the operating permits. The federal
government could step in if states abdicated their responsibility. Such a regulatory system — with minimum federal
standards as well as state plans — has been in place for coal mining since 1977. For this to work, Congress must lift the regulatory exemptions
for hydraulic fracturing. This would allow the E.P.A. to set minimum requirements for the drilling process,
which states would implement through federally approved programs. The E.P.A. and the Interior Department, which regulates gas drilling on
federal lands, could then establish a clear, comprehensive and consistent federal framework for hydraulic fracturing. The cost would be
reasonable: the International Energy Agency recently estimated that adequate environmental protections could increase drilling costs by 7
percent. Some might say that a federal role isn’t necessary. But pollution risks go beyond state borders. If natural gas extraction is a national
priority, its safety and efficacy should be of national concern, too. The Obama administration has taken some initial steps to coordinate the
federal government’s approach but has been timid about calling for a stronger federal role. Only
a national regulatory system
can strike the right balance, simultaneously realizing hydraulic fracturing’s energy promise and
minimizing the risks while respecting state authority.
***Competition/Legitimacy***
AT: Perm Do Both
Doesn’t solve – prior and binding assessments are critical to access any benefit
Gibbons 91 (John H., Director – U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, “Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear
Weapons Production”, February, http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9113/911307.PDF)
3. Require
DOE and Other Involved Agencies To Consult the Boards Prior to Making Key Decisions and To Report Those
Decisions to the Boards To ensure that each board’s input is duly considered by DOE and other involved Federal and State
agencies, Congress could require those agencies to consult with the appropriate board on a regular basis prior to making key
decisions and then to inform that board how its advice and recommendations were taken into account in arriving at
the decision. Congress could either establish this requirement and direct agencies to comply or authorize the boards
themselves to develop and enforce the requirement. The frequency of consultation could be specified in advance either by Congress
or by the boards, or the boards could determine periodically what specific decisions they wish to consider. Establishing strong public
advisory mechanisms at the site-specific and national levels and requiring the agencies to consider, respond to, and
incorporate such input in their decisionmaking processes might conceivably slow down some activities. Also, even with extensive
public involvement, consensus on outcomes may not be easy to achieve. However, incorporating meaningful public participation into the
cleanup process is
a worthy goal in and of itself because credibility is required in that effort. Making cleanup
decisions through a process that is open and acceptable to the public can go a long way toward achieving
sound and credible outcomes.
Genuine key – perm doesn’t solve the internal net benefit of environmental
leadership.
Ivanova and Esty 8 (Daniel C., Professor of Environmental Law and Policy – Yale University and Maria, Assistant Professor of
Government and Environmental Policy – College of William and Mary, “Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance”, SAIS
Review, 28(2), Summer-Fall)
Third, mere U.S. participation in international environmental efforts will be insufficient. The United States must
actively take a leadership role in bringing about a successful response to climate change and other issues. The history of past success in
galvanizing the global community into action shows that the United States can and must take the lead. However, any
attempt at U.S.led reform without credible proof of genuine U.S. leadership based on common values and the common good is
likely to be met with distrust and opposition.
Conducting the assessment prior to adoption of the policy is key-the permutation
renders the process meaningless.
Askin-JD Candidate Berkeley-7 34 Ecology L.Q. 1045 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAW: NOTE: Bad Timing: The Ninth Circuit Takes NEPA Backwards
The most important purpose of NEPA is to integrate environmental considerations into agency
decisions that will have a substantial impact on the environment. 119 The EIS should be a reflection of
the fact that an agency has actually taken a "hard look " at environmental [*1059] consequences. 120 In
order for this aspiration to be a reality, the environmental impacts of an action must be known
before the decision to act is made ; this goal is codified in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. 121 The NEPA
process should be a routine part of the agency decisionmaking process. 122 If the courts allow key portions of an EIS to be
issued after a critical decision has been made , the process is reduced to meaningless paperwork .
Indeed, even leaving aside the question of programmatic and subsequent EISs, EISs come too late in the process. In practice, planning for major
federal actions typically begins well before the NEPA process. 123 The courts require that the final EIS be issued when an agency issues "a
recommendation or report on a proposal for federal action." 124 However, this requirement enables the EIS process to be conducted on a
different track than the actual decisionmaking procedure. Often, the
result is that agencies make their plans without a
great deal of consideration for environmental consequences, and then complete the EIS when the
decision is foregone . 125 Thus, in many cases "NEPA is virtually ignored in formulating specific policies and often is skirted in
developing programs, usually because agencies believe that NEPA cannot be applied within the time available." 126 Allowing agencies
to push the EIS process even further back than is currently allowed acts as an invitation to agencies to treat
NEPA as an unfortunate perfunctory step rather than as a tool to shape policy . There are several
reasons why an early EIS is beneficial. To the extent that agencies do take into account environmental
factors in their decisions, 127 it allows agencies to plan and possibly reconsider proposals [*1060] before
major funding is committed. 128 Further, the preparation of a comprehensive report at the outset of a
project, as opposed to a series of tiered reports, results in fewer reports, thereby reducing (or at least not
increasing) costs. 129 To an outside observer, an early EIS offers a better indication that an agency has taken environmental factors into
account, which is advantageous since EISs are designed to be an outward reflection of agency decisionmaking processes. 130 Thus, in many
cases it is wise to do an early programmatic EIS, as in Kempthorne, with more specific analyses as the project proceeds. However, the crucial
difference is that in Kempthorne, later site-specific analyses would have little legal or practical effect due to the rights granted to the lessees.
Perhaps most importantly, requiring
an early EIS prevents a project's momentum from overtaking any
environmental considerations that might otherwise factor into the decision. Once an agency makes a
general decision to proceed with a project, the decision in itself makes it more difficult for the agency
to later change course. This is particularly true in the context of oil and gas leasing . Once leases are
issued to energy companies, should oil or gas be found, it would be extremely difficult to substantially
change the program in light of newly revealed environmental hazards. The likelihood is very small that
the BLM would take a "hard look" at that stage of the program. Conducting the leasing in a different fashion would be
irrational. The companies interested in exploratory drilling would be in a difficult situation if their drilling rights could be revoked after having
made a significant investment. In Kempthorne, this reasoning is taken a step further, because the proposed leases are such that the agency is
legally prohibited from preventing drilling due to the terms of the leases. 131 That is, in fact, the essence of the distinction in Conner between
the legal status of NSO and non-NSO leases. The fact that the BLM could not reverse itself by the terms of the lease constituted, in the court's
mind, an "irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources."
Leveraging access to production key to effective reviews-The permutation removes
the incentive.
BARSA-prof law NU-11 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, * LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF
OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
We think the NEPA-as-contract reform also speaks to the group pathologies account of why BP and
others did not plan for a failure of blowout protectors. By making the NEPA process one that has
potentially very important implications for the company's valuable legal [*243] rights in resource
extraction, NEPA-as-contract would change corporations' internal dynamic surrounding
environmental review. Environmental review could no longer be seen as simply an obstacle, chore,
or tedium to get through ; it would have to be seen as something that the company had a financial
stake in getting right, even if the company knew that the agency would accept whatever it submitted.
Top management, in-house counsel, and very likely outside counsel would take a closer look at
reviews than they currently do, and would want to assure themselves that they "covered the bases"
by calling on company staff to identify any arguable holes or weaknesses that could later, perhaps
years later, be used to challenge the company's legal rights in resource extraction.
AT: Perm Do Cp
Mutually exclusive---Decision to open land for production can either be conditioned
on environmental factors or not
Institute for Policy Integrity Report 11 NYU Law
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/42011_The_BP_Gulf_Coast_Oil_Spill_Option_Value_and_the_Offshore_Drilling_Debate_1.pdf
The Department of the Interior bears the responsibility to examine the costs and benei ts of drilling. In the past, the agency met this
requirement by carrying out a traditional cost-benei t analysis. While cost-benei t analysis itself is a useful framework for informing these kinds
of decisions, the
agency’s analysis is flawed because it treats oil drilling as a now-or-never decision. Once
the decision to drill has been made, it cannot easily be unmade . But that does not mean the only
choices are either to drill now or never: waiting to decide is also an option. Because safer drilling
techniques and more effective cleanup technologies continue to be developed, the costs associated
with drilling should decline over time—perhaps in fits and starts, but following a generally downward trend
Most real world
Mason 11 Ruth, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School, “Federalism and the Taxing Power”, 11/10,
http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/99-4/02_Mason.pdf
In dicta, the Dole Court suggested some limits on conditional spending. For example, the Court stated that conditions
attached to
federal grants must be related to the federal purpose for the expenditure , not prohibited under other provisions
of the Constitution (such as the Bill of Rights), and not coercive. 27 In other decisions, the Court has emphasized that to bind the states,
federal spending conditions must be unambiguous. 28 Moreover, conditional spending, like all taxing and
spending, must be for defense, to repay federal debts, or it must otherwise advance the “general welfare.” But there exist
few other formal limits on congressional spending. 29 Congress often uses its spending power to make conditional
grants to the states, even when it could regulate directly using the Commerce Clause or another enumerated power. 30
Congress may employ grants even when it possesses direct regulatory authority because it believes the states will be more
effective regulators than the federal government would, or because the federal government lacks the
administrative expertise or apparatus to effectuate federal policy cheaply. But in areas that Congress otherwise
could not reach with direct regulation, grant-making allows Congress to enlarge its policy sphere by enticing the
states into adopting federally prescribed policies in exchange for federal funds. For example, in Dole the
Supreme Court held that it was not unconstitutional for Congress to condition a portion of federal highway grants to the states upon the
Using highway funds, the federal government
achieved through state cooperation a regulatory goal that it lacked constitutional authority to achieve
directly, namely, imposition of a minimum drinking age. 32
requirement that the states enact a minimum drinking age of twenty-one. 31
AT: Should = Conditions
This clearly doesn’t apply---“should” only allows conditions when used in that context--i.e., “If the USFG had known, it should have acted differently”---the plan and topic
use the word in a different sense---mandating unconditional obligation
AHD 9 (American Heritage Dictionary, “should”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should)
Usage Note: Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and
would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express
conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently.
But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot
always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go.
Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he)
should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as
an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would
was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than
should. · Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should've.
See Usage Notes at if, rather, shall.
AT: Normal Means
There is a meaningful difference between the plan and the cp – offshore drilling is
allowed as a categorical exemption which avoids full NEPA review resulting in
environmental issues – the counterplan would alter that process and mandate a full
review of the plan which is distinct from normal means – that’s Hull-LLM.
Oil and gas are exempted from NEPA
Kosnik-Research Director, Oil and Gas Accountability Project-7
http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/PetroleumExemptions1c.pdf The Oil and Gas Industry's Exclusions and Exemptions to
Major Environmental Statutes
Executive Summary The
oil and gas industry enjoys sweeping exemptions from provisions in the major
federal environmental statutes intended to protect human health and the environment. These statutes include the: •
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act • Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Water Act • Clean Air Act • National Environmental Policy Act • Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act This
lack of regulatory oversight can be traced to many illnesses and even deaths for
people and wildlife across the country. There are a variety of chemicals used during the many phases of oil and gas
development. These chemicals also produce varying types of waste throughout these processes. Because of the exemptions and
exclusions, toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes are permeating the soil, water sources and the air
threatening human health to an alarming extent. In order to adequately remedy the negative impacts
on human health and the environment, the following recommendations must be addressed: 1) Crude
oil and petroleum must be covered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in order to protect human health and the environment from spills
and leaks of hazardous and carcinogenic materials on well sites. This is the only way to currently assist
overburdened federal and state programs in light of the exponential growth of oil and gas
development in the United States. 2) To protect human health and the environment, oil field wastes
must be regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in order to ensure the proper
handling and disposal of hazardous and carcinogenic wastes generated by oil and gas development.
Otherwise, the petroleum industry will continue to dispose of oil field waste in ways that can pollute
soil, surface and groundwater. 3) Hydraulic fracturing must be regulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act in order to adequately protect the United
State's drinking water supply from the harmful chemicals used during this process. This recommendation
includes a total ban on the use of diesel fuel as one of the additives in the hydraulic fracturing process. 4) Stormwater discharges
from all oil and gas development must be regulated under the Clean Water Act by the federal
government in order to provide the states with a proper foundation from which to build adequate
stormwater programs that will protect human health and the environment from expanding oil and gas
development. Emissions from all oil and gas facilities must be aggregated under the Clean Air Act in order to ascertain the true hazardous
effect on air quality. Also, hydrogen sulfide must be re-established as a hazardous air emission under the Clean Air Act in light of the current
available data regarding its negative impacts on human health and the environment. Because
of the disruptive nature of oil
and gas activities on human health and the environment, none of these activities ought to qualify for
the categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. All oil and gas activities must
be assessed for impacts on the environment under the more comprehensive environmental
assessment and environment impact statement in order to properly fulfill the intentions of the
statute. The petroleum industry must be made to disclose the chemicals used during the development stages under the Toxic Release
Inventory within the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, in order to ensure that human health and the environment can be
protected from these oftenhazardous and carcinogenic substances.
Oil and gas production exempted from NEPA
Environmental Working Group, 2009 Free Pass for Oil and Gas: Environmental Protections Rolled Back as Western
Drilling Surges http://www.ewg.org/book/export/html/27154 National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1969, also exempts
certain oil and gas drilling activities,
obviating the need to conduct environmental impact statements (EIS) (BLM 2008). The exemption, enacted
by Congress in 2005, effectively shifts the burden of proof to the public to prove that such activities
would be unsafe. In 2006 and 2007, the BLM granted this exemption to about 25 percent of all wells
approved on public land in the West (BLM Budget 2009). The activities thus exempted include: “(1) Individual surface
disturbances of less than 5 acres so long as the total surface disturbance on the lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a
document prepared pursuant to NEPA has been previously completed. (2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or well pad site at which
drilling has occurred previously within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well. (3) Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for
which an approved land use plan or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed such drilling as a reasonably
foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well. (4) Placement of a
pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, so long as the corridor was approved within 5 years prior to the date of placement of the
pipeline. (5) Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation or a building or facility” (NEPA 2009).
AT: Condition CP Theory
The judge should evaluate the counterplan because it is an opportunity cost to the
plan
It’s real world---our solvency evidence proves it’s predictable and a core question in
policy-making---the aff tries to artificially insulate itself from key areas of debate,
which destroys comprehensive education over gas policies
It’s key to advocacy construction---it forces the aff to have defenses of unconditional
assistance---this is a key debate in foreign policy
Err neg---aff gets first and last speech, the huge number of possible aff mechanisms
makes counterplans key negative ground
And the CP is functionally competitive – the result is different than the plan’s due to
modifications because of the life cycle assessment.
Reject the argument NOT the team
***AT: Section***
AT: Delay/Blocks Production
---NEPA as contract model solves---the CP creates an incentive for an efficient process
by putting the burden on the industry to complete the assessment. Their general
NEPA delay arguments don’t apply.
---Best studies prove no delay
Buccino-Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council-4 NEPA UNDER ASSAULT:
CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS WOULD WEAKEN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol12/1/12n1a3.pdf
Some critics blame the NEPA process for delay and inefficiency. 9 Of course, there are times when the NEPA process has not worked as
smoothly as it should or could. However, the administrative process is rarely perfect, and these isolated instances do not justify statutory or
regulatory changes. When done right, NEPA provides an essential tool for producinginformed and accepted government decisions. And the
facts simply do not support claims that the NEPA process is the cause of unwarranted delay and
expense. For example, in a study of eighty nine highway projects that had been delayed for at least
five years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found that environmental reviews were not the
major causes of delay. 10 Instead, FHWA identified lack of funding or low project priority, lack of local
consensus, and project complexity as the three most significant factors in slowing highway projects
down. 1
---Delay inevitable---production takes a decade
CBO 12 (The Congressional budget office, fools. “Energy Security in the United States”
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf)
Production would not commence until 10 years after development was first allowed, and peak
production would not occur until 10 years after that. Some oil fields on land can be developed more quickly (within a few
years), but deepwater oil fields are expected to have the largest quantity of oil. Such development would not be expected to offset temporary
supply disruptions but could increase long-run production in the United States.
---Mitigation measures solve the case and cost of prevention massively outweighed by
the net benefit
Moorman-JD Vermont-7 http://www.vjel.org/journal/pdf/VJEL10054.pdf PROMOTING AND STRENGTHENING PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN CHINA’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS: COMPARINGCHINA’S EIA LAW AND U.S. NEPA
Environmental impact assessment is a universally recognized strategy for sustainable development. 13 Broadly stated, EIA is an attempt to
improve the quality of human life in a lasting way by examining and documenting the potential environmental impacts of a proposed activity
and also considers alternatives that may prevent or mitigate any perceived negative effects, thereby enabling fully informed, environmentally
conscious decision-making. 14 By
design EIA is anticipatory, or precautionary, and so it is important that it be
undertaken as early as possible prior to, or during the proposal stage of development. 15 Additionally, the
prediction and prevention of potential environmental harm is often a least-cost alternative . 16
Therefore, in addition to being a sustainable development tool, EIA can also be a cost-saving
measure .16. JACOB I. BREGMAN & ROBERT D. EDELL, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE HANDBOOK 275–76 (2d ed. 2002). This least-cost
doubt the costs of preparing environmental
assessments, as well as the expense of delay, can be burdensome. Yet balking at EIA in the face of
such burdens adopts a narrow perspective that overlooks the fact that the costs of prevention would
notion can be viewed as a corollary of the sustainable development concept. No
pale in comparison to the environmental, social, and economic costs associated with unbridled
development . Indeed, an ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure.
---Some delay is good---avoids environmental impacts
Gordon-Carnegie Energy Program-5/2/12 http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/02/balancing-on-tightresource-rope/amzz Balancing on a Tight Resource Rope
Conventional wisdom tells us that the U.S. oil-and-gas boom is a welcomed turn of events — especially in the Midwest’s heavily industrialized
and economically struggling Rust Belt states, tight shale oil and gas appear to be new varieties of precious black gold. In Ohio and its
neighboring states, residents have suffered through decades of downturn. The region’s specialization in processing raw materials for
manufacturing had faded away. Prosperity is now returning, though slowly, to the Midwest economy in the form of resources buried deeply in
the disconnected fissures of the Utica, Marcellus and Devonian shale. Conventional
thinking is unlikely to question the
wisdom of this energy windfall. Unconventional thinking, however, raises red flags in the conventional wisdom. Will the U.S. oiland-gas boom bolster energy and economic security? Maybe. But there are risks. Emerging petroleum sources have an
imposing relationship on their surroundings . Producing and processing new oils and gases requires
technological forcing — through horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and chemical injection —
with uncertain long-term impacts. Managing water quality, waste and seismic , climate and other
impacts are difficult in the face of rapid, under-regulated resource development. This situation
breeds an information and power imbalance. Industry has more knowledge than citizens and can hold
financial sway over policymakers. Proceeding more cautiously, while prudent, too often pits profits
and jobs against health and safety. The speed at which tight reserves are being extracted merits
reconsideration beyond these important issues of unintended societal consequences. There are also
economic and energy trade-offs associated with this energy boom. First, with natural gas selling at
low prices, accelerated production of tight gas could be unwise. Today it might be worth more in the
ground than in the pipeline. A slower development path would buy time to figure out how to
safeguard residents and the environment, offering full disclosure and better mitigation before
problems arise.
---Delay inevitable-The counterplan doesn’t substantially add to it
Goldfarb-managing editor Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review-91 18 B.C.
ENVTL. AFF L REV 543
Regardless of whether an agency must perform an EIS, there is often a delay between the proposal for
a project and the commencement of the project. Often the EIS could be completed without extending
this interim period. Therefore, the courts should be influenced by potential delay only when the additional delay
caused by the EIS could undermine the United States's economic or military security. Executive Order 12,114
anticipates the need for special rules in the event of armed conflict, 462 and courts should construe this provision
narrowly.
---No Link-Mitigation measures solve the case and avoid environmental risks
Andreen-prof law Alabama-2K 25 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 17 ARTICLE: Environmental Law and International Assistance: The
Challenge of Strengthening Environmental Law in the Developing World
Another key component of an EIA is an evaluation of appropriate mitigation measures . 146 According to
the Draft IUCN Covenant, mitigation involves ways in which potential adverse effects can be either averted or
minimized. 147 The U.S. CEQ regulations are more detailed, providing that mitigation can also involve, among other
things: ways in which the affected environment can be repaired, restored, or rehabilitated; ways in
which the impact can be reduced through preservation or maintenance operations during the life of
the action; and compensation for the impact through the replacement or substitution of resources or
environments. 148 In order to help inform the necessary decision-maker about the kind of measures
that should be required as a condition of approval, the EIA ought to discuss mitigation in rather
specific terms - namely, what measures can be taken to avoid, minimize, remediate, or compensate
harm. 149
Moorman-JD Vermont-7 http://www.vjel.org/journal/pdf/VJEL10054.pdf PROMOTING AND STRENGTHENING PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN CHINA’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS: COMPARINGCHINA’S EIA LAW AND U.S. NEPA
At the outset, it is important to note that when it comes to the technical environmental analysis, overall, EIA favors process over substance.
This is because the purpose of EIA is to ensure that actions are not undertaken without first fully comprehending and contemplating their
environmental consequences. Thus, while
the identification of potentially significant impacts through
environmental assessment may impede the progress of a proposal by requiring additional procedure,
it will not necessarily thwart the proposed action . The underlying assumption is that decision-makers
will act accordingly and take the environment into consideration once they learn the results of an EIA.
In other words, EIA simply seeks to inject environmental considerations into the decision. It matters
most that the process is undertaken so that the environmental impacts of a proposed action are
exposed prior to the ultimate decision of whether or not to proceed with the proposed action.
---Early assessment reduces red tape and bureaucracy
Askin-JD Candidate Berkeley-7 34 Ecology L.Q. 1045 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAW: NOTE: Bad Timing: The Ninth Circuit Takes NEPA Backwards
There are several reasons why an early EIS is beneficial. To the extent that agencies do take into
account environmental factors in their decisions, 127 it allows agencies to plan and possibly reconsider
proposals [*1060] before major funding is committed. 128 Further, the preparation of a comprehensive
report at the outset of a project, as opposed to a series of tiered reports, results in fewer reports,
thereby reducing (or at least not increasing) costs. 129 To an outside observer, an early EIS offers a better indication that an agency
has taken environmental factors into account, which is advantageous since EISs are designed to be an outward reflection of agency
decisionmaking processes. 130 Thus, in many cases it is wise to do an early programmatic EIS, as in Kempthorne, with more specific analyses as
the project proceeds. However, the crucial difference is that in Kempthorne, later site-specific analyses would have little legal or practical effect
due to the rights granted to the lessees.
AT: NEPA Fails
---Exemptions are worse-Rubberstamping production makes environmental
catastrophe more likely. That’s Daily Kos.
---Doesn’t assume the Counterplan-NEPA as contract approach increases assessment
effectiveness by switching the burden to the industry-none of their NEPA arguments
apply. That’s Barsa
---NEPA as contract significantly reduces the risk of future BP disasters-Creates strong
incentives for effective assessment and mitigation
BARSA-prof law NU-11 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, * LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF
OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
There are many technical, engineering, and scientific reasons why the Deepwater Horizon/BP disaster occurred. This Article does not seek to
address the proximate causes of the disaster, but instead to probe further back in time. Why did no one in either government or industry plan
for such a catastrophe? Why did numerous environmental reviews fail to even consider an oil spill of such great magnitude? [*220] This Article
begins to answer these questions by focusing on the relationship between the oil companies and regulators, and to place the failure in the
context of larger debates about the role of substantive environmental law in facilitating regulatory success or failure. In particular, this Article
considers the BP disaster from the perspective of two accounts as to why the regulation of natural resource extraction often fails to constrain
the behavior of large companies, to the detriment of the public welfare. The first account, which we call the "Group Pathologies" account,
essentially attributes the failure to the tendency of groups, especially highly homogenous groups, to develop strongly held, extreme positions
even in the face of contrary data. 1 This account posits a world where the dominant voices in industry and government honestly, if mistakenly,
believed that a spill of such magnitude was virtually impossible. 2 The second account, which we call the "Ruthless Calculator/Captive
Regulator" account, instead depicts the spill as the result of BP's rational, if ruthless, calculation that it had so captured the regulators that it
would be able to externalize much of the cost of any environmental risks. 3 In either case, we believe that a
relatively
straightforward reform to the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
could significantly lessen the likelihood of such failures in the future. 4 The dominant model for NEPA has been
one where the action agency--typically a non-environmentally oriented agency--conducts the review and is or is not challenged in court for
having done too little. 5 Both the Group Pathologies and Ruthless Calculator/Capture accounts, however, suggest that nothing
will
change unless there are much stronger and more immediate incentives to perform robust
environmental assessments. 6 Otherwise it will be too easy for regulators and industry to remain
blinded to the risk, as in the Group Pathologies account, or to accept such risk knowing that many of the costs
may be externalized onto others, as in the Ruthless Calculator/Captive Regulator account. 7 [*221] In order to overcome
these problems, we advocate what we call the NEPA-as-contract model . 8 Under this model,
companies that receive leases on the basis of grossly inadequate assessments that they themselves
perform will potentially have their leases rescinded , much as insurance contracts can be rescinded if it is later discovered
that the applicant for insurance made a material misstatement on his or her application. 9 Even if the threshold for rescinding a
lease were set very high, and even taking into account that government officials might well not act on
their legal right to rescind, we think that, ex ante, the mere possibility of the loss of valuable lease
rights could be enough to encourage more thorough and honest assessments at the time companies
applied for lease rights. 10 Importantly, this model does not require Congress to amend NEPA or pass
new legislation, but instead may be incorporated into the language of the lease contracts themselves.
Thus, unlike many other proposed reforms, this one could be implemented immediately for all
contracts going forward, and for any existing contracts subject to renegotiation. 11
---CP creates effective incentives for assessment and mitigation where it matters
most-Addresses structural weakness that led to BP spill
BARSA-prof law NU-11 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, * LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF
OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
The NEPA-as-contract reform we propose speaks directly to our rational, ruthless calculator account
of why BP never prepared for the possibility of a blowout protector failure. 139 A rationally
calculating BP would consider the expected costs of not acting against risk to be more significant if a
strategy of silence and inaction could result in losing very valuable lease rights or exploration and
drilling permissions . Indeed, from a rational calculation perspective, under our regime a company like
BP would want to invest resources in environmental review and mitigation in proportion to how
productive it estimated the field or other resource to be. In other words, the more expected oil, the
more environmental review and thorough consideration of mitigation. Because, all else being equal,
the productivity of a field will correlate with its potential for causing environmental harm , we think
our proposal would create exactly the right incentives . Of course, it is true that a company like BP
might believe that it could exercise its influence over an agency enough to forestall the agency from
making the finding that would lead to rescission of a lease or other permission. But the even a
modest possibility that the company could not avoid rescission would change its ex ante calculations
about how much to invest in environmental review and mitigation planning. Indeed, we think that
heavy industry influence over agencies is a reality that should make our proposal more palatable
because it goes a distance toward ensuring that agencies will not fall sway to hindsight bias and seek
rescission of leases and other permissions based on the failure of company reviews to consider risks and
alternatives, which could not reasonably have been anticipated before an accident or other occurrence
brought new information to light. 140
---CP changes industry culture---Builds in environmental protection norms
BARSA-prof law NU-11 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, * LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF
OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
In this way, the NEPA-as-contract model would counteract the pro-drilling leadership bias that likely
contributed to the groupthink dynamic. 141 Company leaders would now have a strong incentive to
change the culture in which the engineers always dominate the biologists and cautions about
drilling are routinely dismissed. 142 Much like construction companies have used a safety first culture
to reduce jobsite accidents, oil companies would have a powerful incentive to implement a culture
that takes a hard look at potential environmental harms . 143 Indeed, if this cultural shift were strong
enough, group polarization effects might shift to emphasize safety and harm-mitigation much more
strongly than simple regulation would predict. Similarly, group confirmation bias may shift from
emphasizing that "everyone knows drilling is safe" to "everyone knows you've got to fully assess the
risks." As the literature on so-called " norm cascades " has made clear, once a given norm becomes
adopted by a sufficient number of actors, it may reach a tipping point , after which it becomes rapidly
diffused. 144 Government agencies, with their strong symbiotic relationship with industry, would
likely not be immune from these new norms, but even if they somehow managed to be, industry
caution alone would likely be sufficient to improve the level of environmental review.
---NEPA empirically improves energy decisions---reforms constantly improving analysis
Dreher 5, (Robert G. Dreher, Executive Director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute. Served on the General
Counsel of the U.S. Envronmental Protection Agency, “NEPA Under Siege”,
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/research_archive/nepa/NEPAUnderSiegeFinal.pdf)
One criticism is that the NEPA review process, though well-intentioned, is largely a waste of time. In debating whether NEPA reviews pro- duce
reliable environmental predictions, the reality is that we are woefully under-informed.¶ Despite this uncertainty,
it is clear that the
analy- sis in NEPA documents assists agencies in making better, and more environmentally-sensitive,
decisions . As one academic study concluded, EISs may not consistently produce precisely accurate
environmental predictions, but they at least provide “sensible assessments” of likely environmental
consequences to guide decision makers.39 The numerous NEPA success stories cited above demonstrate
that federal agencies are better informed about the environmental consequences of their proposed
actions than they would be in the absence of a forward-looking environmental analysis.¶ NEPA has
transformed agency cultures, broadening agencies’ narrow mission-orientation to include sensitivity to
environmental values. Moreover, as discussed above, the NEPA review process is not simply a techni- cal analysis of environmental
impacts; it is also a politi- cal process for engaging the public in federal decision- making. NEPA has succeeded in creating a
structured¶ framework for making public choices, based on the best available information, about what courses to pursue in
an inherently uncertain world. As the D epartment o f E nergy’s highest environmental official recently affirmed,
“NEPA is an essential platform for providing useful information to decisionmakers and the public,
supporting good decisionmaking, and thus advancing DOE’s mission.”40¶ In any event, the appropriate response to
uncertainties regarding the accuracy of the NEPA process is not to jettison environmental analysis, but
to attempt to resolve the uncertainties and study how the NEPA process can be improved. Additional
studies are needed on the accuracy of EISs, focusing on what methods of environmental analysis produce reliable results and what types of
environmental consequences lend themselves to accurate prediction. As discussed below, Congress and the agencies should require agen- cies
to engage in additional post-decision monitoring to improve the reliability of environmental reviews.¶ At the same time, advances in
the
science of environmental impact analysis already appear to be significantly improving the
environmental analysis in NEPA documents. Scientists are making steady progress in improving mapping using geographic
information systems (“GIS”) techniques, in expanding computer modeling capabilities, and in developing our under- standing of ecological
systems and biological func- tions. These new
advances are being integrated into environmental analysis under
NEPA on a continuous basis. Additional post-decision monitoring is needed to verify the benefits of
these new techniques and to help refine them over time.
---Empirical examples prove
Dreher 5, (Robert G. Dreher, Executive Director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute. Served on the General
Counsel of the U.S. Envronmental Protection Agency, “NEPA Under Siege”,
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/research_archive/nepa/NEPAUnderSiegeFinal.pdf)
The National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA)
has been extraordinarily successful in accomplishing its goals.¶ First,
NEPA has unquestionably improved the quality of federal agency decision-making in terms of its
sensitivity to environmental concerns . Examples are legion in which proposed federal actions that
would have had serious environmental consequences were dramatically improved, or even in some instances
abandoned, as a result of the NEPA process. To cite just a few instances:¶ ■ In the early 1990s, mounting problems with
obsolete nuclear reactors at its Savannah River site put the Department of Energy under pressure to build enormously expensive new
reactors to produce tri- tium, a key constituent of nuclear warheads. A pro- grammatic EIS allowed DOE to evaluate
alternative technologies, including using a particle accelerator or existing commercial reactors, leading ultimately to cancellation of
the tritium production reactors. Admiral James Watkins, then Secretary of Energy, testified before the House Armed Services
Commit- tee: “Looking back on it, thank God for NEPA because there were so many pressures to make a
selection for a technology that it might have been forced upon us and that would have been wrong for
the country.”16¶ ■ The NEPA process led to improvements in a land management plan for the Los Alamos
National Lab- oratory that averted a potentially serious release of radiation
when the sensitive nuclear
laboratory was swept by wildfire in May 2000. The laboratory’s ini- tial management plan did not address the risk of wildfire, but other federal
agencies alerted the Los Alamos staff to that risk in comments on the draft¶ NEPA reflects the belief that citizens have a right to know, and to
be heard, when their government proposes actions that may affect them.¶ 4¶ EIS accompanying the plan. The laboratory pre- pared a fire
contingency plan, cut back trees and underbrush around its buildings, and replaced wooden pallets holding drums of radioactive waste with
aluminum. Those preparations turned
out to be invaluable when a major wildfire swept Los Alamos the following
year, damaging many buildings but not triggering a significant release of radiation .17¶ ■ In 1997, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commis- sion was considering issuance of a license for con- struction of a major new hydropower dam on the Penobscot
River in Maine.
The EIS disclosed that the proposed Basin Mills Dam would undermine long-standing federal, state
and tribal efforts to restore wild Atlantic salmon populations to the Penobscot River. FERC received strong comments in
opposition to the project from federal and state fishery managers and the Penobscot Indian Nation, among others, and concluded that the
public interest was best served by denial of the license.¶ ■ The Ivory-billed woodpecker, recently rediscovered, to great public celebration,
in the swamplands of Arkansas, owes its survival in large part to NEPA. In 1971, shortly after NEPA’s enactment, the Army Corps
of Engineers advanced a proposal to dredge and channelize the Cache River for flood control, threatening the vast tracts of bottomland
hardwood wetlands in the river basin on which the woodpecker and many other species of wildlife depended. Envi- ronmentalists challenged
the adequacy of the Corps’ NEPA analysis in court, pointing out that the Corps had failed to evaluate alternatives to its massive¶ dredging
program that would cause less damage to wetland habitat. The court enjoined the Corps from proceeding until it fully considered
alternatives,18 and public outcry subsequently led to the abandon- ment of the dredging project and the creation of the national wildlife refuge
where the Ivory-billed woodpecker was recently sighted.¶ ■ A massive timber sale proposed for the Gifford Pin- chot National Forest in Oregon,
stalled by contro
versy over impacts on sensitive forest habitat , was entirely rethought as a result of the
NEPA process. A coalition of environmentalists, the timber industry, labor representatives and local citizens worked together to develop a
plan to use timber harvesting to restore the forest’s natural ecosystem. Instead of clearcuts, the new proposal focuses on thinning dense stands
of Douglas fir (the result of previous clearcutting) to recreate a more natural, diverse for- est structure, while still yielding 5.2 million board feet
of commercial timber. The citizen alternative was adopted by the Forest Service and implemented without appeals or litigation. A local resident
involved in the process says: “It’s a win, win, win.” 19¶ ■ In Michigan, communities
concerned about the impacts of a
proposed new four-lane freeway suc- cessfully used the NEPA process to force the state highway
agency to consider alternatives for expand-¶ The Ivory-billed woodpecker, recently rediscovered, to great public celebration,
in the swamplands of Arkansas, owes its survival in large part to NEPA.¶ 5¶ ing and improving an existing highway, avoiding the largest wetland
loss in Michigan’s history and sav- ing taxpayers $1.5 billion. Similarly, a proposed freeway in Kentucky’s scenic bluegrass region was redesigned
to protect historic, aesthetic and natural values thanks to public input and legal action during the NEPA planning process. The National Trust for
Historic Preservation acclaimed the Paris Pike as a project that “celebrates the spirit of place instead of obliterating it.” 20¶ These and other
similar examples only begin to tell the story of NEPA’s success, however. NEPA’s most significant effect has been to deter federal agencies from
bringing forward proposed projects that could not withstand public examination and debate. Prior to NEPA, federal agencies could embark on
massive dam- or road-building projects, for example, without public consultation and with virtually no advance notice. As a result, family farms,
valuable habitat, and sometimes whole communities were destroyed without the opportunity for full and fair debate. Today, many similar
projects that could not survive such a debate simply never get off the drawing boards.¶ More broadly, NEPA has had pervasive effects on the
conduct and thinking of federal administrative agencies. Congress’s directive that federal agencies use an “interdisciplinary approach” in
decision-making affecting the environment,21 together with the Act’s requirement that agencies conduct detailed environ- mental analyses of
major actions, has required federal agencies to add biologists, geologists, landscape archi- tects, archeologists, and environmental planners to¶
their staffs. These new employees brought new per- spectives and sensitivities to agencies that formerly had relatively narrow, missionoriented cultures.
XT-NEPA as Contract Solves
---Solves groupthink-gives power to dissenting views in favor of strong assessment
BARSA-prof law NU-11 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, *
LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM
ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER
[*244] Even if groupthink continued to dominate the company, and such groupthink dismissed a spill
or other disaster as essentially unthinkable, the NEPA-as-contract reform would give permission, or if
you will, cover, to potentially dissenting voices within companies. Indeed, such dissenting voices could
acknowledge that the groupthink was the "right think" and still argue that protection had to be taken
because of other companies' possible "human" errors. Specifically, dissenting voices could point to
the legal and financial risk from another company's error, and from the relevant agency overreaching
by punishing not just that company but all the companies with rescission based on a claim that past
environmental reviews were grossly inadequate or dishonest. In this way, even if NEPA-as-con tract
did not overcome groupthink directly, it would sharply mitigate its impact on decision-making.
***Environmental Leadership***
CP K2 Environmental Leadership
CP k2 environmental leadership (and BioD, and solvency)
Schenck 09 (Rita, Institute for Environmental Research and Education American Center for Life Cycle Assessment 2/22/09, “The Business
Case for Life Cycle Assessment in US Policy and Legislation”
http://lcacenter.org/Data/Sites/1/SharedFiles/whitepapers/thebusinesscaseforlca.pdf)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The
US has been a leader in markets for environmental impacts
through its cap-and-trade programs for oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. There is a clear trend towards cap-and-trade solutions for
climate change: these programs will be highly dependent on LCA analyses as the way to assure that all
carbon emissions are addressed, not merely moved from one location to another. Existing carbon footprinting standards such as
PAS 2050 6 can assist in this matter by providing a basis for measuring carbon credits. But carbon credits are only the beginning of the kinds of
externality markets that can be developed using LCA as the calculation engine. LCA
typically calculates the full suite of
pollution effects, including smog production (with its huge human health impacts and associated medical costs) and
eutrophication (which causes fish kills and other problems in water bodies, thus affecting fisheries). It also can calculate
biodiversity loss and water consumption over the life cycle. It is in the public interest that all
environmental impacts be minimized through market mechanisms, and LCA is the only technique that
is specifically designed as a comprehensive science-based method for measuring environmental
performance of systems. It does so in such a way that the environmental impacts are standardized
and fungible. This facilitates the creation of markets similar to those that currently exist. An externality
market infrastructure backed by LCA measures holds out the potential to support sustainability quickly and
comprehensively. It would help identify the unintended consequences of projects early on, identifying project scenarios that had lower
negative externalities. This would provide more social benefits at lower environmental and economic costs.
The counterplan establishes an explicit referent in statutory law that mandates that
the alternatives are considered and agencies act to maximize environmental
protection. Establishing a binding requirement is key to reinvigorate the
environmental assessment process.
Weiland 97 (Paul S. Weiland, Land Use and Natural Resources Practice Group Leader at Nossaman LLP, worked in the Law and Policy
Section, Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice helping agencies formulate policies to comply with the
NEPA, JD at Harvard, Ph.D. at Indiana, Spring 97, "AMENDING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY," Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, 12 J. Land Use & Envtl. Law 275)
[*292] Third, in light of judicial interpretation of NEPA, it is critical to link substance to procedure explicitly. In
its present form, section
102(2)(C) of NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a variety of
alternative projects. 127 Caldwell has suggested that the law as written has contributed to better
decisionmaking, but change is necessary to realize the substantive goals set forth in section 101. 128 "The
EIS alone cannot compel adherence to the principles of NEPA. The EIS is necessary but insufficient as an action-forcing
procedure . . . ." 129 To further NEPA's substantive goals, the EIS requirement could be supplemented with
a mandate that agencies adopt the project from among alternatives that "maximizes environmental
protection and enhances environmental values" while maintaining the economic viability of the project. 130 Fourth,
section 102(2)(C) mandates that "every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation" include an EIS.
131 Generally, this mandate has been ignored by Congress. 132 Grad notes that "there is little evidence that
NEPA has had any significant effect on the legislative process . . . . Few impact statements have been
filed in the context of legislation that may have substantially adverse effects on the environment . . . ."
133 Subjecting legislation to the procedural requirements that have been enforced by the judiciary up
to this point would result in more fully informed, and perhaps better, decisionmaking. If substantive and
procedural requirements are jointly implemented, notoriously inefficient and environmentally
unsound laws, such as those governing grazing and mining on federal lands, would possibly be reformed.
134 In addition,
appropriation bills, in which many decisions [*293] that lead to the destruction of the environment are successfully
be subject to review. 135 Fifth, to the fullest extent possible, legislation should include provisions
that force the President to fulfill his responsibility to appoint a council on environmental quality and
to make that council a high priority. Up to this point, numerous presidents have failed to appoint a council, thus violating the
hidden, would
Constitution which states in part that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." 136 Though this duty has been
repeatedly ignored in the past, it need not be the case in the future. 137 Additionally, a clarification of congressional commitment to the CEQ
may increase the likelihood that the President will fulfill the responsibility of chief executive. VI. CONCLUSION The amendment of NEPA is not
likely to be an easy task. However, a
reinvigorated NEPA may establish environmental protection among the
nation's priorities when entering the twenty-first century. The need for an explicit referent in statutory or
constitutional law is essential to ensure strong and efficacious environmental law within the United States.
Environmental Leadership Low Now
Environmental leadership low
Ivanova and Esty 8 (Daniel C., Professor of Environmental Law and Policy – Yale University and Maria, Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy –
College of William and Mary, “Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance”, SAIS Review, 28(2), Summer-Fall)
the U nited S tates has since retreated from its global environmental leadership role. The George W. Bush Administration
has obstructed progress on a number of international environmental initiatives: protecting [End Page 57] biodiversity,
regulating the trade in genetically modified products, and instituting a legally binding treaty banning mercury. The high
watermark—or perhaps the low tide—of U.S. obstructionism, however, came with the U.S. “unsigning” of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2001
However,
and once more at the 2007 international climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia. The only developed nation not having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the United States was the main opponent in
Bali to a proposal for greenhouse gas reductions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. As the United States balked at the emerging Bali consensus, an extraordinary diplomatic breech
occurred: the U.S. delegation was booed. Lest there be any doubt, Nobel Laureate Al Gore weighed in, observing that the United States was “obstructing progress.” The list of international
environmental initiatives that the United States has failed to join has become longer. The United States has yet to ratify the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, the 1992 Basel Convention on Export of
Hazardous Waste, the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity, and, of course, the Kyoto Protocol (see Table 1 for a chronological overview of main international environmental conventions
and the status of U.S. participation). The Bush Administration’s “go-it-alone” strategy in security issues has mirrored a similar unilateralism in the international environmental domain.
Once a leader in international environmental policy, the U nited S tates has lost much of its political
influence today. What is more, U.S. withdrawal from multilateralism has left the United Nations—the imperfect but important instrument for international cooperation—“in
1
limbo, neither strengthened nor abandoned,” threatening the ability of the world community to resolve fundamental global problems.
Err Neg – consensus view
Ivanova and Esty 8 (Daniel C., Professor of Environmental Law and Policy – Yale University and Maria, Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy –
College of William and Mary, “Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance”, SAIS Review, 28(2), Summer-Fall)
in global environmental
affairs, where the U nited S tates is now widely perceived as a laggard and even an obstacle to collective action.
The United States entered the 21st century actively pursuing a “go-it-alone” approach to international relations. This is especially the case
Yet, the United States was the prime proponent and creator of international environmental organizations in the 1970s. In this article, we analyze the U.S. role in global environmental
the new U.S. Administration should re-examine its
strategy towards global environmental concerns and reinstate a commitment to multilateralism as well as to playing a leadership role.
governance from a historical perspective and present a platform for U.S. re-engagement. We contend that
CCP Leadership Scenario
Environmental leadership is key to change Chinese environmental practices.
Economy 07 (Elizabeth – Senior Fellow and Director for Asian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,9/7/07 The Great Leap
backward, Foreign Affairs, p. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/great-leap-backward)
Given this reality, the U nited S tates – and the rest of the world – will have to get much smarter about how to
cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, the United States must
devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China's needs are vast, but its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two
significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. These endeavors
could focus on discrete issues, such as climate change or the illegal timber trade; institutional changes, such as strengthening the
legal system in regard to China's environmental protection efforts; or broad reforms, such as promoting energy efficiency throughout the
Chinese economy. Another
key to an effective U.S.-Chinese partnership is U.S. leadership . Although U.S. NGOs
and U.S.-based MNCs are often at the forefront of environmental policy and technological innovation, the U.S. government itself is
not a world leader on key environmental concerns . Unless the U nited S tates improves its own policies
and practices on, for example, climate change, the illegal timber trade, and energy efficiency, it will have little credibility or
leverage to push China .
Failure to manage the environment collapses the CCP.
Economy 07 (Elizabeth – Senior Fellow and Director for Asian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,9/7/07 The Great Leap
backward, Foreign Affairs, p. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/great-leap-backward)
In the view of China's leaders, however, damage to the environment itself is a secondary problem. Of
greater concern to them are its indirect effects: the threat it poses to the continuation of the Chinese economic miracle
and to public health, social stability , and the country's international reputation. Taken together, these challenges could
undermine the authority of the Communist Party. China's leaders are worried about the environment's impact on the economy.
Several studies conducted both inside and outside China estimate that environmental degradation and pollution cost the Chinese economy
between 8 percent and 12 percent of GDP annually. The Chinese media frequently publish the results of studies on the impact of pollution on
agriculture, industrial output, or public health: water pollution costs of $35.8 billion one year, air pollution costs of $27.5 billion another, and on
and on with weather disasters ($26.5 billion), acid rain ($13.3 billion), desertification ($6 billion), or crop damage from soil pollution ($2.5
billion). The city of Chongqing, which sits on the banks of the Yangtze River, estimates that dealing with the effects of water pollution on its
agriculture and public health costs as much as 4.3 percent of the city's annual gross product. Shanxi Province has watched its coal resources fuel
the rest of the country while it pays the price in withered trees, contaminated air and water, and land subsidence. Local authorities there
estimate the costs of environmental degradation and pollution at 10.9 percent of the province's annual gross product and have called on Beijing
to compensate the province for its "contribution and sacrifice." China's Ministry of Public Health is also sounding the alarm with increasing
urgency. In a survey of 30 cities and 78 counties released in the spring, the ministry blamed worsening air and water pollution for dramatic
increases in the incidence of cancer throughout the country: a 19 percent rise in urban areas and a 23 percent rise in rural areas since 2005.
One research institute affiliated with SEPA has put the total number of premature deaths in China caused by respiratory diseases related to air
pollution at 400,000 a year. But this may be a conservative estimate: according to a joint research project by the World Bank and the Chinese
government released this year, the total number of such deaths is 750,000 a year. (Beijing is said not to have wanted to release the latter figure
for fear of inciting social unrest.) Less well documented but potentially even more devastating is the health impact of China's polluted water.
Today, fully 190 million Chinese are sick from drinking contaminated water. All along China's major rivers, villages report skyrocketing rates of
Social unrest over these issues is rising. In the spring of 2006,
had been 51,000 pollution-related protests in
2005, which amounts to almost 1,000 protests each week. Citizen complaints about the environment, expressed on official
hotlines and in letters to local officials, are increasing at a rate of 30 percent a year; they will likely top 450,000 in 2007. But
diarrheal diseases, cancer, tumors, leukemia, and stunted growth.
China's top environmental official, Zhou Shengxian, announced that there
few of them are resolved satisfactorily, and so people throughout the country are increasingly taking to the streets. For several months in 2006,
for example, the residents of six neighboring villages in Gansu Province held repeated protests against zinc and iron smelters that they believed
were poisoning them. Fully half of the 4,000-5,000 villagers exhibited lead-related illnesses, ranging from vitamin D deficiency to neurological
problems. Many pollution-related marches are relatively small and peaceful. But when such demonstrations
fail, the
protesters sometimes resort to violence . After trying for two years to get redress by petitioning local, provincial, and even
central government officials for spoiled crops and poisoned air, in the spring of 2005, 30,000-40,000 villagers from Zhejiang Province swarmed
13 chemical plants, broke windows and overturned buses, attacked government officials, and torched police cars. The government sent in
10,000 members of the People's Armed Police in response. The plants were ordered to close down, and several environmental activists who
attempted to monitor the plants' compliance with these orders were later arrested. China's leaders have generally managed to prevent – if
sometimes violently – discontent over environmental issues from spreading across provincial boundaries or morphing into calls for broader
political reform.
CCP collapse results in lash out --- escalates to WMD use and extinction.
Rexing 05 (San, The CCP's Last-Ditch Gamble, Epoch Times, 8/5/05, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30975.html)
“In any event, we, the
CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the
entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a ‘nuclear bondage’ theory?
It means that since
the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together
if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of
the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.” 3) “It is indeed brutal to kill one or
two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as
revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans,
we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is
because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Party’s life has always been above all else!”
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life,
would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve
its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war
against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.
***Politics Net Benefit***
Environmental Lobby Shields
Specifically environmental lobby spin means doesn’t cost capital
Simon 07 (University of Nevada Associate Professor of political science Christopher A., Alternative Energy: Political, Economic and Social
Feasibility, Pg. 204)
Interest groups have shown themselves to be a highly effective at influencing public policy in all
stages of the policy process. Elected officials, usually members of the two major political parties, often
face significant time and resource constraints (and limited incentives) in shaping public policies
following the creation of statutes. The budget and committee oversight are tools Congress uses to
shape policy postulate, but time limitations and disincentives often mean that Congress eschews
large-scale regular oversight. The president, too has significant time constraints and relies heavily on
appointed officials to represent his views, which has varying impacts on policy postulate. Interest
groups, however, have significant time to follow individual policy arenas and to advance their goals
throughout the policy process Environmental groups have and will likely remain very influential in
energy policy. A centuries-old movement, interest group influence grew tremendously in the 1960s,
1970s, and 1980s in the United States. Environmental groups generally do not seek personal
economic benefit from their efforts to protect the environment but tend to be driven by a notion of
societal benefit. Many groups have significant resources needed to keep group to promote legislative
action. Through lobbying efforts and information campaigns, interest groups shape policy outcome.
Economic groups have played a significant role in shaping the energy policy debate and in a variety of different ways. Rural
agrarian counties in the midwestern United States for instance, have faced economic and social decline for several decades. In the 1970s and 1980s in part due to rising energy costs—family
farmers in the heartland were faced with serious economic depravation. Many of these family farmers were forced to sell their farms, often to large corporate farming interests. Social changes
led many mid-western youth to migrate to the cities for greater opportunity, which meant that the next generation of farmers and ranchers disappeared from the rural landscape. Government
groups at the state and local levels, such as associations or counties, began to pressure state and national policymakers to promote the use of corn in the alternative energy paradigm—federal
ethanol subsidies have played a major role it making this aspect of farming much more profitable and, as a consequence, making farming a more lucrative enterprise. Urban government
interest groups, such as the League of Cities, have also played a major role in shaping regulations and distributive policy incentives to promote sustainable communities. The supply of
abundant and cheap energy is the cornerstone of the U.S. city of twentieth century; curtailing demand but maintaining quality of life will be the challenge of the twenty-first-century U.S. city.
In order to accomplish this significant goal, however, government interest groups seek the economic aid of governments at all levels. Given Tiebout’s (1956) overarching thesis, it is natural that
government interests will jockey for financial opportunities to promote the policy innovations unique to their locale and the needs of their communities in relation to other urban areas.
Environmental lobbies are comparatively more powerful
Mayer 07 – Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics(Lindsay Renick, PBS, “Big Oil Big Influence” 11-23-2007
)
Environmentalists, who had very little influence in Congress when Republicans were in control, are
now seeing the lawmakers seriously consider their positions. This includes environmentalists' support
of fuel efficiency standards, a mandate for electric utility companies to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources
and their opposition to coal-to-liquid fuel development. Nowhere is this change in tides more evident than in the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is heavily involved in energy legislation. California Sen.
Barbara Boxer, considered one of the environment's biggest champions, has chaired the committee
since her party assumed control of the Senate in the 2006 election. Boxer replaced Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html
Republican who has received $572,000 from the oil and gas industry since President Bush took office—more than all but three other
members of Congress. Since 2001, Boxer
has received less than $13,000 from the industry and nearly 69 times
more from environmental policy groups than Inhofe. "The oil and gas industry, like almost every other industry,
will shift some donations from Republicans to Democrats," says Eric Smith, a political scientist who researches environmental policy at the
University of California-Santa Barbara. "It's clear that the industry strongly prefers to have Republicans in power, but
industries generally focus on short-term advantages. In the short term—now and presumably after the 2008 elections—Democrats hold
congressional majorities. So to win
the short-term battles, the industry must try to persuade Democrats in
Congress to go easy on them." Big Oil, which has always contributed heavily to Republicans, isn't
likely to defensively switch its contributions to favor Democrats. But so far this year, 27 percent of the industry's
contributions have gone to Democrats, up from 18 percent in the 2006 election cycle, when Republicans were still in power. In the
presidential race, the Democrats' share is even higher—Democratic hopefuls for president have so far received 30 percent of the industry's
contributions. Among Republicans, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has so far collected the most from the industry, while presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton raised the most from the industry among Democrats.
Strong Public Support
Genuine EIS is vital to it
Borgstrom 9 (Carol, Director – Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, “Integrating NEPA into Long-Term Planning at DOE”, 3-23,
http://www.eli.org/pdf/seminars/NEPA/Borgstrom.NEPA.pdf)
In conclusion, for DOE-- in general and in the long run-- PEISs appear to be worthwhile. If the timing and scope of a PEIS are consistent with the
overall timing and scope of planning and decision making, maximum benefits are possible. Moreover, a
PEIS process that includes
good public involvement may serve to garner public support and forge consensus, resulting in
sustainable decisions.
*Note – PEIS = Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Public support key
Eshbaugh 5 (Ph.D., Professor of Political Science – Texas A&M University, “The Politics of Presidential Agenda”, Political Science
Quarterly, 58)
Public Approval. Presidential
approval may also influence the content of the president's agenda. Despite evidence
insiders, and some researchers
perceive public approval to be an important means of achieving legislative success (Edwards 1997; Neustadt
to the contrary (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), presidents, Washington
1990; Rivers and Rose 1985). Given the pervasiveness of public opinion polling in the White House (Edwards 1983) and high public expectations
(Waterman, Jenkins-Smith, and Silva 1999), presidents
are bound to be aware of their public standing. More
popular presidents should be inclined to offer more long-term and important policies than less
popular presidents, if only because they think that a stronger public standing gives them greater leeway to pursue such policies. In other
words, H3: Higher approval ratings will lead to a larger legislative agenda, including more major and incremental
policies. Approval is the yearly average of the presidents Gallup approval ratings.
Renewable Energy CP
1NC CP Shell
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
investment in renewable energies.
2NC Renewable Energy is Viable
RE can fill in and work
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012 Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Full_Report.pdf
The global technical potential of RE sources will not limit continued growth in the use of RE. A wide range
of estimates is provided in the literature, but studies have consistently found that the total global technical
potential for RE is substantially higher than global energy demand (Figure SPM.4) [1.2.2, 10.3, Annex II]. The
technical potential for solar energy is the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical
potential exists for all six RE sources. Even in regions with relatively low levels of technical potential for
any individual RE source, there are typically significant opportunities for increased deployment
compared to current levels. [1.2.2, 2.2, 2.8, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2, 8.2, 8.3, 10.3] In the longer term and at higher deployment
levels, however, technical potentials indicate a limit to the contribution of some individual RE technologies. Factors such as sustainability
concerns [9.3], public acceptance [9.5], system integration and infrastructure constraints [8.2], or economic factors [10.3] may also limit
deployment of RE technologies
2NC Solves Warming
CP Solves Warming
1. Wind Energy
Platt et al, 2012 (Reg Platt is a research fellow at IPPR. Oscar Fitch-Roy is a senior policy consultant at GL Garrad Hassan. Paul Gardner
is a senior principal engineer at GL Garrad Hassan. BEYOND THE BLUSTER WHY WIND POWER IS AN EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY http://www.glgroup.com/HOW2012/presentations/beyond_the_bluster_Aug_2012.pdf)
Is switching to use more wind power an effective way of reducing carbon emissions? Wind
turbines convert wind into
electrical energy without emitting polluting gases. However, the effectiveness of wind power in reducing
emissions has been questioned. Using a simple model we show that every megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced by wind
power in Great Britain results in a minimum CO2 saving of around 350kg. On this basis carbon dioxide emission savings
from wind energy were at least 5.5 million tonnes in Great Britain in 2011. While this is a reliable minimum,
there are good reasons to think that the actual figure is considerably greater (DECC 2012) and empirical
examples from electricity systems in the US support this conclusion.
2. Solar Energy
Krugman, 2011 (Paul, nobel prize winner, economist, badass, “That's right: Solar power is now cost-effective”
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2016712561_krugman08.html)
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in
reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore's Law — in which the price of computing power falls
roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook. Our mastery of the
material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same
as they were a generation ago. But that may be about to change. We
are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy
transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power . That's right, solar power. If that surprises you, if
you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in
which fossil-fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine
that denigrates alternatives. Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let's talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking.
Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it's
also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates
drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for
fracking inflicts major damage on roads. Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to
"internalize" those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth
doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation's infrastructure. Yet what
the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that
energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that "there are only two sides in the debate: those who
want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don't want our oil and natural gas resources
developed at all." So it's worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking
politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say
they oppose having the government "pick winners," yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a
winner. And now for something completely different: The success story you haven't heard about. These
days, mention solar
power and you'll probably hear cries of "Solyndra!" Republicans have tried to make the failed solar-panel company both a
symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy. But
Solyndra's failure was actually caused by technological success: The price of solar panels is dropping
fast, and Solyndra couldn't keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so
dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, "there's now frequent talk of
a 'Moore's law' in solar energy," with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year. This
has already led to rapid growth in solar installations , but even more change may be just around the
corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating
—
we're just a
few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity
generated by burning coal. And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge
health and other costs it imposes, it's likely that we would already have passed that tipping point. But
will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach? Let's face it: A large part of our political class, including essentially
the entire GOP, is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do
everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers' money and indirectly by letting the
industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar. So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from
these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar
willing to let it in.
is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we're
2NC CP Solves Manufacturing
The CP outweighs oil production benefits and solves US manufacturing and the
economy.
Wood, 2012 (Duncan Wood, professor and director of the International Relations Program and the Canadian Studies Program and the Instituto
Technologico Autonomo de Mexico, head researcher for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholors in Mexico, “RE-ENERGIZING THE BORDER:
RENEWABLE ENERGY, GREEN JOBS AND BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE,” May 2012, 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
complementary industrial policy.3 A
the sector could employ up to 100, 000 people
if it were implemented alongside 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.
2NC CP Solves Hegemony
CP solves flexibility, readiness, islanding, and reallocated resources
Sklar 5/28/2012 (Scott, Ph.D in in Environmental Management and Policy, with particular research on multi-sector partnerships, marketbased environmental solutions, and organizational policy at the business, NGO, and government levels, “Increase Defense Energy Options”
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/powering-our-military-whats-th.php)
The US military's job is to protect the U nited S tates from its military bases and on the front lines "in theater
Energy is one of the critical determinants of how well DOD can fulfill it’s job . Just in 2012, we have
had three military bases lose power due to unexpected electric grid outages. On the front lines, we lose a
large portion of our soldiers and contractors, ferrying fuel to the front lines for electricity and
transportation. Soldiers carry around from 20 – 60 pounds of batteries in the modern fighting force. Diesel engines make noise,
leave a heat signature, and when they malfunction. Drop fuel. The integration of renewable energy and on-site
distributed generation has spanned over four Administrations and supported by both political parties,
of war".
with the first such conferences in the early 1990’s, and now embraced by all three services and the last three Secretaries of Defense. The
concept is quite simple, just like portfolio theory in stock investing.
The military needs to have the maximum options to
reduce costs which including transporting and ferrying fuels , reducing het and noise signatures, insuring
maximum operating times with the least amount of operations and maintenance, and most
importantly, lightening the soldier’s equipment weight and increasing their agility. All new
technologies and weapons systems cost more in the beginning and as they scale lower in cost – from the
giant one room mainframe computers to the handheld microprocessors as stark examples. We can no longer afford outages at
military bases due to squirrels and downed power lines, not our special forces troops being found by the noise and vibration of their
diesel generators or have our mile long fuel convoys be sitting ducks for our enemies with the ensuing loss of life. Attempts by either
party to make renewable energy a political football undercuts our Defense capabilities . The programs
underway are sorting out and improving deployable systems for our Defense and Homeland Security and Emergency
Preparedness Missions. Let the defense and security professionals do their jobs.
2NC CP Solves Economy
Counterplan solves the economy – closes trade gaps, reinvigorates jobs, reduces
environmental costs and oil price pressure
Stevenson et al 2010 (*Andrew, Andrew Stevenson is a researcher at Climate Advisers and Resources for the Future, *Nigel Purvis,
CEO of Climate Advisors,*Claire O’Connor, Claire O’Connor is dedicated to finding and facilitating solutions that will lead to sustainable
economic development. Most recently, she has focused on the transition to a low carbon world from positions at The Carbon Trust, and Al
Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and Climate Reality Project. She holds an MPA from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (2004) and
MSc. in Social Policy from the London School of Economics (1997). *Andrew Light, Andrew Light, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at American Progress
specializing in international climate and science policy, and a professor at George Mason University where he is director of the Center for Global
Ethics. He leads CAP’s work on international climate issues including participation in the Global Climate Network and efforts involving the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings. “The U.S. Role in International Climate Finance A Blueprint for Near-Term Leadership”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/12/06/8811/the-u-s-role-in-international-climate-finance/)
Ensuring that developing countries have the technical, institutional, and financial capacity to adopt
clean energy technologies is an essential component of fostering global clean energy market development.
U.S. support for such activities will promote job creation by increasing demand for clean energy products
created by U.S. companies and research labs, those manufactured in the U nited S tates, and services
provided by U.S. companies. HSBC Global Research, for example, forecasts the low-carbon energy market will triple
over the next decade, reaching 2.2 trillion per annum by 2020.1 If the U nited S tates maintains a 14 percent share of
exports of environmental goods and services to developing countries, one estimate found that international
climate investments in four clean energy technologies—smart grid equipment, mass transit, wind turbines, and solar photovoltaics—
could create as many as 850,000 long-term jobs.2 As one more specific example, the Center for American Progress found
that U.S.–China cooperation to accelerate deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology
could create as many as 940,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs by 2022.3 International climate investments
also could benefit the U.S. economy more broadly by reducing global pressure on energy prices—
particularly for oil. The International Energy Agency (IEA) compared oil and coal prices in scenarios where the world implements policies
needed to meet global climate objectives versus the current trajectory of energy investments. In the climate policy scenario global
oil
prices were 10 percent lower and coal prices 23 percent lower than business-as-usual, driven by lower
global energy demand.4 Given that 378 million gallons of gas are consumed on U.S. roads each day, investing in efforts to help major
emerging economies increase efficiency and deploy clean technology will provide substantial benefits in the form of reduced prices for
traditional fuels. Climate
financing also can limit the negative economic impacts on U.S. farmers and
ranchers of illegal logging and deforestation in developing countries. An analysis by Avoided Deforestation Partners
found that stopping deforestation abroad would increase U.S. agricultural revenues by $190–$270 billion
between 2012 and 2030, mostly because of increased production in the U nited S tates.5
2NC Solves Energy Independence
Solves energy independence
Sovacool, 2007 (Research Fellow for the Energy Governance Program @ National University of Singapore Benjamin K. Sovacool
(Professor of International Affairs @ Virginia Tech University, “Oil Independence Possible for U.S. by 2030” http://scitizen.com/futureenergies/oil-independence-possible-for-u-s-by-2030_a-14-1167.html)
Oil independence is possible for the U.S. if comprehensive and aggressive energy policies are implemented
aimed at reducing demand for oil, increasing supply, and promoting alternative fuels . default textContrary to what
most people might think, oil independence is possible for the United States by 2030. The news is especially important when one considers that,
between 1970 and 2000, economists estimate that the costs of American dependence on foreign supplies of oil have ranged between $5 and
$13 trillion dollars. That’s more than the cost of all wars fought by the U.S. (adjusted for inflation) going all the way back to the Revolutionary
Oil independence should not be viewed as
eliminating all imports of oil or reducing imports from hostile or unstable oil producing states. Instead, it should entail creating a world
War. The trick is to start by thinking about oil independence a little differently.
where the costs of the country’s dependence on oil would be so small that they would have little to no effect on our economic, military, or
foreign policy. It means creating a world where the estimated total economic costs of oil dependence would be less than one percent of U.S.
gross domestic product by 2030. Conceived in this way (and contrary to much political commentary these days), researchers at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) have calculated that if the country as a whole reduced their demand for oil by 7.22 million barrels per day (MBD)
and increased supply by 3 MBD, oil independence would be achieved by 2030 with a 95 percent chance of success. By
reducing demand
for oil, increasing its price elasticity, and increasing the supply of conventional and unconventional petroleum products, ORNL researchers
noted that the country would be virtually immune from oil price shocks and market uncertainty. If large oil producing
states were to respond to the U.S. by cutting back production, their initial gains from higher prices would also reduce their market share, in turn
further limiting their ability to influence the oil market in the future. So if decreasing American demand for oil by 7.22 MBD and increasing
supply by 3 MBD would enable the U.S. to achieve oil independence in 2030, which combination of policies offers an optimal strategy?
Policymakers, for instance, could lower demand for oil by making automobiles more efficient (by legislating more
stringent fuel economy standards for light and heavy duty vehicles or lowering the interstate speed limit), promoting alternatives in
mode choice (such as mass transit, light rail, and carpooling), or establishing telecommuting centers and incentives for commuters to work from
home. They could also promote rigorous standards for tire inflation and reduce oil consumption in other sectors of the economy. Alternatively,
they could increase alternative domestic supplies of oil, develop better technologies for the extraction of oil shale, mandate the use of
advanced oil recovery and extraction techniques, and promote alternatives to oil such as ethanol, bio-diesel, and Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Taken
together, such policies could reduce demand for oil by 8.266 to 12.119 MBD and increase American oil supply by 8.939 and 12.119 MBD by
2030—well over the target set by the ORNL study. Thus, to insulate the American economy from the vagaries of the world oil market,
policymakers need not focus only geopolitical power structures in oil producing states. Instead, attempts to change the behavior of the
country’s automobile drivers, industrial leaders, and homeowners could greatly minimize reliance on foreign supplies of oil. To battle the “oil
problem” policymakers need not talk only about sending more troops to Iraq or Saudi Arabia nor drafting new contracts with Nigeria and
Russia. They could also focus on curbing American demand for oil and expanding domestic conventional and alternative supplies.
Doesn’t Link To Politics
Russia Econ DA
1NC Shell
Russian gas exports deal with china allows for long term economic growth
Hill, 5/25/2014 (Patrice, The Washington Times, “Russia’s Putin gains strategic victory with Chinese natural gas deal”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/25/russias-putin-gains-strategic-victory-with-chinese/?page=all)
In the tit-for-tat economic war between the United States and Russia this year, Moscow
has scored a significant victory with
its monumental deal to provide natural gas to China, directly challenging U.S. attempts to isolate Russia with economic
sanctions. By securing a major new customer for Russia’s gas outside Europe, President Vladimir Putin has accomplished several
top strategic goals. The most obvious is to stoke fears among Europeans that they will have to compete with China for Russian energy supplies.
Another goal was to lay down the gauntlet for U.S. and Canadian ambitions to export liquefied natural gas to lucrative Asian markets. The
deal establishes Russia’s presence in the heart of the biggest Asian market.
But the geopolitical triumphs have
been bittersweet. Russia’s economy is widely believed to have sunk into recession as a result of Western sanctions imposed in response to Mr.
Putin’s takeover of Crimea and the investor stampede out of Russia caused by his Ukrainian land grab. Mr. Putin may have given a final push to
clinch the long-stalled gas deal with an eye on the Russian economy. Russian energy giant Gazprom plans to spend $55 billion and hire 11,700
people to build the pipelines, gas processing plants and other infrastructure needed to make good on what Mr. Putin said would be the world’s
largest infrastructure project. “I guess China never got the sanctions memo,” said Max Keiser, a former Wall Street trader and British
broadcaster. He said the $400 billion, 30-year deal will further the strategic goals of Moscow and Beijing to diminish the status of the U.S. dollar
by conducting world trade in critical commodities such as oil and gas using other currencies. Russia is the world’s biggest producer of
commodities such as crude oil, gold and titanium. China is the world’s biggest consumer of these commodities. Both countries have chafed for
years at having to conduct purchases and sales in dollars, as is customary worldwide. The gas deal announced in Beijing on Wednesday would
be the first major commodities contract to be settled in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan rather than dollars. “This means the U.S. dollar’s days
as the world reserve currency are numbered,” said Mr. Keiser, noting that Russia and China have been investing heavily in gold. Many analysts
question whether Moscow and Beijing can succeed in displacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If that happens, however, it likely
would usher in a period of global financial instability and force Americans to pay much more for the massive amounts of imported energy, Mr.
Keiser said. Some reports said Russia had to accept a lower price for gas, $360 per 1,000 cubic meters, than the $380 originally sought from
China. Mr. Keiser said the strategic gains for Russia were well worth any short-term financial sacrifice. Strategic competitor Constantin
Gurdgiev, an analyst at True Economics, said the deal was a mutual win for energy-rich Russia and its energy-hungry neighbor while posing
significant strategic competition for the U.S. and its allies. “All across, this should be a very good deal for Russia and China,” he said. The deal
settles on a way to build a pipeline network from western Siberia, northeastern China and Russia’s east coast, and will carry 38 billion cubic
meters of gas a year to China. Russia has needed such a structure for years to sell its gas in the Far East. The project, which will be built jointly,
will make Russia’s gas available for the first time to China and carry it most of the way to Russia’s Pacific ports, where it can be liquefied and
sold to Japan, South Korea and other lucrative Asian markets. Russia has been searching for decades for ways to finance and build links to the
Far East. Once the pipelines to China are in place, Gazprom plans to expand the network and use it to exploit and transport what energy
analysts say is a vast untapped pool of oil and gas in mostly unexplored eastern Siberia. “The new pipeline holds the promise of bringing
exploration and production further east from existing centers of production” in western Siberia and unlocking potentially large oil and gas fields
in the Russian Far East, Mr. Gurdgiev said. Gazprom envisions a steady flow of gas that would feed a liquefied natural gas plant in Vladivostok
on Russia’s eastern coast, which would funnel liquefied gas to the rest of Asia, including major port cities in China. “The core threat here is to
the U.S. exports of LNG to the Asia-Pacific, where U.S. producers are collecting huge margins compared to European markets,” Mr. Gurdgiev
said. “But this threat is still some years, if not decades, off from becoming a significant pressure point” because the Russian pipeline network
and most U.S. liquefied gas terminals are years from being completed. Moody’s Investors Service Vice President Julia Pribytkova said Gazprom
will have to take on a lot of debt to complete the project, but it should be worth it in the end. “The
deal will provide a launchpad
for Gazprom’s full-scale diversification into the Asia-Pacific region ,” the biggest and fastest-growing
market for natural gas worldwide, she said. The Ukraine link Tyler Durden, an analyst at Zero Hedge, said the Russian-Chinese deal
represents a big strategic loss for the U.S., despite efforts by the Obama administration to minimize its importance. Secretary of State John F.
Kerry insisted last week that the deal was not linked to the standoff in Ukraine, but Mr. Durden said the U.S. and Europe, in attempts to isolate
Moscow, virtually “forced Russia into China’s embrace.” “This is merely the beginning of what will be a far closer commercial and political
relationship between China and Russia,” Mr. Durden said. China used the announcement of the deal as an occasion to call for a security alliance
of Russia, China and Iran — arguably the West’s three most formidable opponents. While the U.S. and Europe were “furiously scrambling” for
ways to punish Russia for day-to-day developments in Ukraine, Mr. Durden said, the deal with China showed how Mr. Putin “once again was
thinking three steps ahead and quite a few steps to the east.” Russia’s “holy grail” deal with China will “send geopolitical shock waves around
the world and bind the two nations in a commodity-backed axis,” he said, while “laying the groundwork for a new joint, commodity-backed
reserve currency that bypasses the dollar.” Although Mr. Putin
is reaping
some
long-term economic gains , the Russian
economy has been a short-term loser in its standoff with the West. Economic analysts say Russia’s economy likely sank into recession this
spring as a result of the exodus of investment funds in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Putin seemed to acknowledge the dangers of
cutting off all economic ties to the West, sparking a mild market rally after telling a gathering of corporate CEOs in St. Petersburg on Friday that
Russia would not contest the weekend presidential vote in Ukraine. He also acknowledged that Western sanctions had cooled the business
climate but said any effort to isolate Russia from the global economy would have a “boomerang effect.” With the Chinese deal fresh in the
business executives’ minds, Mr. Putin said “the world is rapidly changing, and we are witnessing colossal geopolitical, technological and
structural shifts.” He said the United States is behind the curve in recognizing new global economic realities. But Russia’s
gas deal with
China promises to provide a substantial stimulus for the economy , especially in Russia’s poorer regions in
Siberia and the Far East where it is needed the most. “An extensive gas infrastructure network will be set up in Russia’s
east, which will drive the local economy forward ,” said Alexey Miller, Gazprom’s chairman, emphasizing that nearly all the
steel pipe and other components will be manufactured in Russia. “Great impetus will be given to
entire economic sectors, namely metallurgy, pipe and machine building .”
But Russia is economically fragile – an increase in US exports will crush Russia’s
economy.
Johnston, 5/29/2014 (J Bennett, former Democratic senator, “The United States can use its energy prowess to discipline Russia: J.
Bennett Johnston” http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/05/the_united_states_can_use_its.html)
Fortunately, Russia has an Achilles Heel. Despite a strong military, Russia is
economically weak , with a per capita income only onethird that of the United States. The Russian economy grew at a rapid clip during the early 2000s, but its growth has averaged just
more than 1 percent in recent years. And despite its size, Russia's economy is one-dimensional, with energy as
its major industry and only significant export . Europe relies on these supplies. But no country that is
dependent on Russia for natural gas wants to remain so.
In 2011, the United States surpassed Russia to become the
planet's number one gas producer. Boundless ingenuity and capital are being focused on the production of gas from shale formations, which
abound in such places as Pennsylvania, Texas and Louisiana. Thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, gas production
has reached historic levels. Though estimates vary, most experts agree that we have within our grasp enough natural gas to last 100 years or
more. America
can -- and should -- utilize its newfound abundance to diminish Putin's ability to threaten the
stability and security of Europe. To that end, the U.S. government should expedite approval of
facilities on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts that can export some of our gas
allies from Russia's stranglehold on energy.
to Europe, thereby
liberating our
So far, the U.S. government has approved seven new export terminals for
shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries with which the United States does not have a free-trade agreement, including most of Europe.
Yet, more than 20 other applications are pending -- about half of which would result in major economic projects here in Louisiana. These
exports will take time, and the first terminal won't be operational until late next year. But the signal will be crystal clear: America intends to
become a major player in the global gas market, and Russia's ability to use energy as a weapon is coming to an end. Equally important,
exporting natural gas will create good-paying jobs here at home. A study by IHS Global Insight estimates that, by 2035, LNG exports could
support more than 74,000 new jobs in Louisiana alone. Exports also will reduce our trade deficit and strengthen our energy security.
America has the potential to become an energy giant. We should start acting like one. Our allies in Lithuania, Estonia,
Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina soon will be negotiating new contracts with Gazprom, Russia's largest gas company, and the prospect of U.S.
LNG exports can give our friends overseas additional leverage.
Nuclear war
Filger 2009 – Sheldon, author and blogger for the Huffington Post, “Russian Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction”
http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely
encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to
its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation’s history, are
unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russia’s economic crisis will endanger the nation’s
political stability , achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests
are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the
once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who
have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should
the
Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far
beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis . There is a
geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline
from superpower status, Russia remains
one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of
sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world
as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev
and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a
national economic crisis can transform
itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval . It just may be possible that U.S. President
Barack Obama’s national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the
peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already
concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating
political instability in the world. During
the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding
the nation’s nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel
would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia
were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain ? It may
be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence .
2NC Overview
Impact defense doesn’t assume the magnitude of the link---low oil prices collapse
Russia’s economy---guts political stability and governmental checks, which makes
nuclear war uniquely likely---that’s Filger
The disad outweighs case--Magnitude---Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal -- Plus it’s the Only existential risk
Bostrom 02 Nick (PhD Philosophy – Oxford U) 2002 Existential Risks, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An allout nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have
been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a
nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia
and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or
deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between
India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid
strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
And- It’s most likely scenario for nuclear war and causes US draw in
David 99 Steven, Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University, “Saving America From the Coming Civil Wars,” FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, v 78 n 1, Jan/Feb 1999, LN.
Only three countries, in fact, meet both criteria: Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Civil conflict in Mexico would produce waves of disorder
that would spill into the United States, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, destroying a valuable export market, and sending a
torrent of refugees northward. A rebellion in Saudi Arabia could destroy its ability to export oil, the oil on which the industrialized world depends. And internal war in Russia
could devastate Europe and trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, civil war in a cluster of other states
could seriously harm American interests. These countries include Indonesia, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and China. In none,
however, are the stakes as high or the threat of war as imminent.
2NC Uniqueness – Russia’s Economy is Fine Now
Russia’s economy is on the rise now – they don’t assume new Russia Chinese gas
agreement – it ensures a sustainable level of income to maintain long term economic
growth – even if they’re right that Russia’s economy is great now it’s on a sustainable
rise due to exports – the link controls uniqueness – that’s the Hill.
Russia avoided a major economic downturn and is on the rise but that is dependent on
natural gas exports.
Rosen, 5/28/2014 (Armin, Business Insider staffwriter, “Russia's Economy May Have Avoided The Worst Fallout From Ukraine”
http://www.businessinsider.in/Russias-Economy-May-Have-Avoided-The-Worst-Fallout-From-Ukraine/articleshow/35689998.cms)
Russia's economy is expected to avoid the worst case scenario following its incursion into Ukraine, according to a
new report from Morgan Stanley. Although Russia's aggression towards its southern neighbor has created
lasting problems for the Russian economy and made it a riskier investment, commodities prices remain high,
the ruble is slowly recovering value, and Russian corporate credit remains "fundamentally sound ."
Perhaps most importantly, the firm sees Ukraine's recent, successful elections as a sign of "de-escalation" between Kiev and Moscow - a
prerequisite for a longer-term Russian economic recovery. More highlights from the report: The
ruble is rebounding, but won't
recover fully from its post-Crimea invasion losses this year, according to Morgan Stanley. Russian bonds "have been on a rollercoaster
since February as spreads move between 600 and 800 [basis points]," yet Morgan Stanley is still "neutral" on them, concluding that "the
risk/reward in the medium term is more balanced" and even "[acknowledging] there is room for further strength in the near term." Russian
corporate credit hasn't cratered. Quite the opposite: "Valuations are attractive and fundamentals are
currently sound" from the perspective of foreign investors, a fact which will "provide the basis for investors to
increase exposure in the scenario of de-escalation, in our view." And in the firm's analysis, Ukraine's recent elections, which
were among the cleanest in the country's history, could bring about just that scenario. There are several "potential catalysts for further
upside," like the "de-escalation" of the Ukraine crisis, the end of gas negotiations with China, and the strength of Russia's
energy and natural resources sectors . ... but the pre-Crimea invasion status quo isn't coming back for a while. The Russian
economy has "subdued medium-term prospects," and the firm "[does] not expect a full return to the status quo before Crimea's annexation for
some time." The lingering economic and political sting of EU and US sanctions, along with Putin's position that Russian-speaking areas in
Moscow's near-abroad now have the right to secede, means that investors "are likely to reduce their exposure to Russian assets." The firm
projects the Russian economy will grow in 2014 but at a sluggish 1%. Could this mixed economic landscape convince Putin to
pull back from eastern Ukraine? The Morgan Stanley report suggests that Putin's adventurism has had some real mid-term costs attached to it.
At the same time, the Russian president has annexed part of a neighboring country and is still succeeding in sowing chaos throughout Ukraine's
east. The week of the election saw heavy combat between pro-Russian militants and the Ukrainian military at the Donetsk airport and the
deaths of 17 Ukrainian soldiers in the eastern town of Volnovakha. For that kind of a hard power play - which has weakened the government in
Kiev while lengthening Moscow's territorial reach, and put the entire western security alliance on notice - some slow growth, a faltering-butrecovering currency, and wild but not junk-status interest rates, might be an acceptable asking price.
Russia’s economy is still growing but is on the brink of a double dip recession.
Business News, 6/24/2014 (News Source, “Russian economy to grow 0.5pc amid political turmoil”
http://www.independent.ie/business/world/russian-economy-to-grow-05pc-amid-political-turmoil-30306542.html)
The Bank of Russia will probably revise its 2014 gross domestic product growth forecast to around
0.5pc, Ms Nabiullina said, revealing that it had earlier forecast a 0.9pc expansion. The economy is on the brink of recession
after quarterly GDP fell by 0.5pc in the first three months of the year, impacted by sanctions and instability resulting
from the stand-off with Ukraine and wider emerging market uncertainty. Ms Nabiullina said it was too early to speak of a
recession, before full macroeconomic data for the second quarter was out, but she acknowledged that the economy had been
affected.
Investment is increasing – helps the economy
Devvitt, 6/19/2014 (Polina, Reuters, “Russia may revise 2014 GDP forecast upwards - economy minister”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/uk-russia-economy-gdp-idUSKBN0EU0EC20140619)
(Reuters) - Russia's
upwards
gross domestic product growth forecast of 0.5 percent for 2014 may be revised
in September
due to the slowing pace of a decline in investment , Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said
on Thursday. "For now our official (forecast) for this year is 0.5 percent, but most likely we will revise it in September, most likely upwards,"
Ulyukayev told journalists. Investment
by Russian companies in tangible goods such as plant infrastructure, a major
contribution to the country's economic wellbeing, had been falling since last year and plummeted
after the West imposed sanctions on Moscow for annexing Ukraine's Crimea region. There are no figures for investment for May
yet, but Ulyukayev said there were signs that the fall had eased . In April, investment was down 2.7 percent year-on-year.
"There are no concrete figures," Ulyukayev said. "But the
territory. From
dynamics of the decline have flattened . ... We are still in negative
now on (the numbers) should show a growing trend ."
Growth now is a result of natural gas- plan causes a fiscal trainwreck
Burke 12 [Justin Managing Editor , Eurasia News, 3/1 “ Russia: Putinism and the Russian Economy”, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65070 //]
Russia has experienced robust economic growth and benefited from a favorable balance
of trade, enabling the Kremlin to amass cash reserves of just over $505 billion, according to Central Bank statistics. But trade-surplus figures provide only a partial picture of the Russian economy, creating an illusion of
economic health. Russian growth is overly dependent on the export of raw materials, especially oil & gas, but also including
During his tenure in power,
minerals, precious metals and timber. During his first go-round as president, Putin spoke repeatedly of a need to transform Russia’s economy. In a May 2006 speech to the Federation Council, for example, he said his administration
was already taking “concrete steps to change the structure of our economy, and turn it into an economy of [technological] innovation.” And on May 8, 2008, the day he stepped down from the presidency and returned to the post
figures compiled by Russia’s Federal Service for
FSSS) are to be believed, Putin’s quest to create a knowledge-based, high-tech economy has been a dismal failure. Import-export data for the past 12 years
shows that Russia’s role in the global economy remains that of raw materials supplier, and that the
high price of oil & natural gas is all that stands in the way of Russia becoming a fiscal train wreck . When it comes to
the state budget, the stability of Russia’s finances is dependent on an increase in the cost of energy. The Kremlin thus stands to benefit economically from
of prime minister, he announced the government’s “number one priority” was economic diversification via the “development of innovative industries.” If
State Statistics (
increased tension between the West and Iran. Prior to the global financial crisis, Russia could balance its books with an oil price of about $90 per barrel, former Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said last September. Now,
according to the Finance Ministry, the Russian budget needs an oil price of $117 per barrel this year to remain in good shape.
2NC Link Wall – Plan will Increase US exports
SQ exports are limited but the plan would cut off Russian exports – provides US
capacity to export to Europe and lets them develop their own sources.
Driessen, 6/20/2014 (Paul, Washington Times writer, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow,
“DRIESSEN: Fighting Russia with U.S. natural gas exports Lawmakers should expedite aid to needy allies”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/driessen-a-shale-gale-to-blow-away-russias-energy/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS)
In reality, though, America’s dependence on foreign petroleum was never due to a lack of oil and natural gas deposits. It arose because the
United States lacked the political willpower to find and produce them on federal lands, and did not have the technology to develop them in
state and private areas. The
advent of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing changed that dramatically. The
technologies made the United States the world’s largest producer of natural gas and greatly increased domestic oil production.
By enabling us to extract energy from vast shale formations, they put the nation well on its way to again being a global energy powerhouse.
Imagine what could happen if
these new technologies could be employed on those still-closed onshore and offshore
federal lands. America
could easily have ample hydrocarbons to meet domestic needs, export natural gas and even some oil
and refined products to allies, and keep oil prices manageable even in the midst of renewed Russian aggression and Middle
East turmoil. The United States now has more than a 100-year supply of natural gas — and could support its allies by shipping liquefied natural
gas (LNG) by tanker to foreign ports. That
would counter Russian cutoffs and threatened price hikes or supply disruptions, and
give our allies time to deploy fracking technologies in their own extensive shale deposits, as some European countries are
now doing or contemplating seriously. The Department of Energy has given conditional approval to seven LNG export plans, and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has been reviewing 14 proposals submitted by terminals that need to make modifications for export operations.
On the East Coast, the list includes Dominion’s facility at Cove Point, Md., and the LNG plant operated by Southern LNG Company at Elba Island,
Ga. With approvals needed from both agencies, the requirement that gas-exporting terminals ship LNG only to countries holding free-trade
agreements with the United States, and with the entire process facing various delays, congressional action is required to streamline the
process. It’s also essential that the United States drill and produce still more natural gas, which not only supports our allies but also benefits us
here at home. The “shale gale” brought a 40 percent increase in oil and gas jobs between 2007 and 2012, according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, amid a paltry 1 percent job growth in the rest of our economy. IHS Global Insight projects that another 1.3 million
shale-related jobs will likely be created by 2030. Yet President Obama
little more than lip service,
has given our enormous natural gas opportunities
beyond saying natural gas is helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming.
The president and his regulators are also making numerous federal onshore and
offshore energy prospects off-limits , moving
at the pace of continental drift in issuing drilling leases and permits, and looking for ways to impede fracking on state and private lands.
Natural Gas competition will heat up
Martin, 5/30/2014 (Richard, Forbes Contributer, “Russia-China Gas Deal Narrows Window for U.S. Exports”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2014/05/30/russia-china-gas-deal-narrows-window-for-u-s-exports/)
Competition in the international gas markets is bound to heat up , and the United States may have already missed
its opportunity for an LNG export bonanza. Expanding pipelines, more export terminals, and better technology for
liquefying and shipping natural gas will all help globalize the natural market, in the way the crude oil market is
already globalized. Already, the relatively low price that China will pay for Russian gas (around $350 per thousand cubic
meters, analysts estimate) is putting downward pressure on higher prices for Japan and South Korea. Earlier this month
Dominion Resources D -0.75% won approval from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build an LNG export facility at Cove Point
on Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay. The company said the $3.8 billion terminal could begin shipping gas as early as 2017.
2NC I/L Wall – Exports K2 Russia’s Economy
Exports to the EU are half of Russia’s total exports
Rusling, 5/31/2014 (Matthew, ShanghaiDaily.com, “News Analysis: U.S.-Russian relations remain strained amid ongoing Ukraine
crisis” http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=221644)
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-Russian relations remain strained amid the ongoing Ukraine crisis, with no
apparent signs of easing tensions on the horizon, U.S. experts said. The United States and Russia have been at odds in recent months over the
surprise deployment of Russian troops into Crimea, Ukraine. Washington blasted the Russian move for violating international law and slapped
sanctions on Russia as punishment, though Moscow defended it as simply protecting the region's Russian-speaking population. The
development has caused a rift between the White House and the Kremlin, although experts said any military conflict between the two
countries is highly unlikely. Still, there is no U.S. ambassador in Moscow three months into the Ukraine crisis after former Ambassador Michael
McFaul left the Russian capital a day before Russia's surprise troop deployment. The
spat has given way to much sabre
rattling, with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week publicly mocking his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. "Who is he to judge, seriously?
If he wants to judge people, why doesn't he get a job in court somewhere?" Putin said in an interview with the CNBC, reflecting his view that
the United States should not interfere with events in Ukraine. "I think Putin ... made an assessment of Obama and decided that (Obama) is
weaker than Putin. And therefore that Putin can push Obama on a number of issues," Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow in Russian and
Eurasian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told Xinhua. "He thinks that he can get away with publicly disparaging and offending Obama. That
he can undermine Obama's stature as the ... leader of the United States," he said. Moscow also grabbed headlines last month when a Russian
SU-24 fighter plane buzzed closely by the USS Donald Cook in the western Black Sea in a move analysts said was a message to Washington to
keep out of Russia's sphere of influence, as well as a bid to gauge the U.S. response. That event, plus Russia's general stance toward the United
States at the moment, suggest that Russian policy makers view America as strong but perhaps not as strong as previously, and not as focused
on Europe as its main strategic priority following Obama's Asia pivot, David Clark, chairman of the Russia Foundation, told Xinhua. So far, Putin
has viewed Obama as weak and unable to economically punish Russia for the latter's moves in Ukraine. After lambasting Moscow for its moves
in Ukraine, Obama merely slapped travel bans on a handful of Russians, a move viewed as a lackluster response by those who advocated much
harsher sanctions. "In order to make sanctions work, the U.S. needs to get the Europeans on board," Cohen said. "The U.S. managed to do that
in the case of Iran, and Iran's willingness to negotiate the nuclear program was a result of the sanctions. Russia is a much more powerful
country than Iran, and I think Mr. Putin thinks that the U.S. and Mr. Obama cannot impose meaningful sanctions." Still, if Obama succeeded in
getting others on board with sanctions, Russia would re-assess the situation, he added. Russia currently
supplies around a
quarter of Europe's oil and natural gas , not to mention 40 percent of economic powerhouse Germany's gas, and Moscow
also has a deep trade relationship with Eurozone nations. Some experts said this could make Europe hesitant to impose
sanctions. Russia sends nearly 300 billion U.S. dollars worth of exports to EU countries, which account for nearly half of
Russia's total exports , whereas Russia is only the 20th largest trading partner of the United States.
Russia’s heavily dependent on exports.
Williams and Demick, 5/26/2014 (Carol and Barbara, LA Times, “Russia-China natural gas deal signals growing ties
between former foes” http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/11526795-113/china-russia-ukraine-deal)
K IEV, Ukraine — A landmark natural gas deal with China offers Russia an alternative to markets in European countries angered by the
Kremlin’s stance on Ukraine and highlights growing ties between the former rivals at a time when they are both at odds with Washington. The
30-year deal signed Wednesday calls for Russia to supply 38 billion cubic meters of gas via a pipeline from Siberia to energy-hungry cities in
northeastern China, including Beijing and Tianjin. Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country is
heavily dependent on energy
exports , had eagerly sought the agreement to protect against a reduction or cutoff by big European customers such as Germany, a possible
next step in sanctions against Russia in the dispute over Ukraine. Putin also knows that most of his country’s exports to Europe go through
pipelines that cross Ukraine, making them subject to retaliation for Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula and its suspected backing of proRussia separatists in eastern Ukraine. The Russia-China deal “is a clear signal to the West that Russia has a real alternative,” said Andrei
Kokoshin, dean of Moscow State University’s world politics faculty and a former head of Russia’s Security Council. “It would not be wrong to say
that it (the relationship with China) has reached the highest level in all its centuries-long history. — Vladimir Putin, Russian president Senior
Russian officials have warned that
reaction to the seizure of Crimea and concern over Kremlin policy in Ukraine were
cutting into economic growth rates and fueling capital flight from Russia. Russia has edged away from Ukraine’s
separatists, declining to endorse the results of referendums on independence they held May 11. Kremlin officials also have refused to recognize
the opposition politicians running Ukraine since former President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted, saying they are unelected and therefore
illegitimate. Moscow also had denounced as illegal the election to replace Yanukovich, set for Sunday. But it changed its stance after U.S. and
European leaders warned that further economic sanctions would follow if Russia interfered with the vote. Putin, attending an Asian security
summit Wednesday in China, told journalists that he had ordered Russian troops back from the Ukrainian border to “create additional,
favorable conditions” for the election. “Any political process is better than an armed standoff,” he said, apparently referring to round-table
talks between Kiev’s interim leaders and representatives of Ukraine’s disparate regions on ways to decentralize power in the nation. Polls in
Ukraine indicate that confection magnate Petro Poroshenko has a commanding lead in the presidential campaign. Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov said last week that Poroshenko was someone with whom Russia could deal. Pro-Russia separatists also are under new pressure
from a steel and mining magnate who employs 300,000 people in eastern Ukraine. He claimed Wednesday to have mobilized a million
protesters against the separatists. Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man, heralded his Voice of Donbass campaign as evidence that most
people in the turbulent east oppose the armed disruptions in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Protests organized by Akhmetov and managers
of his industrial operations, which are the economic backbone of the Donbass region, have galvanized the peaceful majority “against
destabilization of the situation in Donbass, against violence and chaos, banditry and looting,” the mogul said in a statement. The protests began
last Tuesday with employees called to stand outside their workplaces at noon while factory whistles sounded from dozens of enterprises.
Akhmetov said Wednesday that more than a million workers took part, including 200,000 from his own businesses. The figures could not be
independently confirmed. The magnate’s enterprises are scattered across a wide swath of eastern Ukraine and are inaccessible to most
journalists because of the separatists’ roadblocks and railroad disruptions. The Voice of Donbass campaign demands the disarming of all “illegal
insurgent gangs,” release of hostages and unblocking of occupied buildings and seized rail and road links to the region. In Shanghai, Putin and
Chinese President Xi Jinping witnessed the signing of the energy deal on the last day of the security summit. The agreement was signed by the
heads of the countries’ state-owned energy giants, Russia’s Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp. Before the meeting, Putin extolled
Beijing as a most “reliable friend.” “It would not be wrong to say that it (the relationship with China) has reached the highest level in all its
centuries-long history,” Putin said in an interview with Chinese media. The gas deal had been in the works since the 1990s, with China holding
out until the end for price concessions. Financial terms were not disclosed. Russia and China also celebrated their friendship
with joint maritime exercises in the East China Sea, where China is locked in a dispute with Japan over uninhabited islands. China also is at
loggerheads with Vietnam and the Philippines over resource rights in the South China Sea, a situation for which it blames the United States.
“The
relationship between China and Russia is definitely at a new stage. Both trust each other. The
leaders keep frequent communication ,” said Yang Chuang, a retired diplomat at China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing.
The friendly relations between the onetime foes come as both are caught in a cycle of deteriorating
relations with the United States. The U.S. and China are dueling over accusations that China’s military is engaged in Internet
hacking of U.S. businesses; Russia has angered the U.S. by embracing secrets leaker Edward Snowden and by intervening in Ukraine. Putin’s visit
to Shanghai came almost exactly 25 years after a 1989 trip to Beijing by then-Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev to seal the reconciliation of the
two communist powers. Gorbachev was welcomed as a beacon of liberalization by pro-democracy students who were camped out at
Tiananmen Square, just weeks before the brutal crackdown by the Chinese military. A quarter of a century later, Beijing is under heightened
security as the leadership rounds up activists and curtails the Internet to prevent commemorations of the crackdown.
kills Russia’s economy
Mead 12
Walter Russell Mead, April 25, 2012 (Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S.
foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine), , The American Interest, North
American Shale Gas Gives Russia Serious Headache, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/25/north-american-shale-gas-givesrussia-serious-headache/
.
if the United States becomes a gas exporter,
Russia’s customers (especially in Europe) could decide to cancel expensive contracts with Gazprom in favor of
cheaper American natural gas. “If the US starts exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, it gives [customers
there] an argument to renegotiate their prices with Gazprom and Qatar, and they will do it,” says Jean Abiteboul, head of Cheniere supply &
North America’s shale gas boom is chipping away at the market for gas producers like Russia What’s more,
marketing. Gazprom supplied 27 percent of Europe’s natural gas in 2011. While American gas is trading below $2 per MMBTU (million British thermal units), Gazprom’s prices are tied to crude
European customers would love to reduce their
dependence on Gazprom and start to import American gas. Already Gazprom has had to make concessions to its three biggest customers,
oil markets, and its long-term contracts charge customers roughly $13 per MMBTU, says the FT.
and others are increasingly dissatisfied with their contracts. Worse, from Russia’s point of view: evidence that western and central Europe contain substantial shale gas reserves of their own.
Eroding Gazprom’s
dominance of the European energy market would be a major check on Russian economic growth and political influence.
Fracking is unpopular in thickly populated, eco-friendly Europe, but so are high gas prices. All this ought to give Russia serious heartburn.
2NC Accidental Launch Impact
Russian economic decline causes accidental launch
Blair & Gaddy, 1999 – Bruce Blair and Clifford Gaddy, 1999. President of the Center for Defense Information, former Senior Fellow
at the Brookings Institution, Minuteman launch control officer in the Strategic Air Command, Ph.D. in Operations Research from Yale, has
taught security studies as a visiting professor at Yale and Princeton and Senior Fellow at Brookings. "Russia's Aging War Machine,"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/1999/summer_russia_bruce%20blair%20and%20clifford%20gaddy/Blair.pdf
Effects on the Nuclear Forces For
Russia’s conventional forces, the combination of lack of resources and the time and
effort that must be diverted to sheer survival has been devastating to combat readiness. But nowhere does the
weakness and inefficiency of Russia’s state economy have more serious implications than famous
nuclear suitcases that accompany the president and other top authorities are falling into disrepair.
Prestigious institutes, such as the laborator ies that design nuclear weapons, build the deep underground command posts, and engineer
the communications links that would be used to send the “go code” to the strategic weapons. But conditions that might drive individuals or
groups to violate nuclear safety rules or threaten to fire weapons are ripening. At the least, worsening conditions of life and work in the
nuclear forces decrease proficiency in managing weapons and sap motivation to adhere strictly to safety rules. [continues] If we are very
lucky, the Russian nuclear arsenal and control system will atrophy without incident, coming to a safe instead of deadly end. In such a happy
scenario, this atrophy will also encourage Russia to ratify the START II arms reduction treaty and negotiate even deeper bilateral
reductions, lowering the ceiling on strategic deployments from 3,500 (START II) to 2,500 (START III) or fewer.Within a decade or so Russia’s
aging force could easily shrink to 500 or fewer, creating enormous latitude to negotiate vast reductions in deployments. But this scenario is
wishful thinking loaded with untenable assumptions.The START process has stalled and may not be revived any time soon, leaving in place
increasingly decrepit and hazardous forces that Russia might not retire after all.The
decay of the Russian arsenal is certain
to run growing risks of proliferation and to erode safety along with basic offensive capability. For
example, a degraded early warning network is less able to detect an actual attack—but also less able
to screen out false indications of attack. Similarly, failure in the nuclear command link between the General Staff in Moscow
and the launch crews in the field would disrupt not only the ability of the General Staff to quickly transmit the go code, but also the
feedback loop from the missiles to the General Staff that detects and prevents an unauthorized launch attempt at any subordinate level of
command. Finally, the departure of security guards from their posts at weapons depots to forage for food or escape inclement weather
may not only impede the authorized dispersal of those weapons during a crisis but also increase the vulnerability of the weapons to theft.
And the
danger is not merely theoretical. A 1996 CIA report noted that broken locking devices on
some Russian nuclear weapons had not been repaired for lack of spare parts. In short, progressive
nuclear deterioration in Russia increases the risks of mistaken, illicit, or accidental launch, and the loss of
strict central control over Russia’s vast nuclear complex bodes ill for nonproliferation. If Russia’s nuclear designers, producers, and
custodians surrender to economic pressure, they could open the to the illicit transfer of nuclear materials, weapons, and delivery
technologies to America’s adversaries. A meltdown of Russian nuclear control could be catastrophic for Americans. Securing Russia’s
nuclear weapons and materials and strengthening safety and control over operational deployments deserve top billing among the security
priorities of the U.S. government. To alleviate the immediate danger, Russian and U.S. strategic missiles should be taken off hair-trigger
alert so that none could be fired on a moment’s notice. “De-alerting” our arsenals, ideally by detaching the warheads from missiles,would
reduce their susceptibility to illicit or mistaken launch.Today it takes only minutes to prepare those forces for launch. Reducing the interval
to days or longer would provide a far larger margin of safety against many scenarios, ranging from the temporary loss of legitimate civilian
control over Russian weapons to false warning in Russia’s early warning system—both more plausible dangers than a deliberate, coldblooded attack by Russia or the United States against each other. The challenge of deterrence today pales beside the challenge of
operational safety. But even a comprehensive nuclear stand-down falls short over the long run.As
long as Russia remains
mired in economic, political, and military despair, the nuclear threat will continue. Russia will not be able
to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons until it can afford an adequate conventional military
force. It will not be able to ensure control over its nuclear weapons and materials until it has a strong
state, one based on a healthy economy and a civil society. The West’s vital stakes in this process of nation-building have not
diminished, despite all the failures and frustrations of the past decade. If anything, those stakes have grown—as have the cost and effort
needed to stabilize and transform Russia.
Extinction
Leslie 96 – John Leslie, Professor Emeritus of philosophy @ University of Guelph. “The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of
Human Extinction,” p. 32.
Probably, however, it
has been accidental nuclear war between the U nited S tates and Russia which has
represented the most immediate danger to humankind since Russia's development of the H-bomb. This statement is
as defensible today as it ever has been. The
fragmentation of the Soviet Union has presumably made it easier,
if anything, for missiles to be launched without authorization, and an attack from as low as the
regimental level could result in three hundred nuclear explosions.19
AT: Sinkevicius
He concludes that more exports are still possible
Sinkevičius, 6/19/2014 (Virginijus, staffwriter @ Lithuiana Tribute, “Opinion: crumbling myths against the export of LNG”
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/69309/opinion-crumbling-myths-against-the-export-of-liquefied-natural-gas-201469309/)
The Russian energy empire was not build in a moment; it was a long-term project with aims into the future. The
capabilities and resources to undermine Russia’s energy dominance
in Europe
United States has the
dramatically faster than
it took Russia to complete the Druzhba pipeline . The Cheniere Sabine Pass terminal, which can easily serve the demand of
both Lithuanian and Polish LNG terminals, will be fully operational in three years, even after an approval process that took over a year. Clearly
that time argument is invalid as the
United States holds all required resources and technologies to build LNG
export terminals. Even more compelling for the United States authorities is the geopolitical argument. Current events in Ukraine cannot
be overlooked. For a decade, Vladimir Putin has used his nation’s wealth of natural gas and oil as a stick to bully Europe and especially NATO
member states in Central and Eastern Europe. Past experience shows that regional partners are too weak to help sort out the gas problem.
Germany, a powerhouse in the EU, is also extremely dependent on Russian gas. During the Ukrainian crisis, Putin has constantly pulled out the
gas card threatening to shut off the supply as a measure to deter Europe from imposing more strict sanctions on Russia. If this argument does
not sound threatening for spring and summer seasons, during the winter Europe can be left freezing again like in 2006 and 2009. Conclusion
Energy projects always require large investments, but they also offer enormous gains. Current LNG
exportation projects will be
able to offer significant help to close American allies in Central and Eastern Europe and also bring massive
profits to the United States economy. According to the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, each new terminal created to ship LNG overseas could
generate more than $10 billion in investment for the U.S. economy, including wages and purchase orders for equipment. A single project will
likely generate more than $10 million per year in new tax revenue at the federal, state and local levels. Overall, the resource exporting debate
looks strange as the United States has been exporting natural gas to Mexico and Canada since the 1930s. These exports are rarely questioned
and volumes are also currently rising with an increase of demand in Mexico.
Environment DA
1NC Shell
Spills, Chemicals, sesmic testing, and destroy wetlands and marshes
Southern Environmental Law Center, 2014 (“Defending Our Southern Coasts” 5/16/2014
http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/offshore-oil-drilling)
Risks of Oil Drilling In February 2014, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released its final environmental
impact statement on the plan to open up the Atlantic coast to seismic surveys for oil and gas. The head of the agency anticipates that
applications to conduct seismic testing could be received by the end of the year. Not only are the air gun blasts used in seismic testing
harmful to marine life such as the critically endangered North American right whale, allowing seismic testing
opens the door to risky oil drilling—under the same lax assessments of risks and precautions that
Horizon oil spill
led to the BP Deepwater
in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the federal regulatory agency and oil companies continue
operations based on their same claims that there is no significant risk of, or thus impacts from, such oil spills. SELC challenged the agency's
cursory environmental review as illegal and irresponsible in light of the BP blowout and oil spill, and its harmful impacts in the Gulf of Mexico. In
December 2011, SELC filed suit challenging the agency’s continued sales of oil and gas leases in the Gulf, which still are conducted without
adequate environmental analysis and without regard for lessons learned from the BP disaster. Coastal Riches for Wildlife and People The
beautiful and biologically rich coastal areas off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and our Gulf Coast feature some of the most
productive estuaries in the country, including the Chesapeake Bay, the Pamlico Sound, the ACE Basin, and Mobile Bay. Our coasts attract
millions of tourists, anglers, and other visitors each year and provide important breeding and feeding habitat for rare migratory birds, turtles,
and whales. Tourism and fishing—both commercial and recreational—are the economic backbone of hundreds of communities along our
coasts. In 2008 alone, the four Atlantic states yielded $262.8 million in commercial fish landings. Problematic Infrastructure The
environmental impacts of offshore drilling and its accompanying infrastructure and refineries onshore were
well known even before Gulf disaster. Ocean rigs routinely spill and leak oil —and sometimes blow out. Chemicals used
to operate oil and gas wells also
pollute the marine environment . Moreover, oil spills and other contamination from onshore
refineries, pipelines, and associated infrastructure would
spoil valuable wetland and marsh ecosystems
that
provide multiple benefits for Southern communities, including flood control and protection from storms, clean water, and essential habitat for
fisheries that sustain our economies and cultures.
Extinction
Davidson, 2003 (Founder – Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 47-51)
But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue
planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassa’s power. Destroy
all life on land; the ocean creatures will
survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the organisms that inhabit the oceans and
all life on land is doomed. “Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and
returns to the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to
seawater. Every carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill
slits form and then fade during our development in the womb. 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. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral
reefs, often called the “rain forests of the sea.” Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly
a third of all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down
to the hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around
superheated plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as already
mentioned, the crucible of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic acids (which can
self-replicate, but are not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to
3.9 billion years ago. A spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago,
an evolutionary experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million
years later that the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed
out of the ocean. After this head start, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of
the sea. Of the thirty-three higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.
2NC I/L Wall
Drilling kills the environment – Chemicals, seismic waves, infrastructure, and oil spills
– assumes improves and safety measures
Horton, 2008 (Jennifer, howstuffworks, 8/11/2008 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drillingcontroversy.htm)
Any time oil drilling is mentioned, you know there's going to be talk of its environmental impacts. When
it comes to offshore oil
drilling, that talk is even more heated, since you're not just digging underground but also thousands of feet underwater.
Whenever oil is recovered from the ocean floor, other chemicals and toxic substances come up too -- things like
mercury, lead and arsenic that are often released back into the ocean. In addition, seismic
waves used to locate oil can harm
sea mammals and disorient whales . ExxonMobil recently had to suspend exploration efforts near Madagascar
after more than 100 whales beached themselves [source: Nixon]. The infrastructure required to drill wells and
transport offshore oil can be equally devastating. A series of canals built across Louisiana wetlands to transport oil has
led to erosion . Along with the destruction of the state's marshland caused by drilling efforts, the canals have removed an
important storm buffer, possibly contributing to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. The petrochemical plants built
nearby add to the negative effects [source: Jervis]. Not so fast, say supporters of offshore drilling: Improvements in technology and
better government oversight have made drilling inherently safe. In fact, since 1975, offshore drilling has had a 99.999 percent safety record
[source: EIA]. The amount spilled has decreased from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the '90s. Believe it or not, more oil
actually spills into U.S. waters from natural sources and municipal and industrial waste than it does than from offshore oil and gas drilling. As far
as the toxic chemicals are concerned, specialists say most of them are at insignificant levels since discharges are regulated by state and federal
laws. The mercury released, for example, isn't enough to be absorbed by fish [source: Jervis]. Despite the improvements, detractors of
oil drilling remain unconvinced. Although offshore operations themselves may not be involved in as many spills as they used to be, marine
transportation of the oil they recover accounts for one-third of oil spills worldwide . The Mineral Management Service
predicts there will be no less than one oil spill a year of 1,000 barrels or more in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. A spill of
10,000 barrels or more can be expected every three to four years [source: Jervis]. And while the 99.999 percent
safety record sounds nice, that 0.001 percent can be pretty horrific for people living in the vicinity. A 1969 accident
at a Santa Barbara, Calif., well spewed oil all over the beaches and into the water, effectively making any chances of future access to that state's
offshore areas highly unlikely. Likewise, the effects of the infamous Exxon Valdez spill back in 1989 are still seen today.
Weak regulation of deepwater oil and gas production is a major risk to overall ocean
health and biodiversity
Hull-LLM University of Florida, 2011 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 ARTICLE: Crude Injustice in the Gulf: Why Categorical
Exclusions for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico Are Inconsistent with U.S. and International Ocean Law and Policy
D. Deepwater Environments-The Last Frontier
Deepwater environments are critically important to the healthy functioning of the world's oceans.
Historically, however, environmental concern over marine resources has focused on the coastal
waters - near shore areas less than 200 meters deep - where most commercially important marine species are found. 49 This area
comprises less than 5% of the world's oceans, and its health and productivity depend on the
remaining 95% of the deepwater ocean. 50 In fact, a large fraction of biodiversity and biomass
production in coastal areas is directly linked to and dependent upon deep sea ecosystems. 51 Although
relatively little is known about inhabitants of deep sea environment, those organisms studied to date show common traits of slow growth, late
maturity, slow reproduction, long life (200 years in some cases), and low productivity. 52 These traits have important implications for the
sustainable management and use of deep-sea resources. 53 Absent
effective management strategies, deepwater
species and their associated ecosystems can quickly be depleted below sustainable levels. 54 UNEP
recommended that governments incorporate precautionary approaches to manage deepwater
environments that take into account the full range and cumulative effects of potential human
activities and impacts, and added, "the conservation and sustainable use of the vulnerable
ecosystems and biodiversity in deep waters and high seas are among the most critical ocean issues
and environmental challenges today." 55 [*12] As the oil industry moves its activities into deeper water
to find oil reserve, the risk of harm increases. As UNEP noted: As human activities, such as fishing and oil, gas
and mineral exploration and exploitation, move into deeper waters both within and beyond national jurisdiction, the
relative lack of data on deep seabed ecosystems and biodiversity makes it difficult to predict and
control their impacts. 56 The increasing demand for oil continues to push drilling activities into deeper
water, and threatens to fundamentally alter the deep sea environment in the Gulf. Given the industry's
attempts to expand the oil depletion window and sustain profits from a non-renewable resource, the outlook for protecting the Gulf
environment under the current status quo is not promising. The industry must make fundamental changes to ensure that its actions do not
impair the future sustainability of renewable resources in the Gulf.
Offshore exemptions risk mass ocean extinction
Hull-LLM University of Florida, 2011 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1 ARTICLE: Crude Injustice in the Gulf: Why Categorical
Exclusions for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico Are Inconsistent with U.S. and International Ocean Law and Policy
Today, the
Gulf oil drilling industry poses many of the same environmental risks that were present prior
to the Ixtoc spill [*4] thirty years ago. 7 However, those risks have increased with the industry's
movement of oil exploration activities into remote, deep ocean sites in the Gulf. 8 The deep, offshore waters of
the Gulf contain some of the largest deposits of oil in the United States, but finding and recovering that oil safely presents unique challenges. 9
Controlling and managing breaches at deep sea wells is considerably more difficult than at shallow
wells due to the high pressure and low temperature of the deepwater environment, the force of the
flowing oil, and the need to rely on unmanned, remotely operated vehicles to respond to accidents. 10
Indeed, the DWH accident resulted in the release of more than 170 million gallons of oil into the Gulf because almost every procedure used to
stop the blowout failed. 11 Despite
the substantial risk associated with deep sea oil drilling in the Gulf, the
has routinely elected to categorically exclude certain offshore oil
exploration and development activities in the Gulf from environmental review otherwise required
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 12 MMS categorically excluded British Petroleum's (BP) exploration plan covering the
Mineral Management Service (MMS)
DWH well from environmental review without ever considering the potential impacts from a well blowout like the one that actually occurred.
[*5] This article examines the current practice of categorically excluding oil exploration and development/production activities in the Gulf from
environmental review, and argues that the practice violates NEPA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and is inconsistent with
U.S. and international ocean law and policy. Section I provides a brief overview of the status of the world's imperiled oceans, with particular
emphasis on the Gulf ecosystem. Section II addresses America's dependence on crude oil and the increasing role played by the Gulf in meeting
the nation's energy needs, and examines the projected environmental impacts of the DWH accident that led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
Section III provides a brief overview of U.S. ocean law and policy. Section IV discusses the NEPA review process with particular emphasis on the
use of categorical exclusions, and examines some of the key decisions made during the environmental review process for the BP lease covering
the site of the DWH well. Section V provides analysis of the interaction of laws governing oil exploration and development in the Gulf and
concludes that categorically excluding exploration plans in the Gulf from environmental review violates national and international law. II.
Highstakes Prospecting in a Fragile Ocean For centuries, humans have exploited the resources of the world's oceans with little concern for, or
understanding of, how their collective activities caused harm. Nineteenth century Poet Lord Byron once wrote, "man marks the earth with ruin,
but his control stops with the shore." 13 His words reveal a commonly held, but incorrect assumption that humans are incapable of causing any
lasting harm to the vast oceans. The
current imperiled state of the world's oceans and the particular sensitivity
and ecological importance of the Gulf ecosystem make imperative changes to the current
environmental review practices . Despite exhibiting remarkable resiliency to anthropogenic insult for
centuries, the world's oceans are increasingly showing signs of vulnerability to human influences .
Research has unequivocally demonstrated that the synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, ocean warming, increased
acidification and massive nutrient runoff are fundamentally altering once complex, vibrant [*6] marine ecosystems. 14 As
marine
biodiversity declines, ecosystems with intricate marine food webs are being degraded to primordial
seas dominated by microbes, toxic algal blooms, jellyfish and disease. 15 Absent fundamental changes in
the use and management of ocean resources, human activities may lead to a massive extinction in the
ocean . 16 The Gulf's once pristine waters and productive ecosystems have been significantly altered as the result of anthropogenic insults.
The primary drivers of ocean degradation are overexploitation, pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification.
2NC Seismic Waves module
Seismic waves devastate whale populations – disorients them and is causing them to
be on the verge of extinction – that’s southern environment law.
Whales are a keystone species
Zimmer et al 2007 (Richard, Ryan Ferrer, Professors of Biology at UCLA, “Neuroecology, Chemical Defense, and the Keystone
Species Concept”, http://www.biolbull.org/content/213/3/208.full)
Consumption of STX-laden zooplankton or their incapacitated predators can have dramatic effects on top pelagic predators. Vertebrates such
as fish (Adams et al., 1968; White, 1980, 1981), seabirds (Nisbet, 1983; Shumway et al., 2003), and marine mammals (Geraci et al., 1989; Reyero
et al., 1999; Doucette et al., 2006) are much more sensitive to STX and its derivatives than are invertebrate grazers. Consequently, after
dinoflagellate blooms, large-scale vertebrate mortality arises from ingestion of STX-laden planktonic organisms. Massive
die-offs of
top pelagic predators such as right whales (Doucette et al., 2006), monk seals (Reyero et al., 1999), and several species of fish
(White, 1980, 1981) can lead to dramatic cascading effects throughout entire planktonic communities
(Carpenter et al., 1985; Myers and Worm, 2003; Bruno and O'Connor, 2005).
Spills over to cascading biodiversity loss
McKinney 2003 (Michael, Director of Environmental Studies, University of Texas, PHD from Yale,
http://books.google.com/books?id=NJUanyPkh0AC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=manatees+%22keystone+species%22&source=bl&ots=rB1vju6
y6v&sig=isIAuB81ZM_Hv4PAMp2EKt4lH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kaX7T_GoEYiorQHfrZ2LCQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=manatees%20%22keystone%20speci
es%22&f=false, )
Are All Species Equally Important? With so many species at risk, triage decisions cannot be made on the basis of risk alone.
Conservation biologists therefore often ask whether one species is more important than another. Ethically, perhaps one could argue that all
species are equal; an insect may have as much right to live as a panther. But in other ways, in particular. In ecological and evolutionary
importance, all species are not equal. Ecological
importance reflects the role a species plays in its ecological
community. Keystone species play large roles because they affect so many other species. Large
predators, for example, often control the population dynamics of many herbivores. When the
predators, such as wolves, are removed, the herbivore population may increase rapidly, overgrazing
plants and causing massive ecological disruption. Similarly, certain plants are crucial food for many animal species in some
ecosystems. Extinction of keystone species will often have cascading effects on many species, even
causing secondary extinctions . Many therefore argue that saving keystone species should be a priority.
2NC Spills Impact Module
Offshore exemptions risk catastrophic oil spills
Hartsig-Artic Program Director for Ocean Conservancy, 2011
16 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 269
ARTICLE: SHORTCOMINGS AND SOLUTIONS: REFORMING THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS FRAMEWORK IN THE WAKE OF THE
DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER
4. Eliminating the Use of Categorical Exclusions for OCS Drilling Activities Under
NEPA regulations, categorical exclusions
are appropriate only for those actions that "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment." 272 BOEM, however, created categorical exclusions for actions that
can and do have significant effects on the environment. For example, BOEM created a categorical exclusion for the
"[a]pproval of an offshore lease or unit exploration[,] development/production plan[,] or a Development Operation Coordination Document in
the central or western Gulf of Mexico." 273 The
categorical exclusion was inapplicable to plans or documents that
presented particularly high risks, such as facilities in areas that posed a "high seismic risk" or that used
"new or unusual technology." 274 Nonetheless, BOEM used the categorical exclusion to justify its
decision to approve--without preparing an EA or EIS--BP's plan to use an oil rig floating in nearly 5,000
feet of water to drill an exploration well that would penetrate roughly two-and-a-half miles below the seabed. 275 The impacts
associated with even normal drilling operations include noise, air, and water pollution, as well as
increased vessel and air traffic. 276 When BP lost control of the Macondo well and the Deepwater
Horizon burst into flames on April 20, 2010, it demonstrated graphically something that should have been
obvious all along: all OCS drilling activities carry with them the potential for a catastrophic oil spill .
Given [*311] the actual and potential impacts of OCS drilling operations, it is unreasonable to assume-as BOEM did--that such operations do not have a significant effect on the human environment. As a
result, OCS drilling operations are not eligible to be categorically excluded from environmental review
under NEPA. 277 BOEM should revise its Department Manual to eliminate categorical exclusions for OCS drilling activities. In the
future, all OCS drilling activities should be subject to some level of site-specific NEPA analysis, either an EA or EIS.
Resiliency does not apply to Gulf Coast ecosystems—another spill will destroy marine
biodiversity.
Craig, 2011 (Robin Kundis Craig, Attorneys’ Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs, Florida State
University College of Law, Tallahassee, Florida, 12/20/11 “Legal Remedies for Deep Marine Oil Spills and Long-Term Ecological Resilience: A
Match Made in Hell” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906839)
ecosystems can exist in multiple states rather than
stabilizing around a single equilibrium state; as a result, changes anddisturbances can “push” ecosystems
over thresholds from one ecosystem state to another.146 This second sense of resilience “assumes multiple states (or ‘regimes’) and is defined as the
magnitude of a disturbance that triggers a shift between alternative states.” 147 For example, the boreal forests of Canada can
exist in at least two states with respect to spruce budworms: a “no outbreak” state“characterized by low numbers of budworm and
young, fastgrowing trees,” and an “outbreak” state “characterized by high numbers of budworm and old, senescent trees.”148 T he shift
between the two appears to relate to an increase in canopy volume, which in turn affects bird populations and the birds’
Importantly, however, the second aspect of resilience theory acknowledges that
ability to control the pest.149 Regime-shift models can also help to explain outbreaks of some human diseases.150 However, natural resources law and policy
generally do not acknowledge this second sense of resilience, and, as a result, it generally does not incorporate mechanisms for acknowledging, responding to, or
even trying to avoid ecological regime shifts. Finally, resilience theory also acknowledges “the
surprising and discontinuous nature of
change, such as the collapse of fish stock or the sudden outbreak of spruce budworms in forests.”151 In other words, t he long-time persistence
of an ecosystem (or collection of multiple ecosystems) like the Gulf of Mexico in an apparently stable,
productive ecosystem state is absolutely no guarantee that humans can continue to disturb and abuse
the system and expect only a gradual or linear response. As was true for the second sense of resilience, natural resource law in
general and marine resources law in particular do not deal well with the possibility of sudden and dramatic ecosystem changes. Nevertheless, such regime shifts
have been documented for a number of marine ecosystems. For example, In Jamaica, the effects of overfishing, hurricane damage, and disease have combined to
destroy most corals, whose abundance has declined from more than 50 percent in the late 1970s to less than 5 percent today. A dramatic phase shift has occurred,
producing a system dominated by fleshy macroalgae (more than 90 percent cover). Immediate implementation of management procedures is necessary to avoid
further catastrophic damage.152Similarly, the presence or absence of sea otters can significantly influence the structure and function of Alaskan kelp forests
because the otters, when present, control sea urchin populations, allowing for more extensive coral growth.153 In some locations, moreover, “sea urchin
population changes in response to sea otter predation were rapid and extreme” and could result in “short-term changes in kelp density.”154The current law, policy,
and remedy regime for
offshore oil drilling effectively presumes that marine ecosystems have virtually
unlimited first-sense resilience with respect to oil spills—in crudest terms, that restoration will always be possible, and perhaps
even through entirely natural means.155 Our experience with the last large oil spill in U.S. waters, however, suggests
otherwise. More than twenty years before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, on March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William
Sound, Alaska, spilling approximately eleven million gallons of crude oil.156 Although the oil eventually affected about 1300 miles of Alaskan coastline,157 it is
important to remember that, in the context of the Deepwater Horizon spill, the
Exxon Valdez was a relatively simple—and
relatively small—surface release of oil. Even so, more than twenty years later, according to NOAA,
“While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain
in some locations, and there is evidence that some damage is continuing.”158 More specifically, NOAA reports that, overall, the Prince
William Sound ecosystem has proven resilient in the first sense—it has been able to absorb most
changes and persist in function and relationships.159Nevertheless, NOAA has also cautioned that “impacts
from the spill remain”: � Deeply penetrated oil continues to visibly leach from a few beaches, such as Smith Island. � In some areas, intertidal animals,
such as mussels, are still contaminated by oil, affecting not only the mussels but any animals (including people) that eat them. � Some rocky sites that were stripped
of heavy plant cover by high-pressure, hot-water cleaning remain mostly bare rock. � Rich clam beds that suffered high mortalities from oil and extensive beach
cleaning have not re-colonized to their previous levels.160 Notably,
NOAA concludes that “Prince William Sound has made a
remarkable recovery from a severe injury, but it remains an ecosystem in transition.”161In other words, twenty
years after a major surface spill of oil, Prince William Sound has not fully recovered and, indeed, may never do so. Its
first-sense resilience to oil spills is incomplete,or at least operates over substantial time scales, and we may eventually find
(or decide) that ecological communities within the Sound have in fact experienced resilience in the second
sense: an ecological regime shift. As one possible example, NOAA reports that “[b]eginning in 1990, scientists saw the cover of rockweed
increase steadily at oiled sites— until 1994, that is. From 1994 through 1995, there appeared to be a noticeable decline in cover, especially at sites that had been
oiled.”162 While scientists are still searching for an explanation, the three candidates—a disruption in the normal mix of rockweed ages, an explosion in the
populations of grazers such as periwinkle snails, or a longer-term toxic effect of the oil163—all suggest
that the oil spill may have induced
(or at least threatened) a regime shift. These results suggest that we should be very concerned for the
Gulf ecosystems affected by the Macondo well blowout. First, and as this Article has emphasized throughout, unlike the Exxon Valdez spill, the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill occurred at great depth, and the oil behaved unusually compared to oil released on the surface. Second, considerably more toxic dispersants were
used in connection with the Gulf oil spill than the Alaska oil spill.164 Third, humans could intervene almost immediately to begin cleaning the rocky substrate in
Prince William Sound, but human intervention for many of the important affected Gulf ecosystems, especially the deepwater ones (but even for shallower coral
reefs), remains impossible. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the
Prince William Sound was and remains a far less
stressed ecosystem than the Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, for example, NOAA stated that “[d]espite the remaining impacts of the [still then]
largest oil spill in U.S. history, Prince William Sound remains a relatively pristine, productive and biologically rich ecosystem.”165 To be sure, the Sound was not
completely unstressed, and “[w]hen the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in March 1989, the Prince William Sound ecosystem was also responding to at least three
notable events in its past: an unusually cold winter in 1988–89; growing populations of reintroduced sea otters; and a 1964 earthquake.”166 Nevertheless, the
Gulf of Mexico is besieged by environmental stressors at another order of magnitude (or two),
reducing its resilience to disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As the Deepwater Horizon Commission detailed at length, the Gulf
faces an array of long-term threats, from the loss of protective and productive wetlands along the
coast to hurricanes to a growing “dead zone” (hypoxic zone) to sediment starvation to sealevel rise to
damaging channeling to continual (if smaller) oil releases from the thousands of drilling operations.167 In the
face of this plethora of stressors, even the Commission championed a kind of resilience thinking, recognizing that responding to the oil spill alone was not enough. It
equated restoration of the Gulf to “restored resilience,” arguing that it “represents an effort to sustain these diverse, interdependent activities [fisheries, energy,
and tourism] and the environment on which they depend for future generations.”168
2NC Impact Run Generic
Each instance increases the risk of extinction- evaluate linear risk of net benefit
Major David N. Diner, U.S. Army, 94 [“The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. 143
Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994, LEXIS]
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and
the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each
new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction
increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may
be edging closer to the abyss.
The net benefit accesses the case and not the other way around---environmental
degradation is the root cause of all conflict
Foster, 2000 (Gregory Foster, civilian professor at the National Defense University, September 2000, http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/china-environmental-dragon.pdf)
It has now been more than two decades since the Worldwatch Institute’s Lester Brown first issued a plea to adopt a new and more robust conception of national security attuned to the
threats to security, he argued even then, now may arise less from relations between nations than from
man’s relations with nature—dwindling reserves of critical resources, for example, or the deterioration of earth’s biological systems:
The military threat to national security is only one of many that governments must now address. The numerous new threats derive directly or indirectly from the
rapidly changing relationship between humanity and the earth’s natural systems and resources. The unfolding stresses in this
relationship initially manifest themselves as ecological stresses and resource scarcities. Later they
translate into economic stresses—inflation, unemployment, capital scarcity, and monetary instability. Ultimately, these economic stresses convert
into social unrest and political instability.1 Brown was followed—cautiously at first—by others who recognized the need not only to expand the bounds of
contemporary world. The
national security thinking and discourse, but to take particular account of environmental concerns in such deliberations. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, then affiliated with the World Resources
Institute, argued, for example: “
Global developments now suggest the need for . . . [a] broadening definition of national
security to include resource, environmental and demographic issues.”2 One of the most powerful observations made to date—one that could be judged, in equal measure, as either
visionary or hyperbolic—is that by writer-analyst Milton Viorst, who argues that “population and environment . . . seem the obvious sources of the
next wave of wars, perhaps major wars.”3…CONTINUES…Where Homer-Dixon is especially insightful is in leading us in the direction of the most powerful
counterargument that can be made to resolute critics of environmental causation. He says that whereas, on first analysis, the main causes of civil strife
appear to be social disruptions (e.g., poverty, migrations, ethnic tension, institutional breakdown), in reality scarcities
of renewable resources, including water, fuelwood, cropland and fish, can precipitate these disruptions and thereby powerfully
contribute to strife. By broadening his formulation, we may posit the existence of a more general masking
phenomenon by which ostensibly political and economic causes of unrest, violence, conflict, and destabilization (e.g., political
repression; economic deprivation, exploitation, and dislocation) actually may mask underlying, less visible, less discernible
environmental sources of dissatisfaction, discontent, and alienation (e.g., diminished quality of life; threats to safety and well-being).
Eco collapse causes extinction
Jayawardena, 2009 (Asitha, London South Bank University, “We Are a Threat to All Life on Earth”, Indicator, 7-17, http://www.indicator.org.uk/?p=55)
Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) explain in detail why the natural environment is so important for life on Earth. It is from the environment that the living organisms of all species import the
energy and raw material required for growth, development and reproduction. In almost all ecosystems plants, the most important primary producers, carry out photosynethesis, capturing
sunlight and storing it as chemical energy. They absorb nutrients from their environment. When herbivores (i.e. plant-eating animals or organisms) eat these plants possessing chemical energy,
matter and energy are transferred ‘one-level up.’ The same happens when predators (i.e. animals of a higher level) eat these herbivores or when predators of even higher levels eat these
predators. Therefore, in ecosystems, food webs transfer energy and matter and various organisms play different roles in sustaining these transfers. Such transfers are possible due to the
remarkable similarity in all organisms’ composition and major metabolic pathways. In fact all organisms except plants can potentially use each other as energy and nutrient sources; plants,
however, depend on sunlight for energy. Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) further reveal two key principles governing the biosphere with respect to the transfer of energy and matter in
ecosystems. Firstly, the energy flow in ecosystems from photosynthetic plants (generally speaking, autotrophs) to non-photosynthetic organisms (generally speaking, heterotrophs) is
essentially linear. In each step part of energy is lost to the ecosystem as non-usable heat, limiting the number of transformation steps and thereby the number of levels in a food web.
Secondly, unlike the energy flow, the matter flow in ecosystems is cyclic. For photosynthesis plants need carbon dioxide as well as minerals and sunlight. For the regeneration of carbon dioxide
plants, the primary producers, depend on heterotrophs, who exhale carbon dioxide when breathing. Like carbon, many other elements such as nitrogen and sulphur flow in cyclic manner in
ecosystems. However, it is photosynthesis, and in the final analysis, solar energy that powers the mineral cycles. Ecosystems are under threat and so are we Although it seems that a continued
energy supply from the sun together with the cyclical flow of matter can maintain the biosphere machinery running forever, we should not take things for granted, warn Sloep and Van DamMieras (1995). And they explain why. Since the beginning of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago, organisms have evolved and continue to do so today in response to environmental
changes. However, the overall picture of materials (re)cycling and linear energy transfer has always remained unchanged. We could therefore safely assume that this slowly evolving system
will continue to exist for aeons to come if large scale infringements are not forced upon it, conclude Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995). However, according to them, the present day
infringements are large enough to upset the world’s ecosystems and, worse still, human activity is mainly responsible for these infringements. The rapidity of the human-induced changes is
particularly undesirable. For example, the development of modern technology has taken place in a very short period of time when compared with evolutionary time scales – within decades or
human activity is
capable of making the collapse of web of life on which both humans and non-human life forms depend for their
existence. For Laszlo (1989: 34), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), modern human is ‘a serious threat to the future of humankind’. As Raven
(2002) observes, many life-support systems are deteriorating rapidly and visibly. Elaborating on human-induced large scale
infringements, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) warn that they can significantly alter the current patterns of energy transfer and
materials recycling, posing grave problems to the entire biosphere. And climate change is just one of them! Turning to a key source of
centuries rather than thousands or millions of years. Their observations and concerns are shared by a number of other scholars. Roling (2009) warns that
this crisis, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995: 37) emphasise that, although we humans can mentally afford to step outside the biosphere, we are ‘animals among animals, organisms among
organisms.’ Their perception on the place of humans in nature is resonated by several other scholars. For example, Maiteny (1999) stresses that we humans are part and parcel of the
ecosphere. Hartmann (2001) observes that the modern stories (myths, beliefs and paradigms) that humans are not an integral part of nature but are separate from it are speeding our own
demise. Funtowicz and Ravetz (2002), in Weaver and Jansen (2004: 7), criticise modern science’s model of human-nature relationship based on conquest and control of nature, and highlight a
more desirable alternative of ‘respecting ecological limits, …. expecting surprises and adapting to these.’
AT: Technology Has Changed
We are still using the same flawed tech that caused the BP spill
Banerjee, 2014 (Neela, latimes reporter citing the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, “Flawed drilling gear still in
use after BP oil spill, board says” 6/6 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gulf-spill-20140606-story.html)
Design problems with a blowout prevention system contributed to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig
disaster, and the same equipment is still commonly used in drilling four years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
according to a report issued by the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The board concluded that the "blowout
preventer" — a five-story-tall series of seals and valves that was supposed to shear the drill pipe and short-circuit the explosion — failed
for reasons the oil industry did not anticipate and has not fully corrected. Despite improved regulation of deep-water drilling since
the disaster, the board found that problems persist in oil and gas companies' offshore safety systems. "This results in potential
safety gaps
in U.S. offshore operations and
leaves open the possibility of another similar catastrophic
accident ," said Cheryl MacKenzie, lead investigator of the safety board inquiry. The blowout of BP's Macondo well in April 2010 killed 11
men and spewed nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the worst offshore oil disaster in United States history. Several
federal commissions have investigated the missteps that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the days and hours leading up to the
explosion, which investigators said had its roots in corporate mismanagement and inadequate government oversight of the oil industry. The
chemical safety board, which examines industrial accidents but lacks regulatory authority, focused its inquiry on the blowout preventer and
safety practices. The blowout preventer, or BOP, sits on the ocean floor below the drilling rig. The drilling pipe from the platform runs through
the blowout preventer into the earth and toward the oil and gas deposits. If
oil or gas, which is under high pressure underground,
accidentally comes up the well bore and pipe, the blowout preventer is supposed to cut off the flow higher up to the
platform. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, the lower valves in the blowout preventer closed, letting pressure continue to build, which
eventually bent the drill pipe, the safety board study found. The
preventer,
last line of defense, a "blind shear ram" device inside the blowout
could not cut the pipe effectively , and "actually punctured the buckled, off-center pipe, sending huge additional
volumes of oil and gas surging toward the surface," the safety board said in the report released Thursday. Since the spill, at least one company,
GE Oil and Gas, has designed a new blowout preventer that can cut a similarly bent pipe, but many rigs continue to use the same equipment
found at Deepwater Horizon, the report said. "The
failed design of the blowout preventer has not been addressed , and
many existing rigs rely on the same design that failed on Deepwater Horizon," said Jackie Savitz, vice president of U.S.
oceans at Oceana, an environmental group. "At the same time, measures that could truly prevent spills, or improve spill response, were passed
over." The American Petroleum Institute and the Interior Department, which oversees offshore drilling, countered the report, asserting that
considerable improvements had been made to offshore safety practices after the gulf oil spill.
AT: Drilling is Safe
Most recent evidence concludes that there is still a risk – even if safety measures are
in place accidents can still occur – that’s southern environment law.
New deepwater drilling uniquely risky
Houck-prof law Tulane, 2010 24 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1 Worst Case and the DEEPWATER HORIZON Blowout: There Ought To Be a
Law
The facts are that deepwater drilling is a new and inherently risky operation , pushing the envelope of
technology and engineering. 9 Sea floor responses, when things go wrong, are described as "open
heart [*3] surgery at 5,000 feet in the dark." 10 The risks magnify with ocean depth, not exceeding 10,000 feet, to environments
that human beings cannot even access to see, can manipulate only with probes and robots, and to temperatures that freeze gasses and render
the management of fluids and machinery an order of magnitude more challenging. 11 The
risks also magnify with the number
of times they are taken; and the deepwater business is booming. The offshore Gulf and Alaska, thought to be the last
great oil plays in America, have seen a fifty percent increase in proven discoveries in recent years. 12 Shallow water drilling is declining. 13 Gulf
deepwater production boomed from 17 to 141active wells over the last decade; most
current leases are at 1000 feet or more
and nearly half of the new discoveries push 5000 feet or beyond. 14 This is where the riser from the BP-leased rig met
the ocean floor to begin drilling, yet continued four more miles down through sediments and frozen methane hydrates, a serious hazard in their
own right. 15 One explanation of the BP disaster could simply be called "risk creep," an activity that began more than a century ago on shore
and in low impact conditions. The activity moved gradually into more sensitive Gulf wetlands and then open water, at ever greater depths that,
like the differentiation of species, at no time presented something so radically different that we recognized we had a new animal. We had gone
from technology circa World War I to something more like nuclear power plants, without accepting that it required a more armored approach.
Little in the portfolio of BP, other industry members, or federal regulators puts a premium on
exposing risks and slowing things down. As a former Minerals Management Service (MMS) Gulf Coast director recently
explained, apparently in his own defense, his marching orders were to [*4] "expedite" offshore drilling, which he translated as "let the good
times roll" (his words). 16 An evangelist for aggressive production, he dismissed the prospect of catastrophic failure as "impossible" (the
evaluation came from the head of his engineering team, who was later fired for accepting gifts from an oil company and lying on his ethics
form). 17 British Petroleum, for its part, under the transparently deceptive slogan "Beyond Petroleum," had invested $ 39 billion on new oil and
gas exploration over just the previous three years; it had spent only 0.05% of this amount, $ 20 million, on research and development for
accident prevention and response. 18
Nothing has changed since DWH---the next spill will be just as catastrophic
Savitz, 2012 (Jacqueline Savitz Vice President, North American Oceans at Oceana “Industry Won't Make Drilling Safe”
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-more-can-be-done-to-ensur.php)
The idea that offshore drilling safety and spill response have substantially improved is little more than
a figment of some people’s imagination. In the question above, Michael Bromwich acknowledges that during the Deepwater
Horizon disaster (DWH) safeguards were not effective, preparation was not adequate, and response tools
were little better than they were 20 years ago. But what has really changed in the past two years? Sadly, not enough.
Even the question itself, what the industry (private sector) can do to reduce risks, misses the point because it sidelines the needed government
action to scale back drilling given the lack of sufficient safety and response options. Not to mention the lack of private sector solutions. Let’s
look at the categories on the list: safeguards, preparations and response tools. Safeguards have barely changed. The last line of defense at the
wellhead, the heavily relied upon blowout preventer (BOP), turns out to be flawed by design according to Det Norsk Veritas – not just the one
on the Deepwater Horizon, but possibly the rest. Did the private sector fix that problem? Have BOPs been redesigned to be effective and
replaced? No and no. So, there’s something the
private sector could do, or rather should have done before resuming drilling. But it
hasn’t been required and dangerous deep water drilling is already back in full swing. There are new testing
and maintenance regulations for BOPs, but they don’t fix the underlying design flaw. So that means we need real improvements in the second
category: preparations. Is industry more prepared now? Of course they are, just ask them. Their exploration plans brag about response times in
days now, rather than the months that we are accustomed to. According to BP, if DWH happened again, it could plug a well in 2-3 weeks, much
faster than the 3 months it took them last time. But what changed? Well, this
time we are to assume the capping device
will work -- except we really don’t know that. Just because it eventually worked on DWH doesn’t
mean it will work next time on a different blowout with a differently oriented pipe or even a damaged wellhead. Maybe
if the companies offered to pre-drill relief wells, then they could credibly promise a faster response.
But the private sector isn’t offering that, and again, government hasn’t required it . So be ready for another 3month ordeal. That takes us to response. It’s impossible to fully respond to a major spill. The DWH caused tremendous impacts on marine life
and coastal economies. And the response tools are not much better now than they were 2 or even 20 years ago. We still rely on booms that
don’t really work, and surface burns that may remove about 5% of the oil. And then there are always toxic dispersants that can be used to hide
the problem, though they create new problems. As a result, the
next spill will look like 2010 all over again. Response is
little more than damage control. To be clear, Oceana doesn’t agree that safety, preparations or response capabilities have been
measurably improved or that the private sector will take the initiative to make meaningful changes without government mandates. When the
magnitude of risks are as large as those of offshore oil and gas drilling, the investments in safety have to be equally large otherwise drilling will
simply continue to be unsafe. That is why we believe we can’t rely on the goodness of corporations, and that we
need to move away
from offshore drilling and start now to replace its contribution to our energy mix with options that are
safer and offer us a better future.
AT: Incentive to be Safe
And, there is an incentive to spill---they don’t have to pay anything
Greenstone, 2010 (Michael Greenstone Director, The Hamilton Project and Senior Fellow “A Built-In Incentive for Oil Spills”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/06/03-oil-greenstone)
law creates incentives for spills . In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, the 1990 Oil Pollution Act capped
firms' liability for economic damages from oil spills at $75 million, not adjusted for inflation and in addition
to all removal costs. Any economic damages beyond this are covered by a government-funded Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, which has a per-incident spending cap of $1 billion for expeditious oil removal and uncompensated damages. The
Existing
rub here is that the $75 million cap on liabilities for economic damages now protects oil companies from full responsibility for damages. This
misalignment of incentives is a classic case of moral hazard. Firms or people behave differently when they are protected from risk. Consider
that oil companies make decisions about where to drill, and which safety equipment to use, based on benefit-cost analyses of the impact on
their bottom line. For example, in choosing a location, oil companies assess whether the expected value of the oil exceeds the costs. These
costs include equipment used and wages paid employees. But they also include the expected payouts for potential spill damages to shorelines,
local economies and the environment. So the cap inevitably distorts the way companies evaluate their risk. Locations
where damages from a spill may be costly — for example, places near coasts or in sensitive environmental areas — seem more attractive for
drilling with the cap than if firms actually were responsible for all damages. The
cap effectively subsidizes drilling in the very
locations where the damages from spills would be the greatest. Further in all drilling locations, it reduces the
incentives for investing in the best safety equipment or using the safest, but time-consuming,
methods . While an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 gallons of oil are pouring into the Gulf each day, the jury is still out on the spill's total
economic damage. If the "top kill" approach had stopped the spill, one Wall Street analyst estimated that the economic damages would be
approximately $8 billion. This is more than 100 times the cap. Now, with top kill's failure, even this estimate may be too low. Without
the
distortions created by the cap, it is unclear whether BP and its partners would ever have drilled at the
Deepwater Horizon location. It seems possible, though, that they would have been far more careful in
inspecting the blow-out preventers and other emergency units to provide a greater safety net against
their own liability .
AT: Oversight Solves
No oversight---even if there is it is not close to adequate
Abraham, 2010 (David S. Abraham, who oversaw offshore programs at the White House Office of Management and Budget from
2003 to 2005, is an incoming international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “A Disaster Congress Voted For”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/opinion/14abraham.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=david%20abraham&st=cse)
There’s no question that each of these deserves blame. But there’s also no question that the responsibility for developing safe offshore
operations extends much further, to Congress itself. For more than a decade, legislators
have allowed themselves to be
lulled by industry assurances that drilling in deep water posed little danger. One could say that
Congress, just like the companies it has attacked, was obsessed with oil. Before the spill, Congress had not
debated regulatory safety on wells in the gulf since the 1990s, and when it did, lawmakers focused on how to drill for more oil — which, after
all, meant more jobs and more federal revenue for pet projects. In a 1995 attempt to encourage more exploration, Congress agreed to reduce
the cut of the proceeds the government could collect on oil and gas drilling in deep waters. Ten years later, despite higher oil prices and
declarations from President George W. Bush that more incentives were not needed, a Republican-led Congress reduced royalties yet again. And
in a sign of how money had influenced and distorted the debate, throughout the last decade the Louisiana Congressional delegation, for a time
including the state’s current governor, Bobby Jindal, backed expanded offshore drilling so that Congress could use proceeds to pay for coastal
damage caused by oil-and-gas operations. In 2006 the delegation supported legislation giving a share of federal royalties to states that allowed
drilling in federal waters off their coasts, essentially using national revenue to encourage more exploration. At
the same time that
Congress called for new drilling incentives, it also gutted oversight . From 2002 to 2008, legislators approved
budgets reducing regulatory staffing levels by more than 15 percent — despite more complex deep-water operations and Interior Department
concerns, voiced in 2000, that industry’s extensive use of contractors and inexperienced offshore workers posed new risks in deep water. It’s
not as if Congress didn’t know the risks. Its own research arm, which issues frequent spill-response readiness assessments, has repeatedly cited
a 2004 Coast Guard study finding that its “oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the equipment
required to support salvage or spill clean-up operations.” Nevertheless, lawmakers
failed to act aggressively to ensure
adequate oversight. To be fair, Congress wasn’t alone. The same criticism could be leveled at many environmental groups, which were
far more interested in maintaining the exploration moratoriums in federal waters than in the safety of ongoing offshore activity. This focus on
stopping new drilling — instead of on keeping the water clean — helped give Interior the space to cater to oil companies. As a result, regulatory
proposals often received fewer than 10 public comments, mostly from industry, resulting in rules more favorable to it. It’s also true that the
previous administration deserves a good share of the blame for its myopic focus on production. The 2001 President’s National Energy Policy
directed agencies to increase oil supplies and to remove regulations that were often seen as “excessive and redundant.” Meanwhile,
the
Interior Department became an industry cheerleader. The attention on output was so great that the
department’s head of offshore drilling boasted about how he “oversaw a 50 percent rise in oil
production,” a misguided accomplishment for a regulator. Nor is the Obama White House off the hook: despite requesting a few extra
regulators, the current administration also failed to address underlying organizational dysfunction.
Midterm Politics DA
Energy is a dividing factor for the GOP
Schor and Juliano, 2014 (Elana and Nick, E and E publishing news, 6/12/2014 “Contenders for GOP leadership balance different
energy interests at home -- though agendas are largely the same” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001179)
The House leadership battles launched by the fall of departing Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) could
exert unexpected influence over the GOP's approach to energy, pitting red states against blue states and
coal-burners against natural gas users.
To be sure, much can change in the seven days before Republicans are set to choose their next majority
leader and majority whip. But for now, the energy-policy dynamic among the quintet of likely leadership
contenders is subtle, going beyond the anti-U.S. EPA, pro-drilling unity of the Republican conference to
touch on personalities as well as the fuel profiles of individual districts.
Sitting Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose state has no coal mining and gets two-thirds of
its electricity from natural gas, is facing possible challenges for majority leader from Reps. Jeb Hensarling
and Pete Sessions of Texas, where coal provides nearly one-third of power generation. The whip's race is
poised to become a face-off between Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a champion of his state's offshore
drilling industry, and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), an anti-subsidy conservative from a purple district.
The stated policy differences among the candidates jockeying for place in a shaken-up Republican
conference -- where the anticipated exit of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) within less than three years
means that Cantor's successor could soon be third in line for the presidency -- are "very minimal," as
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) put it in an interview yesterday.
But what Franks termed the "significant irony" of scant policy daylight between McCarthy and the
Texans, as well as between Scalise and Roskam, also highlights what the Arizonan called the value of
"personality" and "emphasis." On that score, Hensarling or Sessions could emerge as a more muscular
pro-fossil fuel alternative to McCarthy.
The majority leader's race opens up "a pretty big conversation about who's been tougher on EPA," said
one GOP lobbyist close to leadership, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity.
McCarthy, the lobbyist added, is "consistently a fly in the ointment when it comes time to peck at EPA or
do something on [energy] subsidies, something on" riders blocking the Obama administration from
considering the social cost of carbon emissions when crafting future regulations.
Of the five most prominent leadership candidates, McCarthy is the only one whose district is home to a
substantial amount of renewable energy generation.
Before Cantor's Capitol-quaking loss Tuesday to conservative challenger David Brat, a college professor
and open skeptic of human-caused climate change, House Republicans already had made expansion of
oil and gas drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline into essential planks of their political foundation.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans see that reality changing.
"The message that we need more energy is so strong that I don't think any Republican leader is going to
downplay that, no matter where they're from," Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said in an interview
yesterday.
But if Republicans decide to add more oil-patch, red-state flavor to a leadership slate that previously
hailed from Ohio, Virginia, California and Washington, the degree to which domestic fossil fuels
dominate the party's agenda ultimately could shift even further away from renewable-energy goals that
are supported in both parties.
Even if a plum slot goes to Roskam, whose district President Obama won in 2008, the GOP lobbyist close
to leadership predicted that challenging the White House's environmental priorities would rise even
higher on the agenda.
"It's easy to be pro-production and hard on EPA if you're from Texas or Louisiana -- it's a lot harder if
you're from suburban Chicago," the GOP lobbyist said of Roskam. "That doesn't go unnoticed."
Ahead of next week's GOP leadership elections, which must be restaged in January, E&E Daily has
compiled profiles of the energy makeup in each likely candidate's home district.
Majority leader
McCarthy's district includes a slice of the San Joaquin Basin -- the state's most prolific oil reserve -- and a
cluster of wells. The district features more than a dozen natural gas plants, with a total capacity
exceeding 2,400 megawatts. The largest is a 965 MW facility owned by La Paloma Generating Co. LLC.
On the border of McCarthy's district are two coal plants with a total 66 MW capacity.
Hundreds of wind turbines spin across the Tehachapi Pass and elsewhere in the district, including the
Alta Wind Energy Center, one of the nation's largest wind farms with a capacity exceeding 1,500 MW. A
handful of solar projects also pepper the area, with a capacity of more than 130 MW. The district
contains at least 152 MW of hydropower and a 42 MW wood power plant.
Clusters of oil and gas wells dot Hensarling's district, which overlies part of the East Texas Basin. But
activity is not as intense as elsewhere in the state, which led the nation in oil and gas production last
year.
The district includes no renewable installations aside from a 3 MW biomass plant on its border near the
Dallas suburbs. Its largest power plant is the 1,760 MW Forney Energy Center outside Dallas, and a few
other large gas plants dot its borders. The district is home to at least four natural gas processing plants
but no oil refineries.
Sessions' Dallas-area district borders a piece of Hensarling's much more sprawling territory, and it lacks
much energy activity. Luminant Generation's 907 MW Lake Hubbard natural gas-fired power plant,
which sits on the border of Sessions' and Hensarling's districts, is the only major piece of energy
infrastructure in Sessions' backyard, according to an analysis of Energy Information Administration
maps.
Majority whip
Among those vying for a leadership post, Roskam's suburban Chicago district has perhaps the least
amount of energy production. It contains no major power plants, aside from a few small natural gas
facilities and one small biomass facility, and no resource extraction or renewable energy production is
conducted within its boundaries, according to EIA.
Scalise represents Louisiana's Gulf Coast, and his energy views are heavily influenced by his state's large
offshore drilling industry. Hundreds of oil and gas wells stretch from the district's shores hundreds miles
out into the Gulf of Mexico.
The district is also home to three large oil refineries, which together have a capacity to process more
than a half a million barrels per day, and it is home to three natural gas processing plants with a total
capacity of nearly 2.5 billion cubic feet per day. The few power plants in the district run mostly on
natural gas, with one oil-fired plant, but none is larger than 75 MW. No renewable energy is generated
there.
GOP Pushing for Offshore Drilling Now
GOP pushing for offshore drilling now
Cama, 6/20/2014 (Timothy, The Hill, “ GOP seeks to expand oil and gas offshore
and on public land”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/210096-gop-seeks-to-expand-oil-and-gas-offshore-and-on-public-land)
House Republicans introduced a bill to expand oil and natural gas drilling offshore and on publicly
owned land, moves they say would lower gasoline and other energy prices in the United States. The bill would force the Obama
administration to move toward offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, conduct lease sales off Virginia’s coast,
Thirteen
establish revenue sharing for offshore drilling, reform the permitting process for federal land and other changes. “In order for America to
prosper, we need access to reliable and affordable energy,” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee,
said in a Thursday statement. “The best way to create jobs and help address rising prices is to develop the American energy resources we have
right here at home.” The sponsors said the legislation aims to remove “roadblocks” to energy production. Those
roadblocks from the Obama administration have led to drops in oil and gas production both offshore and on federal land. Eighty-seven percent
of offshore area is off limits to oil and gas drilling, and Obama’s plans do not include opening more areas for production, they said.
Oil Drilling Popular
Oil has an army of lobbyist and a mountain of cash
Froomkin ’11 [4/6/11, Dan Froomkin is contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington correspondent for
the Huffington Post, “How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobbygreases_n_845720.html]
ENERGY GIANTS ANTE UP With so much public opposition, why do subsidies remain? You might as
well ask why there is no carbon tax, or why there was no significant reform legislation passed after the BP
oil spill. The answer is that one of the many things the industry can do with its fat pocketbook is
hire a veritable army of sharp lobbyists and back them up with big wads of cash in the form of campaign
donations and spending. The end result is that the industry has a remarkable ability to get its way on
Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' website, the oil and gas industry has spent more than
$1 billion on lobbying since 1998, including a jaw-dropping $147 million just last year. For comparison's
sake, $147 million is about equivalent to the total budget of 100 congressional offices. That's more than the
$103 million spent in 2010 by the financial service industry, another potent lobbying force -- but considerably less than the $240 million
spent by the pharmaceutical industry.
Among major industries, Opensecrets.org ranked Big Oil fifth in terms
of lobbying dollars spent, behind only Big Pharma, electric utilities, business associations and insurance. The oil and gas
industry used its $147 million to employ 788 individual lobbyists in 2010 -- some 500 (or almost
two thirds) of whom, according to Opensecrets.org, are former federal employees who came
through the revolving door particularly well versed in the ways of government. All told, that's well
more than one oil and gas lobbyist per member of Congress out there on the Hill arming allies with talking
points and briefing books, spinning the undecided and pressuring the opposition. And there's more of them every
year. Consider the trendlines. As recently as 2004, the oil and gas industry spent about $52 million
a year in lobbying; by 2009, that figure was up to $175 million -- or a 300 percent increase in just five
years. The industry backs up its extraordinary lobbying effort with lavish spending on political
campaigns. Candidates associated with oil and gas companies made about $15 million in direct
campaign donations during the 2010 mid-term election cycle ($26 million during the 2008 presidential cycle). The industry
was also responsible for more than $10 million in donations through its political action
committees, or PACs, in the 2010 cycle. The trendlines are notable here, as well. In the early ’90s, oil and gas campaign spending
favored Republicans over Democrats by about a 2 to 1 margin: For every $1 the industry gave to Democrats, it gave
Republicans $1.78. But starting in the 1996 election cycle (think Al Gore), that changed dramatically.
Now, for every $1 the industry gives Democrats, it gives Republicans about $3.35. Among the top oil and
gas industry donors in the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil head the list. And Opensecrets.org's top 20 list of oil and gas money
recipients is 4 to 1 Republican. In addition to contributions to individuals and PACs, there's the whole new world of spending opportunities
opened up by recent Supreme Court rulings that essentially blew a hole through the post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Super
PACs are groups that can now accept unlimited contributions, though they must disclose their
contributors. Opensecrets.org calculates that companies with interests in the energy sector
combined to give more than $5.6 million to Super PACs in the 2010 cycle. Former Bush political guru Karl
Rove's American Crossroads group, for one such Super PAC. Itspent $21 million on political advertising in the 2010 cycle; oil and gas
interests contributed just over $3 million of that amount. The
recent court rulings also opened the way for
nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns -- and unlike the
Super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors. All they have to do is report how much they spent. These
groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reported $140 million in campaign spending in the 2010 cycle, the vast majority of which
There's no way to know how much of that money came from Big Oil.
Adding yet more firepower to its lobbyists’ arsenal, API announced last month that it will start
funding political campaigns directly through a new PAC of its own -- in addition to what its member
organizations give already. "API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates, " said
went to support conservative causes.
its spokesman, Durbin. "We're always looking at ways to improve the way we do our jobs here. This just adds one more tool to leverage
our ability to get the point across about the critical nature of this industry."
Plan Unpopular – Old
Democrats don’t like exports – environment
The New Mexican 9/28/12 (“Go slow on allowing natural gas exports”
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/092812FRIedit)
So successful is natural gas production that a
new debate is bubbling up — whether to allow the export of liquefied
natural gas overseas. That can’t happen without approval from the U.S. Department of Energy, with a decision on applications for
export unlikely until after the presidential election. The decision is shaping up to be a big political issue — a group of
20 Democrats recently petitioned DOE to do an environmental study before approving the exports.
Much of the gas is being extracted through fracking, which injects a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals to unlock natural
gas from underground rock. Its long-term effects are unknown and hotly debated . Republicans, and other Democrats
(including Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich) want the DOE to speed up the export process, citing the need for jobs.
No need for a definitive link – politicians are split and the debate is contentious – it
will drain capital
Rascoe 9/17/12 (Ayesha, “Energy Dept delays release of LNG export report http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-lngreportidUSBRE88G1E120120917?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+
Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29
But manufacturers
and some lawmakers have raised concerns that exports could increase energy costs at
home and undercut U.S. industries. "For members of Congress seeking reelection, LNG exports may
be an issue with two wrong sides," ClearView Energy Partners said in research note on Monday. Support for exports
could leave politicians open to accusations of raising natural gas prices, while opposition could lead to
charges of failing to support oil and gas jobs, the research note said.
Democrats will backlash – pricing concern
Colman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, “Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-of-natural-gas)
Democrats fear that selling more natural gas abroad would raise costs at home, and they cite an Energy
Information Administration (EIA) report that found increased exports would raise electricity bills by an average of 1 to 3 percent annually
between 2015 and 2035. They also say it could cause environmental and health hazards by ramping up exploration
through hydraulic fracturing, a process that injects a mixture of chemicals, water and sand into tight rock formations to release natural gas.
Rep. Edward Markey (Mass.), the
top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has been an
outspoken opponent of selling more liquefied natural gas to other countries. “[Rep. Markey] believes that if
we export large quantities of natural gas that we will also export jobs in manufacturing, and threaten our
economic and national security advantages from this abundant, low-cost source of domestic energy,” committee spokesman Eben BurnhamSnyder told The Hill in a statement.
Manufacturing lobby link – A. Manufacturers hate the plan
Colman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, “Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-of-natural-gas)
The EIA report concluded that the divide between low U.S. natural gas prices and higher-priced
international markets would likely narrow in the coming years. It also said investment in LNG terminals would be costly. The
manufacturing sector, which consumes large amounts of electricity, could feel the price pinch from exporting
natural gas. The American Chemistry Council told The Hill it plans to "monitor the policy and regulatory
landscape carefully" on LNG exports, stressed the importance of the energy source to U.S.
manufacturers and noted that it has not asserted LNG exports will raise prices.
Dems hate the plan – lack of environmental review and linked to fracking
Colman 9/26/12 (Zack, staffwriter, “Dems push DOE for environmental analysis of natural gas exports” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/e2-wire/258771-dems-push-doe-for-natural-gas-export-environmental-analysis-)
A group of 20 Democrats told the Energy Department on Wednesday that it should complete environmental
tests before approving liquefied natural gas (LNG) export deals. In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the signatories
expressed concern about the amount of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, needed to meet demand
for natural gas exports. Led by Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.) and Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), the lawmakers
called on DOE to conduct an environmental impact statement, as outlined under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), before approving more export deals or LNG terminal permits. “We are concerned that
exporting more LNG would lead to greater hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ activity thus threatening the health
of local residents and jobs,” the letter said. “For instance, increased natural gas production in communities
across the nation could negatively impact farmers, residents and local property values.” Fracking is the
process of injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into tight rock formations to unlock natural gas. It has been
linked to groundwater contamination and seismic activity.
Plan Saps Political Capital
Plan costs political capital
MART, 2008 Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, This section includes quotes from Andrew Spitzer, Founder of the Energy and
Power Group at Harris and Williams Co., and Douglas Korn of Irving Place Partners. “Combustible; The volatility of the energy sector has turned
the industry upside down. Top players in the space discuss what this means for investors and how dealmakers can capitalize.,” Dec 1, Lexis
But it's also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide basis. Ultimately, we
have to focus on
domestic production to help with the supply issue, and, internationally, see if we can't encourage the national oil companies to open up more acreage
for competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem.¶ Mergers & Acquisitions: Is it even possible, though, to completely
eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in our lifetime?¶ Spitzer: The
economics certainly make it extremely challenging, and frankly, without the political willpower to put in a
variety of reforms - whether it's CAFE standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors - it's not something that
would get done without some form of government intervention.¶ Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market and
the government's response have created a very difficult fiscal situation going into 2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts
and that overlays all of the government support to shore up the markets.¶ You
have to go back to the question of whether or not
there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why we have to become less reliant on foreign energy; from a
geopolitical point of view, from a carbon emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, "How do we make that happen in an environment where the
That's going to be the real challenge.¶ Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent
taxation policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are dealing with is going to be tough. Any administration would
have to burn a lot of political capital to push through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what
either candidate proposed.
government will be under some severe fiscal constraints."