Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all online gambling in the United States.
Contention 1 Is Precedent
Scenario one is REE’s
Recent WTO ruling has told China to amend REE export policies, but compliance isn’t
certain
AFP 8/8 (Chim Sau-wai- South China Morning Post contributor, and Agence FrancePresse in Geneva, 2014, “China loses appeal against WTO ruling on curbs on trade in
rare earths Trade body upholds its ruling that export restrictions on the minerals
violate rules”, http://www.scmp.com/business/commodities/article/1568966/chinaloses-appeal-against-wto-ruling-curbs-trade-rare-earths)
China says it " strongly regrets " a decision by the World Trade Organisation to uphold its ruling that the
country violated global trade rules by restricting exports of rare earth elements, used in hi-tech goods
like mobile phones and televisions. The WTO's appeal body upheld its ruling of March this year, which
found China's export restrictions - including duties, quotas and restrictions of trade rights on rare earth
elements and the metals tungsten and molybdenum - were not justifiable and breached trade rules. The
decision is final and, in principle , WTO member states are obliged to follow the ruling. "China will
carefully assess the ruling [and] continue to improve its management of resource-consuming products in a WTO-consistent manner," the Ministry of Commerce said. The ministry added that it
would "take future steps consistent with the WTO dispute settlement system requirements". China has argued that the export restrictions are related to the conservation of its natural resources, and are necessary for reducing the
pollution caused by mining. "Due to the need to protect exhaustible natural resources and the environment, the Chinese government has been enhancing its management of products that [pollute and consume resources on a
large scale]," the ministry said. But the complainants, including the United States, the European Union and Japan, said the restrictions were designed to provide Chinese industries with protected access to the materials. They
China accounts for 95 per cent of global production of rare earths, a term covering
18 metals vital for the production of smartphones, hybrid car batteries, wind turbines, steel and lowenergy light bulbs. The country is home to 23 per cent of global reserves of such metals. The WTO's appeal
body said in a report on Thursday that China had "not demonstrated that the export quotas [it] applies to various
forms of rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum are justified" and called on Beijing to fall in line with
international trade rules. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said the ruling was "another milestone in
the EU's efforts to ensure fair access to much-needed raw materials for its industries".
lodged the complaint with the WTO in 2012.
Failure of China to change export restrictions makes US lash out inevitable- results in
war and relations collapse
Parthemore 11 (Christine Parthemore, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS),
where she directs the Natural Security Program and the Natural Security Blog, prolific author, former
journalist writing for The Washington Post, Roll Call, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, MA from
Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, June 2011, “ELEMENTS OF SEUCURITY: MITIGATING
THE RISKS OF U.S. DEPENDENCE ON CRITICAL MINERALS,” Center for a New American Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf)
Minerals are a subject of much contention. On one hand, the United States remains less prepared for supply disruptions, price spikes and
trade disagreements related to the global minerals trade than most experts realize. On the other hand, public concern over reliable access
to the minerals required in key sectors of the U.S. economy, in particular those needed to produce military equipment, is growing. Too
frequently, however, such concerns are based on inaccurate assumptions. A sober and informed analysis suggests there are real
vulnerabilities, which place critical national security and foreign policy interests at risk. In worst-case scenarios, supplies of minerals that
the United States does not produce domestically may be disrupted, creating price spikes and lags in delivery. Even short of major supply
The
United States may also lose ground strategically if it continues to lag in managing mineral issues, as
disruptions, supplier countries can exert leverage over the United States by threatening to cut off certain key mineral supplies.
countries that consider assured access to minerals as far more strategically important are increasingly setting the rules for trade in this
area. China’s rising dominance is at the heart of this growing public debate. Its
2010 cutoff of rare earth elements2 – a
unique set of minerals that are difficult to process yet critical to many hightech applications – attracted particular attention. After
Japan detained a Chinese trawler captain over a skirmish in the East China Sea, Japanese companies reported weeks of stalled shipments of rare earths from China amid rumors of an
official embargo. This may sound like a minor trade dispute, but China currently controls production of about 95 percent of the world’s rare earths, which are critical to building laser-
guidance systems for weapons, refining petroleum and building wind turbines. Coinciding with possessing this incredible leverage over the rest of the world, China has also reduced its
export quotas for these minerals. For its part, the Chinese government contended that it did not put any formal export embargo in place, and that its plans to reduce exports simply reflect
the need to meet growing domestic demand for rare earths. Japan-China relations experienced further strain in their already tense relationship. In the United States, many reporters,
policy analysts and decision makers did not foresee this challenge. Feeling blindsided, some in the United States
characterized the situation in a manner that demonized China rather than using the opportunity to
better understand the true nature of U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities. The 2010 rare earths case and others are increasing interest in
critical minerals among U.S. policymakers. Congress held hearings on the strategic importance of minerals between 2007 and 2010, and the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act
required DOD to study and report on its dependence on rare earth elements for weapons, communications and other systems.3 During a 2009 hearing on minerals and milit ary readiness,
Republican Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia called minerals, “one of those things that no one really talks about or worries about until something goes wrong. It’s at that point –
the point where we don’t have the steel we need to build MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles] or the rhenium we need to build a JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] engine that the
stockpile becomes critically important.”4 In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that it would be “in our interests commercially and strategically” to find
additional sources of supply for rare earth minerals, and stated that China’s recent cuts to rare earth exports “served as a wakeup call that being so dependent on only one source, disruption
could occur for natural disaster reasons or other kinds of events could intervene.”5 In January 2011, Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Coffman,
R-Colo., wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressing concern for minerals required for producing defense equipment such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs),
which stated, “Clearly, rare earth supply limitations present a serious vulnerability to our national security. Yet early indications are that DOD has dismissed the severity of the situation
to date.”6 Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) launched a multiyear effort to explore potential vulnerabilities in supply chains for minerals that will be critical to four distinct
policymakers often focus too narrowly on what may seem the most
import dependence or scarcity – in prescribing solutions to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities, in
particular to supply disruptions in critical minerals such as rare earths. This focus is sparking protectionist attitudes , with
areas of energy technology innovation. While concern is growing, the media and
compelling indicators – usually
some worrying that import dependence poses an inherent risk to the U.S. economy. Discussion of minerals also frequently focuses on
supply scarcity and resource depletion in absolute terms. However, both the rhenium and rare earth minerals disruptions of the past five
years were triggered by deliberate decisions made by political leaders to leverage their positions of strength, not by market forces, disorder
or scarcities of these minerals. Countries
often revert to hoarding, pressuring suppliers and otherwise behaving
as if scarcities are present even when they are not, based solely on concerns that shortages are likely in the near term.
In fact, neither scarcity nor import dependence alone is sufficient to signal vulnerability, and a combination of factors including
This report, based on
two years of research, site visits and discussions with stakeholders, explores how the supply, demand and use of minerals can impair
U.S. foreign relations, economic interests and defense readiness. It examines cases of five individual minerals –
concentration of suppliers is most often required for mineral issues to become security or foreign policy problems.
lithium, gallium, rhenium, tantalum and niobium – and rare earth elements, such as neodymium, samarium and dysprosium, as a sixth
group in order to show the complexity of addressing these concerns. Each of these minerals is critical for defense technologies and U.S.
economic growth plans. They share characteristics with minerals that have caused important political or economic concerns for the United
States in the past. Additionally, lithium is frequently cited in the media and in discussions of how clean energy supply chains are critical to
meeting America’s future economic, energy and environmental goals. Within
the past five years, two of these cases – rhenium
and rare earth minerals – have involved supply disruptions or important threats of disruptions for the United
States and its allies. Each of these minerals will require federal government attention in the coming years. Pg. 6-10
War over minerals is likely- any alt to Chinese markets are guaranteed to fail
Hinten-Nooijen 10 (Dr. Annemarie Hinten-Nooijen, Professor of Economics at Tilburg University in
the Netherlands, 3/25/10, “Rare minerals – The treasures of a sustainable economy”,
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over-tilburg-university/cultuur-ensport/cwl/publicaties/beschouwingen/minerals/)
Driving a hybrid car, using energy from wind turbines or solar panels. That are choices to contribute to the transition to a sustainable
economy. Sustainability is the spearhead of many western policy plans. It is regarded as the solution to get out of the crisis. But ironically,
the raw materials that are needed for hybrid cars and wind turbines, for our technological industry as a whole,
are not that sustainable. Necessarily required minerals like neodymium and indium are rare. And they are not available in the
west, China has almost all of them. And having this position of power, China wants to use it. That is about strategy. The high-tech raw
materials play a central part in the highly industrialised high-wage countries to survive the global competition by technological excellence.
Will future wars be about minerals instead of oil, territories or water? THE BONE MARROW OF MODERN
ECONOMY Minerals are an indispensable material pillar of our current economies and societies. They are
the natural product of geological processes and occur in the crust of the planet. Only a fraction of the known minerals exists in greater
quantities. Some of these are mined, refined and processed; are broken up into their elemental components, which are recombined into
different types of materials. These
materials are used to manufacture products that form the backbone of
our modern economies: from LCD displays to fighter jets, from smart phones to electric cars. Without minerals,
industrial society and modern technology would be inconceivable. That seems unbelievable, because we hardly
hear or read about them in the media - whereas several research reports have been published recently. But imagine that by reading this
article on printed paper or at your computer screen, minerals like nickel, chromium, molybdenum, gallium, selenium, aluminium, silicon
and manganese were needed! And all these elements have to be first extracted from minerals, which in turn need to be mined from the
earth's crust. CHINA'S GREEN DEAL In recent years, the world economy has grown enormously, and many new high-tech applications
have been made. Moreover, the demand for minerals has exploded. Mining tried to meet the demand. A global
Prices have shot up, countries have
created strategic stockpiles or imposed export restrictions in order to secure supplies of these
valuable resources. Mineral scarcity concerning the industry seems to be more of an economic issue than an issue set by limited
competition between countries and companies over rare mineral resources started.
resources. Minerals are getting evermore difficult to find and costly to extract - while they are the key to advanced sustainable
technologies. Talking about sustainability seems not talking about China, because China is still building many polluting coal-fired power
plants, and the social circumstances there are poor. However, recent developments also show progress concerning sustainability. And in
a country like China these developments go faster than in many western democracies. Where we in the west talk and dawdle, they think
and act strategically. In the United States, president Obama has to explain the Americans that forms of the New Green Deal are inevitable
- like the situation in the thirties of the last century, when President Roosevelt made the so-called New Deal to reform the economy. Many
Americans do not want the government to influence the market. They radically believe in the free market. In China, by contrast, the
ideological separation between market and government does not exist. There is no Wall Street with greedy bankers, no neoconservative
Grand Old Party that dreams of the cowboy economy. Decisions are taken quickly. And besides, they have to feed one billion people and
develop a country that lived in Mao-ist poverty before. The Chinese are successful, after all, also in creating a sustainable economy: China
does not only build old polluting power stations but uses the latest technology, with CO2- catch and -storage. And they are working on
alternatives: windmills. In the next five years, they will build 100,000 windmills in the Gobi desert. Did they hate the wind in that area
before, now they consider it the new gold. In the north-west area of China, the province of Gansu, the Qilian-mountains pass into the Gobi
desert. There China is building the biggest windmill and solar panel park in the world. Six windmill parks with a capacity of ten gigawatts
each are built, making China the biggest market of technology of wind energy, defeating the United States. "Red China becomes green
China", party officials are saying. China has to grow, and so has the contribution of wind, water and sun at the energy market. This market
would be interesting for foreign investments. According to Chinese officials they are welcome and can get subsidies. But, Beijing has
decided that 70 percent of the windmills have to be made and designed in China. So it can be questioned if European and American
companies have a fair chance in tendering for a contract. China considers itself a developing country and thinks that the western countries
should contribute money to China to reduce the CO2 discharge. While America thought that energy saving is not worthwhile, China has
taken an enormous energy-technological lead. The authoritarian and undemocratic but intelligent China exposes a variant of the New Deal.
THE OPEC OF THE RARE MINERALS The example of China shows us that sustainable economy has everything to do with strategy and power.
In a few decades China has been flooding the market of rare metals. The legend goes that president Deng Xiaoping
had already predicted this in 1992, during a tour in the south of China: "They [the Mid East] have oil, but we in China have rare minerals".
Nowadays, China indeed has 95 percent of the global supply of rare minerals. How did it do that? It was a
result of good strategy: in the nineties, China flooded the world market with the rare minerals, although there was not that much demand.
The west thought it okay because getting the minerals was a very expensive production process and the environmental legislation was
very strict.
The western competitors went bankrupt and they closed their mines. China became
powerful. One of the centres of the rare mineral supply is around the city Baotou, an industrial city of two million people in Inner
Mongolia. Here the states concern exploits almost half of the world storage of neodymium. DISRUPTION OF THE MARKET The lack of raw
materials is not particularly a result of the geological availability but of disruptions in the market, because the developments of the world
wide demand for rare minerals are not recognised in time - as part of the stormy development of the Chinese economy and the expansion
of technical developments - and because the minerals occur in only a few countries. Experts have predicted that in the next few decades
the demand of neodymium will increase by a factor 3.8. China uses 60 percent of its exploitation for its own economy. What's more, the
Chinese export quota become stricter every year. What happens? Sudden peaks in the demand can lead
to speculative price movements and a disruption of the market. "2010 will be the year of the raw materials",
according to Trevor Greetham, Asset Allocation Director of Fidelity. Indium, a silver-white metal, which is not found directly in nature, but
is a residual product of thin and zinc, is used in LCD displays for TVs, computers, mobile phones, and for led lights and the ultrathin and
flexible solar panel. The price of this mineral multiplied tenfold between 2003 and 2006 from 100 to 980 Dollars per kilogram. The price of
neodymium decreased from 11.7 dollar per kilogram in 1992 to 7.4 dollar in 1996. The market volume rose. In 2006 almost all of the world
production of 137,000 tons came from China. By scaling back the export, prices rose, up to 60 dollar per kilogram in 2007. Imagine that for
a hybrid car, like the Toyota Prius or the Mercedes S 400, you need at least 500 grams of neodymium for the magnetic power of the engine;
and for the newest generation of wind turbines, the ones that are 16 meters high, you need about 1000 kilogram. That makes 60,000
dollars - for just a little bit of metal! Big business for China. At the same time, China makes further strategic investments: it took an interest
in oil and gas fields. In August 2009, PetroChina paid 41 billion dollar to gain access to an enormous field of natural gas in front of the coast
of Australia. And in September that year, it obtained a stake of 60 percent in the exploitation of fields of tar sand in Alberta, which might
hold one of the biggest oil reserves in the world. And because China considers titanium a growing market, it took an interest of 70 percent
in a titanium mine in Kenia - not only to build the Chinese 'Jumbojet', but also to provide Boeing with 2000 tons of titanium each year. By
doing so, China might beat the competition in the battle for the market in green technologies. The 'free' market can be questioned. The
mineral policies of China and the US both mention the usage of administrative barriers. These nontariff barriers involve regulations that
seek to protect the national mineral extraction industry. As a result, it is much harder for foreign companies, if not impossible, to invest
and gain a foothold in the national mineral extraction industry in these countries. The search for rare metals has become a global race: a
mine in California has also been reopened, the mine of Mountain Pass. In 2008, it was bought by a group of investors, the partnership
'Molycorp Minerals'. The process of bringing the old mines into use costs much time and money. What does this mean for us? Do we get
more dependent of China? The 'Innovationplatform' in Rotterdam planned to build a unique windmill park in the sea, further from the
coast and in the strongest sea wind than anywhere in the world. To build these windmills, we need rare minerals, the export of which is
dominated by China. Part of the project is Darwind, which designed enormous windmills for at sea. But the umbrella company, of which
Darwind is part, Econcern, was about to go bankrupt. Then, in mid-August 2009 it was saved by the, surprisingly, Chinese XEMC. THE
The transition to a sustainable economy involves underexposed
elements like deficiency in minerals and shifting balances of power. They are the ideal receipt for
geopolitical instability. The new world order will be a balance between countries that do have
particular raw materials and ones that do not. The lack of indispensable minerals sharpens the
relations in the world. The access to critical minerals is more and more an issue of national security,
THREAT OF GEOPOLITICAL INSTABILITY
concluded the 'The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies' (HCSS) in its report about the scarcity of minerals (January 2010). The US, Japan
and China are making a policy that tries to secure the supply of these raw materials. That will disturb the free market activity. HCSS thinks
that large concerns will, with support of the government, compete more intensively with each other for access to these raw materials, e.g.
by direct investments in areas rich in raw materials. Mineral scarcity will be an issue in the next decades, though it is uncertain when and
to what extent. And we have to do something because a change in supply of rare minerals directly affects our current
modern lives.
Extinction
Wittner 11 (Lawrence- Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany, huffingtonpost writer, “Is a
Nuclear War With China Possible?”, 11/30, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclearwar-china_b_1116556.html)
Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a
Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart.
Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese
government has a total inventory of roughly 300. Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States.
Surely the
United States would "win" any nuclear war with China. But what would that "victory" entail? An
attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans
in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation
poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced
to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would
blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating
worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.
Compliance failure guarantees war- cyber escalation overwhelms your defense
Anthony, 11 [12/30, Lead Editor at Ziff Davis Inc. Graduated from the University of Essex, Columnist,
Editor at AOL News, “Rare earth crisis: Innovate, or be crushed by
China”http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/111029-rare-earth-crisis-innovate-or-be-crushed-bychina/2]
The rare earth apocalypse¶ The doomsday event that everyone is praying will never come to pass, but which every Western nation is currently
planning for, is the eventual
cut-off of Chinese rare earth exports. Last year, 97% of the world’s rare earth
metals were produced in China — but over the last few years, the Chinese government has been shutting
down mines, ostensibly to save what resources it has, and also reducing the amount of rare earth that can be
exported. Last year, China produced some 130,000 tons of rare earths, but export restrictions meant that only 35,000 tons were sent to
other countries. As a result, demand outside China now outstrips supply by some 40,000 tons per year, and — as expected —
many countries are now stockpiling the reserves that they have.¶ Almost every Western country is now digging around in their backyard for
rare earth-rich mud and sand, but it’ll probably be too little too late — and anyway, due to geochemistry, there’s no guarantee that explorers
and assayers will find what they’re looking for. The
price of rare earths are already going up, and so are the non-Chinese-made
gadgets and gizmos that use them. Exacerbating the issue yet further, as technology grows more advanced, our reliance on
the strange and magical properties of rare earths increases — and China, with the world’s largest workforce and a fire
hose of rare earths, is perfectly poised to become the only real producer of solar power photovoltaic cells, computer
chips, and more.¶ In short, China has the world by the short hairs, and when combined with a hotting-up
cyber front, it’s not hard to see how this situation might devolve into World War III . The alternate, ecological
point of view, is that we’re simply living beyond the planet’s means. Either way, strategic and logistic planning to make the
most of scarce metals and minerals is now one of the most important tasks that face governments and
corporations. Even if large rare earth deposits are found soon, or we start recycling our gadgets in a big way, the only real solution is to
somehow lessen our reliance on a finite resource. Just like oil and energy, this will probably require drastic technological leaps. Instead of
reducing the amount of tantalum used in capacitors, or indium in LCD displays, we will probably have to discover completely different ways of
storing energy or displaying images. My money’s on graphene.
Scenario 2 is the Auto Industry
China reluctant to comply with WTO auto-tariff ruling
South China Morning Post 5/25 (2014, “WTO rules China's duties on US cars after
federal bailout broke trade rules Tariffs were imposed after Washington's bailout of
companies during the global financial crisis”,
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1519406/wto-rules-chinas-duties-us-carsafter-federal-bailout-broke-trade-rules)
China violated global trade rules with duties on cars imported from the United States, the World Trade
Organisation said in a ruling that added to mounting commercial tensions between the world's two largest economies. China
improperly imposed tariffs on imported vehicles, including those made by General Motors and Chrysler,
the WTO ruled in a decision issued yesterday. China added the duties in 2011, after the US government bailed out car makers during the global
financial crisis, and eliminated them in December. "This is a significant victory," US Trade Representative Michael Froman said. "It's time for
China to change the practices that have led the United States and our trading partners to bring these kinds of cases." The US last week
escalated the trade battle with China, accusing five military officers of stealing corporate secrets. The indictments follow complaints over issues
such as tyres, chicken parts, clean-energy products and credit-card payment services. The
Chinese embassy in Washington
claimed victory on technical aspects of the case. "We noticed that the panel report rejected part of the
United States' argument that China failed to define the domestic industry," said spokesman Geng Shuang. The
Ministry of Commerce in Beijing said it had " reservations about the panel's rulings on such issues as
the calculation of dumping margins and price effects". In response to a 2012 US complaint, the WTO found China
failed to show how the goods harmed the Chinese market and did not disclose to US companies how the
tariffs were calculated. China imposed duties, as high as 21.5 per cent , on US-made cars and SUVs in
December 2011, claiming the goods benefited from government subsidies and were "dumped" in China
- meaning they were sold for less than their market value. The tariffs followed the forced bankruptcy and government
bailout of GM and Chrysler in 2010. "We commend both countries for utilising the WTO's process to resolve a trade dispute," Heather
Rosenker, GM's director of public policy and government relations communications, said. The
value of the goods at issue - including
Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee and GM's Buick Enclave and Cadillac Escalade - was about US$ 5.1 billion last year, according to
the US trade office. China is the second-largest export market for US cars. In September 2012, the US filed a separate WTO case against China
alleging Beijing subsidised its own car and car-parts makers. That case is still under review.
Maintaining the ruling is key to the US auto industry
Lowrey and Bradsher 5/23 (Amy- reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York
Times. She previously worked for Slate, Foreign Policy, and The New Yorker, KeithHong Kong bureau chief of The New York Times, covering Asian business, economic,
political and science news, 2014, “US gains in spat with China over tariffs”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/business/wto-ruling-on-chinese-tariffs-on-uscars.html?ref=world)
WASHINGTON — The World
Trade Organization sided with the United States on Friday in a dispute over
punitive Chinese tariffs on American exports of cars and sport utility vehicles. China had already lifted the tariffs in
question but American officials declared it a victory, citing the decision as the latest in a series of rulings that it has won against Beijing.
“China
has had 14 years — 14 years — to start playing by the rules,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, at
instead we see illegal and improper activities over and over again. As long
as China keeps up this illegal behavior, we can and must respond with these kinds of strong
enforcement actions.” The decision comes against a backdrop of increasing acrimony between Beijing and Washington as the Obama
a news conference in Washington. “But
administration is pushing Chinese leaders on commercial spying and hacking while China has become more aggressive in asserting its claims
against United States allies in the South China Sea. A W.T.O. panel in Geneva spent more than a year reviewing legal briefs from the two sides
over the Chinese commerce ministry’s abrupt imposition in late 2011 of antidumping and anti-subsidy tariffs on the large-engine family
vehicles. China
imposed antidumping tariffs of 2 to 8.9 percent on American cars and S.U.V.s with an engine
displacement of more than 2.5 liters in December 2011, alleging that these vehicles were being sold to
dealers in China for less than the full cost of manufacturing them. China also imposed additional antisubsidy tariffs of 12.9 percent on large-engine passenger vehicles from General Motors and 6.2 percent
on these vehicles, mainly Jeeps, from Chrysler. China’s “unjustified duties” affected about $5 billion in
automobile exports, said Michael B. Froman, the United States trade representative. “This is also an important victory that
impacts our nation’s workers and their families.” American trade officials said that they did not know the actual dollar value
of any lost sales because of China’s tariffs. Beijing contended that the government-managed bankruptcies of G.M. and Chrysler had the effect of
providing subsidies for these manufacturers’ exports. The W.T.O. panel found that in imposing penalties on imported large-engine vehicles,
China had failed to prove first that the imports were causing any injury to its domestic industry. International free-trade rules require a socalled injury determination to prevent countries from imposing tariffs to forestall imports from entering at all, instead of waiting to see if they
actually cause a problem. The panel also found fault with the Chinese government’s methodology in calculating that automakers with factories
in the United States — including Daimler, which makes Mercedes-Benz, and BMW of Germany — had underpriced their sales in China. Large
cars and S.U.V.s in China often cost as much as three times as the same models cost in the United States, although this is mostly because of
heavy taxes that China has imposed in large-engine market segments where its domestic manufacturers have virtually no sales. The
importance of the ruling is less for the auto industry than for the limitation it imposes on China’s ability
to suddenly place antidumping or anti-subsidy tariffs in response to foreign trade actions that it dislikes.
But China could still amend its procedures and impose such tariffs if it follows a considerably longer,
more transparent procedure and acts against companies that are more clearly dumping their products
or exporting them with government subsidies. Officials at the commerce ministry in Beijing and at the Chinese mission to the
W.T.O. in Geneva did not respond to early requests for comment. “This is an important case, and it’s an important victory and it is
important for the auto industry. It’s important for man ufacturing ,” said Representative Sander Levin, also a Michigan
Democrat. “But it’s important even beyond that.” Mr. Levin said that it showed that the administration would be tough with China, demanding
an equal playing field for American workers and firms. International trade has been a particularly delicate issue in Michigan, home to G.M., Ford
and Chrysler, and Republicans have periodically contended that they are better able to handle trade relations with Beijing. China imposed the
antidumping and anti-subsidy tariffs a week after the Obama administration had upset Beijing by saying that it would file a W.T.O. case against
Chinese restrictions on imports of American broiler chickens. But the big irritant in bilateral trade relations at the time was the Commerce
Department’s decision that autumn to begin a broad antidumping and anti-subsidy investigation of solar panels from China, which would lead
to steep tariffs the next year. In bringing a W.T.O. case against China’s antidumping and anti-subsidy tariffs on large-engine passenger vehicles,
the United States has run the risk that a W.T.O. panel might issue a broadly worded opinion that could later be used against American
antidumping and anti-subsidy rules. These rules have also been challenged periodically at the W.T.O. by other countries, with partial success.
But the American
rules are the product of decades of fine-tuning in response to previous trade disputes.
China has abruptly drafted and begun imposing its own rules in the last few years, and these rules have
drawn international criticism for lacking clarity or transparency. The Chinese tariffs were partly symbolic.
Automakers have been rushing to shift production of practically every model to China, as it has emerged
as the world’s largest market in terms of the number of vehicles sold, although the American market remains somewhat larger in
dollar terms.
Auto industry is key to the manufacturing sector
Hill et al 10 (Kim Hill, Director, Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group
and Project Lead Debbie Maranger Menk, Project Manager Adam Cooper, Research
Associate ,April, “CONTRIBUTION OF THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY TO THE
ECONOMIES OF ALL FIFTY STATES AND THE UNITED STATES”, pdf)
The United States automotive industry is a critical component of economic growth with extensive interconnections
across the industrial and cultural fabric of the U.S. This report outlines many known elements and highlights
tremendously important associations beyond the market space of manufacturing. It touches on the
following elements as they relate to the automotive industry: national and regional employment;
research, development and innovation; state and local government revenues; foreign direct investment;
education; health care; U.S. trade; and quality of life. The paper is organized into two sections: Section I provides qualitative
context and current market metrics for the automotive industry, both of which are needed to truly appreciate the contributions of the industry
to the broader economy and gauge where the sector may be heading; Section II features an in-depth quantitative analysis of employment and
personal income associated with the automotive sector. Section II is subdivided into four primary sections to capture the distinct contributions
of suppliers, assemblers, and dealers to the national economy with a final summary section that describes the state-level employment
associated with the automotive industry. The
auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United
States. It historically has contributed 3 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The industry directly employs
over 1.7 million people engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, and supplying parts and
components to assemble, sell and service new motor vehicles. In addition, the industry is a huge consumer
of goods and services from many other sectors, including raw materials, construction, machinery, legal,
computers and semi-conductors, financial, advertising, and healthcare. The auto industry spends $16 to
$18 billion every year on research and product development – 99 percent of which is funded by the
industry itself. Due to the industry’s consumption of products from many other manufacturing sectors, it
is a major driver of the 11.5% manufacturing contribution to GDP. Without the auto sector, it is difficult to
imagine manufacturing surviving in this country.
Manufacturing drives innovation and the pharmaceutical industry
Swezey 11 (Devon Swezey, Project Director for Breakthrough Institute where he works as an energy
and climate policy analyst and Ryan McConaghy, pg online @
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/BTI_Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Manufacturing_Growth_.pdf)
New manufacturing thrives on and drives innovation. Manufacturing is a core component of the nation’s innovation
ecosystem. Firms engaged in manufacturing re-invest a significant portion of revenues in research and development (R&D). Overall, the
manufacturing sector comprises two-thirds 9 of industry investment in R&D and employs nearly 64%
of the country’s scientists and engineers. 10 Manufacturers also have unique opportunities to apply
new technologies for specialized functions and achieve economies of scale at the plant or firm, 11
making the return on manufacturing R&D significant. The transition to advanced manufacturing will
enhance the sector’s role in fostering innovation and developing and commercializing new
technologies. Advanced manufacturing industries, including semiconductors, computers, pharmaceuticals, clean
energy technologies, and nanotechnology, play an outsized role in generating the new technologies, products, and processes that drive economic growth.
Advanced manufacturing is also characterized by the rapid transfer of science and technology into manufacturing processes and products, which in and of
itself drives innovation. The research-to-manufacturing process is cyclical, with multiple feedbacks between basic R&D, pre-competitive research, prototyping,
product development, and manufacturing. This
opens new possibilities for product development and manufacturing.
12
Sustaining tech innovation solves extinction
Heaberlin 04 (Scott W, Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line @ Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, “A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity,” Battelle Press, 2004 *** we don’t
endorse the gendered language if any in this card)
Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion. Taking the highest value when researchers
offered a range, Cohen calculated a high median of 12 billion and taking the lower part of the range a low median of 7.7 billion. The good news in this is 12 billion
is twice as many people as we have now. The bad news is that the
projections for world population for 2050 are between 7.8 and
12.5 billion. That means we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity
of the earth. Cohen also offers a qualifying observation by stating the "First Law of Information," which asserts that 97.6% of all statistics are made up.
This helps us appreciate that application of these numbers to real life is subject to a lot of assumptions
and insufficiencies in our understanding of the processes and data. However, we can draw some
insights from all of this. What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil
fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion
or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go , plus no new babies without an offsetting death. On the
other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be
so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be. Remember, the Chinese get twice
the food value per hectare as we do in the United States. There is also a lot of land that would become arable
if we could get water to it. And, of course, in case you need to go back and check the title of this book, there are alternatives to fossil fuels to
provide the energy to power that technology. So given a positive and perhaps optimistic view of technology, we can look to some of the high technology
assumption based studies from Cohen's review. From the semi-credible set of these, we can find estimates from 19 to 157 billion as the number of people the
earth could support with a rough average coming in about 60 billion. This is a good time to be reminded of the First Law of Information. The middle to lower end
of this range, however, might be done without wholesale social reprogramming. Hopefully we would see the improvement in the quality of life in the developing
countries as they industrialize and increase their use of energy. Hopefully, also this would lead to a matching of the reduction in fertility rates that has been
The point to all this is the
near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very
large fraction of the current and future human race will starve. If we just keep on as we are, with our current level of
observed in the developed countries, which in turn would lead to an eventual balancing of the human population.
technology and dependence on fossil fuel resources, in the near term it will be a race between fertility decrease and our ability to feed ourselves, with, frankly,
lead to either social chaos or environmental
disaster. There are no other end points to that road. It doesn't go anywhere else. However, if we accept that it is
technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can
choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world for everyone and all life. This
means more and better technology. It means more efficient technology that is kinder to the planet but also allows
disaster the slight odds-on bet. In a slightly longer term, dependence on fossil fuels has got to
humans to support large numbers in a high quality of life. That road is not easy and has a number of ways to screw up. However, it is a road that can lead to a
happier place, a better place.
Phrama-innovation solves diseases
Institute for Policy Innovation 07, Health Care, July 23, ONLINE http://www.ipi,org
Today, the concept of consumer-driven health
care is revolutionizing medicine, and has the potential to not only
down health care costs, but also to ensure the availability ofrevolutionary new health care innovations.
A key to improving health care around the world is pharmaceutical innovation, and the efficient distribution of
innovative pharmaceuticals around the world. Today innovative pharmaceuticals are substitutes for most costly
and more risky surgery. Pharmaceuticals also treat and cure many diseases and conditions, and mitigate pain as
never before. But such innovation and distribution depends on the availability of investment capital for R&D purposes,
protection of intellectual property, the reliability and safety of distribution channels, and a lowering of trade and tarrif barriers in
help hold
developing countries.
Extinction
Greger 08 – M.D., is Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at The Humane Society of the
United States (Michael Greger, , Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching,
http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=111)
Senate Majority Leader Frist describes the recent slew of emerging diseases in almost biblical terms: “All of these [new diseases] were advance
patrols of a great army that is preparing way out of sight.”3146 Scientists like Joshua Lederberg don’t think this is mere rhetoric. He should
know. Lederberg won the Nobel
Prize in medicine at age 33 for his discoveries in bacterial evolution. Lederberg went on
to become president of Rockefeller University. “Some people think I am being hysterical,” he said, referring to pandemic influenza, “but there
are catastrophes ahead. We live in evolutionary competition with microbes—bacteria and viruses. There is no
guarantee that we will be the survivors.”3147 There is a concept in host-parasite evolutionary dynamics called the Red Queen
hypothesis, which attempts to describe the unremitting struggle between immune systems and the pathogens against which they fight, each
constantly evolving to try to outsmart the other.3148 The name is taken from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen
instructs Alice, “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.”3149 Because the pathogens keep evolving,
our immune systems have to keep adapting as well just to keep up. According to the theory, animals who “stop running” go extinct. So far our
immune systems have largely retained the upper hand, but the fear is that given
the current rate of disease emergence, the
human race is losing the race .3150 In a Scientific American article titled, “Will We Survive?,” one of the world’s leading
immunologists writes: Has the immune system, then, reached its apogee after the few hundred million years it had taken to develop? Can it
respond in time to the new evolutionary challenges? These perfectly proper questions lack sure answers because we are in an utterly
unprecedented situation [given the number of newly emerging infections].3151 The research team who wrote Beasts of the Earth conclude,
“Considering that bacteria, viruses, and protozoa had
a more than two-billion-year head start in this war, a victory by
recently arrived Homo sapiens would be remarkable.”3152 Lederberg ardently believes that emerging viruses may imperil human
society itself. Says NIH medical epidemiologist David Morens, When you look at the relationship between bugs and humans, the more
important thing to look at is the bug. When an enterovirus like polio goes through the human gastrointestinal tract in three days, its genome
mutates about two percent. That level of mutation—two percent of the genome—has taken the human species eight million years to
accomplish. So who’s going to adapt to whom? Pitted against that kind of competition, Lederberg concludes that the human evolutionary
capacity to keep up “may be dismissed as almost totally inconsequential.”3153 To help prevent the evolution of viruses as threatening as H5N1,
the least we can do is take away a few billion feathered test tubes in which viruses can experiment, a few billion fewer spins at pandemic
roulette. The human species has existed in something like our present form for approximately 200,000 years. “Such a long run should itself give
us confidence that our species will continue to survive, at least insofar as the microbial world is concerned. Yet such optimism,” wrote the
Ehrlich prize-winning former chair of zoology at the University College of London, “might easily transmute into a tune whistled whilst passing a
graveyard.”3154
The aff solves- online gambling precedent allows China to evade WTO rules when it
disagrees with decisions- there are no alt causes- the aff is both necessary and
sufficient to force Chinese compliance
Levick 12 (Richard- forbes contributor, Chairman and CEO of LEVICK, September 9/18,
“Obama's Case against China: The U.S. Has a WTO Credibility Gap”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2012/09/18/obamas-case-against-chinathe-u-s-has-a-wto-credibility-gap/)
The Chinese have two good reasons to scoff dismissively at the Obama administration’s trade case, filed
yesterday at the World Trade Organization, which accuses them of unfairly subsidizing auto and auto parts exports.
The case specifically targets $1 billion in subsidies during 2009-2011, mainly of exports to developing countries where the automobiles are
assembled and purportedly compete with cars manufactured stateside. The U.S. is also about to take further legal action in an ongoing WTO
case against China that involves anti-dumping duties levied last year against American car exports to China. China has filed its own countercomplaint with the WTO over anti-dumping duties that Washington had levied on $7 billion-plus in various Chinese goods.) The first reason for
the Chinese to balk is fairly obvious. President Obama is announcing the initiative amid the heat of the election and he’s doing so in
battleground Ohio. It’s a fair guess the Chinese will try to derail his initiatives by highlighting the blatantly ulterior motives at play. The second
reason is even more important because it potentially compromises any case the U.S. might bring before the
WTO. It involves an ongoing dispute, dating back to the early part of this century, between the
government of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”) and the government of the United States. At issue is the
total prohibition by the U.S. of cross-border gambling services provided via the Internet. Antigua has
challenged that prohibition. It seems a relatively narrow issue but there’s a catch : the WTO ruled on the
matter and came heavily down on the side of Antigua, which is the smallest WTO member to have ever
opposed, much less prevailed against, the organization’s largest member in such a proceeding. So far,
however, the U.S. has simply not complied with the ruling. We have neither lifted the restrictions nor satisfied a damages
penalty that continues to mount annually. It is levied each year the U.S. fails to pay up in full. Typically, the United States takes a
pretty high-minded approach to compliance with global regimens of all sorts, from WTO rulings to anti-corruption
initiatives. We have aggressively sought a leadership role and more or less achieved it. Caesar’s wife must now be beyond reproach. The
consequences of hypocrisy are unacceptable , while only one instance of non-compliance is needed to
expose such hypocrisy. Never mind a blatantly political instance like the current Obama case over auto and supply subsidies.
Imagine you’re the People’s Bank of China, which has taken a number of steps since 2001 that
discriminate against foreign suppliers of electronic payment systems. On September 1, a WTO Panel Report
found in favor of a case brought by the U.S. “This decision makes it clear that China should honor its
WTO commitments to play by the rules and stop discriminating against American financial services
providers,” said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. But why should it play by the rules? We don’t , at least not in this
case. A compromised WTO is only one consequence of our non-compliance. Equally portentous, the WTO could itself approve violations of U.S.
intellectual property as fair retaliation for unfair trade practices. In 2010, for example, the U.S. settled a dispute with Brazil over American
subsidies to cotton growers, one day before Brazil was to begin sanctions – with WTO authorization – totaling $830 million. The sanctions
included tariffs on such items as autos, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, electronics, textiles, and wheat. Brazil would also have been the
first country to infringe American intellectual property rights with the WTO’s blessings. Brazilian farmers would have no longer been charged
fees for seeds developed by American biotech companies. American pharmaceutical patents would have been directly violated prior to
expiration. The prospective costs to U.S. businesses were estimated at $239 million. The
United States blinked then – and it better
blink now in its dispute with Antigua, or risk providing its global competitors with a powerful excuse for
why they too can ignore the rules or simply stonewall when called to task for doing so. The Antigua
matter is especially intriguing because it also raises a number of related questions about how global
business is trending in the Internet Age. In March 2003, Antigua took its case to the WTO after several months trying to engage
the U.S. in meaningful negotiations. A year later, the Dispute Panel Report found that the restrictions against online gambling violated the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) treaty. The ruling caused quite a stir in the gaming industry as it presaged a new era of
unambiguously legalized online gambling.
Contention 2 is Banks
Financial sector collapse inevitable absent capital buffer
Wall Street Journal 8/7 (8/7/14; "Dodd-Frank Goes 0 for 11: Reulators Admit They Think Giant
Banks are Still Too Big to Fail"; online.wsj.com/articles/dodd-frank-goes-0-for-11-1407368348. Moir)
The debate over whether federal officials believe the largest banks are still too big to fail ended this week in Washington. After examining the second drafts of
"living wills" that each bank is required to submit under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, financial regulators voted unanimously that not one of the country's 11
most complicated banks would be able to enter bankruptcy without causing dire economic consequences. The Federal Reserve and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation jointly announced that the giant banks did not have adequate plans in the event of distress or failure. The FDIC board was especially
pungent, finding that the plans submitted by the 11 giants "are not credible and do not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code." The Fed
said the shortcomings include "unsupported expectations regarding the international resolution process" and "failures to address structural and organizational
impediments to an orderly resolution." In a separate statement, FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig sent a more direct warning to taxpayers: "Despite the
thousands of pages of material these firms submitted, the plans provide no credible or clear path through bankruptcy that doesn't require unrealistic assumptions
and direct or indirect public support." That's
because, Mr. Hoenig said, these firms are more complicated than they
were in 2008 and "when failure is imminent, no firm has yet shown how it will access private sector
'debtor in possession' financing, a critical element in restructuring a firm." The media are portraying all of this as another
Washington castigation of Wall Street. But when every kid in the class is flunking the test, parents naturally raise questions about the quality of the school—and the
test. Plenty of bankers will tell you they were given little guidance from D.C. on this bankruptcy test and felt blind-sided by the results. The failing students are Bank
of America, BAC +0.13% Bank of New York Mellon, BK -0.16% Barclays, BARC.LN +0.96% Citigroup, C -0.12% Credit Suisse, CSGN.VX -0.41% Deutsche Bank, DBK.XE
+0.10% Goldman Sachs, GS +0.12% JPMorgan Chase, JPM -0.04% Morgan Stanley, MS +0.41% State Street Corp. STT -0.09% , and UBS. UBSN.VX +0.13%. These
institutions can afford some of the highest-priced legal talent in the world. Could not one of them find
lawyers able to figure out how to satisfy Washington? The failures, two years after the initial "living will"
drafts were submitted, raise questions about whether it will ever be possible for such large institutions
to write their own funeral arrangements. In that sense Tuesday's failing grades represent most of all a failure of the Dodd-Frank vision for
bank regulation. The model is supposed to be that regulators will be able to see failure coming and prevent it. They will also so thoroughly understand all that the
banks do that the wind-downs will be seamless. Apparently not. As
Mr. Hoenig also explained, the giant banks "remain
excessively leveraged with ratios of nearly 22 to 1 on average. The remainder of the industry averages
closer to 12 to 1. Thus, the margin for error and time to default for the largest, most systemically
important financial firms is nearly half that of other far less systemically important commercial banks."
Our view is that it would be a brave Treasury Secretary, of either party, willing to shut down one of these banks without taxpayer help if they fail. That
means the only way to prevent a bailout is with a large enough capital buffer to make failure less
likely,
or by writing a special provision of the federal bankruptcy code for these large institutions that removes political discretion. Until that happens, the living
wills will be a fiction no matter what regulators say.
The aff injects capital into the industry
Miller 08 (2/20/2008; Jason Miller: multi-national corporation business consultant, Attorney at Miller
& Monroe Law; “Don't Bet on This Legislation: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Places a
Bigger Burden on Financial Institutions Than Internet Gambling”;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&
ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unc.edu%2Fcomponents%2Fhandlers%2Fdocument.as
hx%3Fcategory%3D24%26subcategory%3D52%26cid%3D105&ei=h6bqU8OTIMnMsQSLw4GwBw&usg=A
FQjCNHOWmhLvbBE_VrxIMXVMiPIAq8veQ&sig2=OCMROrJt2en94Ot-vXan0A. Moir)
Legalizing Internet gambling would have a huge impact on the financial industry.279 Bringing this fastgrowing industry under the regulation of the U.S. government would allow institutions to profit from a
sundry of transaction fees.280 Experts estimate that a credit card is used in 90% of Internet gambling
transactions.281 Internet gambling operations often incur as much as 7.5% per transaction in charges
and fees from the merchant acquirer,282 card network,283 and issuing bank.284 Conservatively
assuming 7% in fees and charges and a U.S. gambling market of $6 billion, 285 financial institutions
stand to gain about $420 million per year in revenues. Legalization would also mitigate the risk of
customers defaulting on money owed and then suing to expunge the debt because it was accrued on an
illegal activity, a risk that currently exists for financial institutions.286 Legalization would also present serious financial
benefits to the U.S. government and citizens via tax revenues.287 The Internal Revenue Code already has a section in place to include gambling
winnings in an individual’s gross income.288 Licensing and regulation would give the Internal Revenue Service a mechanism to collect taxes on
gambling deposits, gambling withdrawals, or just net winnings.289 In any scenario, with the U.S. gambling market currently at $6 billion and
growing, there is an opportunity for significant tax revenue. Legalization
would produce a windfall for financial
institutions and the U.S. government in taxes, but at what social cost? Anti-gambling advocates argue that these costs
include youth gambling, an exacerbation of compulsive gambling, a gateway to other criminal activities, and a negative impact on sports.290
However, these negative
implications are speculative at best. A 2007 study by the Harvard Medical School’s
Division on Addictions found that only 1% of Internet gamblers exhibited excessive gambling patterns.291
Regarding underage gambling, technology is available to control this problem in a more effective manner than pure prohibition.292 In the end,
the strongest remaining opposition to legalization is a purely moral one.293 And as Prohibition proved,
moral disdain by a small minority of individuals is not strong enough to control the overwhelming
opinion of the masses.294 If the masses prevail, there will be a tremendous windfall for financial institutions.295 Anti-gambling
advocates have presented valid concerns about the dangers of gambling.296 But just like the Prohibition era, these dangers are most
appropriately addressed through proactive regulation.297 Furthermore, there is a significant social cost to prohibiting Internet gambling. Many
gambling advocates argue that prohibiting this activity is an unreasonable infringement on personal liberties.298 These advocates cite the often
victimless nature of gambling.299 Freedom advocates might separate the question of whether gambling is morally acceptable from the
question of whether the government should take affirmative action to legislate a moral position on the issue.300 Although this issue is not
analyzed thoroughly in this Note, it bears mention as another viewpoint in the social cost discussion. The UIGEA will not be effective in curbing
Internet gambling and its related social evils.301 Legalization could better address these evils while providing financial benefits to the U.S.
government, citizens, financial services and other related industries.302 Therefore,
Congress should consider controlling
Internet gambling by regulating it, rather than squandering government and private resources on
fighting a losing battle.303
Even absent capital buffers- the aff is necessary to sustain industry investments
Miller 08 (2/20/2008; Jason Miller: multi-national corporation business consultant, Attorney at Miller
& Monroe Law; “Don't Bet on This Legislation: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Places a
Bigger Burden on Financial Institutions Than Internet Gambling”;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&
ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unc.edu%2Fcomponents%2Fhandlers%2Fdocument.as
hx%3Fcategory%3D24%26subcategory%3D52%26cid%3D105&ei=h6bqU8OTIMnMsQSLw4GwBw&usg=A
FQjCNHOWmhLvbBE_VrxIMXVMiPIAq8veQ&sig2=OCMROrJt2en94Ot-vXan0A. Moir)
(The Agencies: Treasury and the Federal Reserve System)
Although the Agencies met the mandate imposed by the UIGEA, they seem to have drafted regulations
with the goal of minimizing the burden on financial institutions.148 This is favorable for financial
institutions, but it undermines the fundamental goal of the UIGEA: hindering Internet gambling.149
Thus, the costs that these regulations impose on financial institutions are unnecessary.
Because the drafters of the UIGEA were unwilling to make a determination on the legality of Internet
gambling, the Agencies were forced to draft ambiguous regulations that restrict “unlawful Internet
gambling” with no determination of what constitutes “unlawful Internet gambling.”151 Just like the drafters of
the UIGEA, the Agencies have deferred to state and federal laws to determine which Internet gambling transactions are illegal.152 Ironically,
the Agencies rejected the blacklist approach (the micro approach) because it would have unfairly required them “to formally interpret the
various [f]ederal and [s]tate gambling laws in order to determine whether the activities of each business that appears to conduct some type of
gambling-related function are unlawful under those statutes.”153 Yet, in adopting the macro approach, the Agencies are instead leaving
financial institutions to determine what is lawful in the states in which they operate.154 If the Agencies are not suited to make this decision,
then financial institutions are certainly no better positioned.155 Financial
institutions that operate in multiple states will
be subject to uncertainty, as each state’s laws may differ on the subject of gambling and there is no
consensus on the reach of the federal laws.156 A bank that operates in all fifty states will have to analyze, interpret and
monitor the anti-gambling laws of all fifty states.157 Furthermore, citizens of the same state could potentially be treated differently by their
financial institutions based on interpretations of state law.158 Forcing
financial institutions to absorb the ongoing costs of
making these legal determinations is just one negative consequence of the ill-conceived UIGEA.159 Another
negative consequence of the UIGEA is that it forces financial institutions to become law enforcement agents. Some financial institutions,
specifically those with a direct connection to foreign banks that serve the Internet gambling industry, will now be required to act as the
enforcement mechanism in the U.S. government’s fight against Internet gambling.160 Other institutions will be required to implement
procedures to reasonably protect against the use of their systems for Internet gambling transactions.161 Although the largest burden is placed
on participants in the card system and wire transfer system, significant compliance burdens are also placed on participants in the other
systems.162 As could be reasonably expected, financial institutions are deeply troubled by the government’s decision to force them into this
law enforcement role.163 They
fear that the financial burden of complying with the UIGEA will drain them of
“‘finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations
and daily operations.’”164 Many experts are also concerned about the reach of this federal legislation and the impact it will have on
the private relationship between banks and consumers.165 The concern is that if citizens perceive banks as law
enforcement agents, citizens may be less likely to use the services of a particular bank or the banking
industry in general.166 If citizens lose confidence in their private relationships with their banks, they
may decide to terminate those relationships and retain their funds or seek other alternatives, possibly
even foreign banks.167 Cumulatively, this type of movement could have a profound impact on the
viability and profitability of financial institutions in the United States.168
Financial institutions are key to clean tech advancement that solves extinction via
warming- maintaining profitability in the short term is key
Weston 14 (Del- writer selected to participate in the Routledge Explorations in
Environmental Science- Routledge is a global publisher of academic books, journals
and online resources in the humanities and social sciences., 2014, “The Political
Economy of Global Warming: The Terminal Crisis”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=qORXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22financial+institution
s%22+%22global+warming%22&source=bl&ots=HJAwviyhC0&sig=bnweVlocRwdx8hf_oJ_Rop7z8E0&hl=
en&sa=X&ei=9nYOVNmcLpGRgwTrmoGICQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22financial%20institu
tions%22%20%22global%20warming%22&f=false)
*we can win that oil an dren
Financial institutions and solutions to global warming Various statements made by or around the finance
sector by a number of financial institutions, while not necessarily fully reflecting the severity of the global warming situation,
go much further than our governments and global institutions. Perhaps this is inevitable as the’ are seeking to build
into their forecasts the threat to their profits. Let me recap here some of these ‘financial’ observations in relation to global warming. A joint
report produced by the Allianz Group and the World Wide Fund for Nature (2005: i)) begins by saving:
‘Climate change poses a major risk to the global economy : It affects the wealth of societies, the
availability of resources. the price of energy and the value of companies. The report continues: the changes are
principally man-made The issue has become urgent because the pace of change is accelerating .. Europe
is not only warming 40 percent faster than the world as a whole, but has already sustained severe damage from climate change. Storms in 1999
and hoods in 2002 each cost 13 billion euros, whiIe a heat wave in 2003 cost 10 billion euros. Although no precise estimate of all future costs
can be made. a European Commission paper puts the future cost of all the potential cumulative global damage at 74 trillion euros at todays
value if effective action is not taken ,. Globally, climate
change already results in about 160,000 deaths a year, and
this is likely to rise sharply because of increasing shortages of food and water. The extraordinary heat wave in 2003
caused 27,000 deaths in Europe and disrupted agriculture. inland shipping. and electricity production: I luge swathes of forests covering a total
of 5 per cent of Portugal’s surface area were destroyed in a loss put at one billion euros. By the end of this century such a summer could be
routine Mediterranean agriculture might be in a state of collapse. Everywhere in Europe rainfall will he more intense. The number of major
floods in Europe has already risen from one per year to IS in recent decades. In the UK, the annual cost of flooding this century will rise to as
much as 30 billion euros... (ihid, V) In a similar vein, in a 2008 report produced for the banking sector b’ Ceres and commissioned by RiskMctrics
Group (Cogan 2008: 11). an international risk management body, states that: There
is now overwhelming scientific evidence
that worldwide temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and drought and wildfires are becoming
more severe Scientists believe most of the warming in the last 50 years is human- induced. This confluence of
evidence has galvanized public attention and governments worldwide to take action to avert a possible climate catastrophe. This report is
a comprehensive assessment of how 40 of the world’s largest banks are preparing themselves to face
the colossal climate change challenge. With nearly $6 trillion in market capitalization, the global financial sector will
play a vital role in supporting timely, cost—effective solutions to reduce U. S. and global greenhouse
gas emissions. As risk management experts. it is essential that banks begin now to consider the financial risk
implications of continued investment in carbon-intensive energy technologies It continues: For a global
economy already faced with $100-barrel oil and a projected 50 percent increase in energy demand over
the next 25 years. the climate change mega-trend may bring the global economy to a historic tipping
point. While globalization and the spread of market-based economies have created wealth for a fastgrowing human population, they have also hastened a day of reckoning when fossil fuel shortages and
excess climate-changing emissions could combine to spawn a global climate and energy crisis. As Theodore
Roosevelt IV. a managing director for Lehman brothers, stated recently. The economic transformation driven by climate change. we believe, will
be more profound and deeper than globalization, as energy is so fundamental to economic growth’ (ibid.: Il) When
institutions that
are at the very heart of the capitalist system are making such statements. it is difficult to understand
why governments are not acting more decisively.
US clean tech investment is necessary to solve warming
Cheeseman 9
Gina-Marie Cheeseman, Writer for care2, a web magazine, “Is Clean Tech the Solution to Global
Warming?” December 31st, 2009, http://www.care2.com/causes/is-clean-tech-the-solution-to-globalwarming.html
“If there is a solution to global warming it will be technological, not political, in nature,” a
recent editorial proclaimed. At COP15, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) held a side event to highlight the need for business
to deploy clean technology. Jean-Yves Caneill, sustainable development project manager for Electricité de France said that there are
already
technologies in existence which “can help decarbonizes the economy.” He added that “successful
deployment conditions” need to be created along with progressively building the international architecture. Peter
Taylor, head of the Energy Technology Policy Division for the International Energy Agency (IEA) said, “The IEA believes that technology will
be at the heart of the discussion. Whatever Copenhagen’s outcome, it is vital to marry the public and private sectors in order to spread
clean technology as fast as possible. “Stimulating sustainability and economic growth in developing countries requires a different way of
looking at technology, finance and regional partnerships from the energy and electricity sectors,” said Wendy Poulton, Chair, ICC Energy
Task Force A
study by the Gigaton Throwdown Initiative released last summer identified seven clean technologies
that could be drastically scaled up by 2020 in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one
gigaton (one billion tons), which is equivalent to the installed capacity of 205 gigawatts (GW). The seven clean technologies
are: biofuels, building efficiency, concentrating solar power, construction materials, geothermal, solar photovoltaics, and wind According
to the study, each
clean technology will need considerable amounts of investment to achieve gigaton
scale by 2020. Biofuels-$383 billion investment Building efficiency-$61 billion to achieve gigaton scale Concentrating solar power$2.24 trillion Construction materials-$445 billion Geothermal-$919 billion Solar photovoltaics-$2.1 trillion Wind- $1.38 trillion Current
investment in clean tech This year, South Korea devoted 80 percent of its economic stimulus package to clean technology. Now the South
Korean government is predicting that manufacturing companies will invest over $3.4 billion in its clean technology sector in 2010, up from
$2.7 billion in 2009. A senior government official told Reuters earlier this month, “The government will help private firms raise their
investment in clean technology by preparing new policies to expand the industries, for instance requiring public buildings to consume
renewable energy.” He added, “The government would rather help more private funds to be spent in clean and renewable energy sectors
as lots of private funds are already out there.” China, South Korea, and Japan will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and
2013, according to a study by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, titled Rising Tigers,
Sleeping Giant. The U.S. government will only invest $172 billion. Between 2000 and 2008 the U.S. attracted $52 billion in private capital
for renewable energy technologies. The Cleantech Group predicts that clean
tech in the U.S. will be the largest recipient
of venture capital funding. Clean tech received approximately 25 percent of all venture capital investment during the third
quarter of 2009. Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association said, “Cleantech investing by US venture firms has
grown from under 5 percent of venture investing just several years ago to 15 percent of venture investing in 2008. Two-thirds of the
$1.6 billion invested in clean tech by venture capital firms globally was invested into U.S. firms,
according to the Cleantech Group. Solar-based technologies received $451 million, the largest amount of investment. Cleantech
transportation technologies, including biofuels, received $383 million. Green buildings received $110 million Read
more: http://www.care2.com/causes/is-clean-tech-the-solution-to-global-warming.html#ixzz1RzyABRMe
Absence of US leadership in investment makes war and warming inevitable
Klarevas 9 – Professor of Global Affairs
Louis, Professor at the Center for Global Affairs – New York University, “Securing American Primacy
While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony”, Huffington Post, 12-15,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an
opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely
on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key
technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver
potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the
greening of American strategy must occur soon. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to
move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference,
with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous
proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals. Students of
realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing
national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan,
India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest
challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good.
This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both
sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists
to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future.
To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are
countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the
most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945,
that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy
required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum
where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the
challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited
from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost
benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to
shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling
blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent
fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself
in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S.
selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil
is fueling animosities between the major
powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and
Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its
major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil
to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains
oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60%
increase in carbon dioxide
emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest
fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not
undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the
instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key
resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change
leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of
petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase
investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of
$40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By
promoting a new national
project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are
already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and
expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can
store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and
hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil,
they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to
produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will
eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic
boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in
check.
Warming outweighs and turns every impact- guarantees extinction
Sharp and Kennedy, 14 – is an associate professor on the faculty of the Near East South Asia Center
for Strategic Studies (NESA). A former British Army Colonel he retired in 2006 and emigrated to the U.S.
Since joining NESA in 2010, he has focused on Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported NESA events into
Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Qatar. He is the faculty lead for NESA’s work supporting
theUAE National Defense College through an ongoing Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case. He also directs
the Network of Defense and Staff Colleges (NDSC) which aims to provide best practice support to
regional professional military and security sector education development and reform. Prior to joining
NESA, he served for 4 years as an assistant professor at the College of International Security Affairs
(CISA) at National Defense University where he wrote and taught a Masters' Degree syllabus for a
program concentration in Conflict Management of Stability Operations and also taught strategy,
counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and also created an International Homeland Defense Fellowship
program. At CISA he also designed, wrote and taught courses supporting the State Department's Civilian
Response Corps utilizing conflict management approaches. Bob served 25 years in the British Army and
was personally decorated by Her Majesty the Queen twice. Aftergraduating from the Royal Military
Academy, Sandhurst in 1981, he served in command and staff roles on operations in Northern Ireland,
Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Cyprus. He has worked in policy and technical staff appointments
in the UK Ministry of Defense and also UK Defense Intelligence plus several multi-national organizations
including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In his later career, he
specialized in intelligence. He is a 2004 distinguished graduate of the National War College and holds a
masters degree in National Security Strategy from National Defense University, Washington, D.C. AND is
a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish
Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets (Robert and Edward, 8-22, “Climate Change and
Implications for National Security” http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climatechange-implications-national-security/)djm
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime
late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th.
Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon
balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the
industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the
discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a
population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred
during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The
release of this carbon – however –
is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies
imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The
implications of climate change are the
single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the
damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the
complex set of interrelated national
and global security risks that are a result of global warming
and the velocity at
which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused
many, and polarized politics. It
has already led to an increase in natural disasters
including but not limited to droughts,
storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS)
report. Research suggests that climate
change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were
displaced
because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems . It impacts
displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people
temperature and consequently it
affects water and weather patterns . It contributes to desertification,
deforestation and acidification of the oceans . Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in
another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers
are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of
less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also
there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of
methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all
the carbon released through human activity thus far. The
planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change
including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human
intervention
more severe
systems
that
has accelerated the pace dramatically : An increased surface temperature, coupled with
weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural
and will foster
Rising sea levels will
people –
and support the spread of insect borne diseases
increasingly
half the planet
threaten
like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus.
our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion
– depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut
critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were
completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus
the impact is not only to the
environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict
and thus impact national security . Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and
compete for the shrinking set of those available resources . These wars have arguably already started and will continue in
the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as
2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming
had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from
declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an
irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened
a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate
Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team
found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions
of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which
suggested the following.
Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would
need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would
experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.”
Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease.” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center
on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again
convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of
Climate Change. The report concludes
right now
that climate
change is no longer a future threat but occurring
and the authors appeal
to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only
build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to
integrate climate change across all strategy and planning . The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety
concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key
distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that:
Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with
projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will
reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on
ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of
imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon
which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described:
A world thrown into turmoil
by drought, floods, typhoons . Whole countries rendered uninhabitable . The capital of the Netherlands submerged.
The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to
find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland
backed up with nuclear weapons . The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the
World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human
impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development , which will ultimately foster
conflict . Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions
(carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It
is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it
is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally
honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption,
investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
Contention 3 Solvency
Only federal action solves the precedent advantage- any alternative remedies the
WTO’s decision, but not the precedent we set
Jensen 08 (1/31/2008, Thomas Jensen: economics and pre-law University of Chicago; Quoting Nao
Matsukata: formerly Director of Policy Planning for USTR Robert Zoellick and now a Senior Advisor for
Alston and Bird LLP; Quoting Jeffrey Sandman: spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling
Initiative "Costa Rica Files for Arbitration in WTO Internet Gambling Dispute" http://www.pointspreads.com/industry/013108-costa-rica-files-for-arbitration-in-wto-internet-gambling-dispute.html)
The international Internet gambling dispute, potentially valued at billions of dollars, continues. Costa
Rica and Antigua separately
filed for World Trade Organization (WTO) arbitration on January 28, seeking compensation from the United States as a
result of the U.S. withdrawal of its commitment on cross-border internet gambling services. The new arbitration requests could
potentially derail the settlement for compensation agreed to late last year by the U.S. and the E.U. The
arbitration filing makes it possible for the E.U. to reconsider its settlement with the U.S. and join the arbitration proceeding, opening up a new
phase in the Internet gambling trade dispute. “The decision by Antigua and Costa Rica to take the United States to arbitration will test the limits
of the WTO process and squarely challenge the U.S. resolve to withdraw its GATS commitments,” said Nao Matsukata, formerly Director of
Policy Planning for USTR Robert Zoellick and now a Senior Advisor for Alston and Bird LLP. “If
the U.S. finds the decision of the
WTO arbitrator unacceptable, under procedures outlined in the GATS, it could unilaterally withdraw,
creating an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the global trading system. The best solution remains
for Congress to pass legislation that would create a legal and regulated framework for online gaming in
the United States and for the United States to remain in the GATs schedule to provide all providers legal
protection under the WTO.” U.S. withdrawal from GATS following this new arbitration carries the risk of expensive new sanctions
levied against U.S. exports and intellectual property. “If the U.S. withdraws following another adverse arbitral decision,
the country would face potential retaliation from all WTO Members affected by the arbitration, a pool
of countries including the EU, Canada, and Japan,” added Matsukata. “Inviting sanctions at a time when both
the U.S. Administration and Congress are both striving to stimulate an economy on the edge of
recession seems foolhardy at best, especially when draft domestic legislation already exists that would
create a renewed flow of both business and tax revenues throughout the nation's gaming sectors.” Lode
Van Den Hende, a W.T.O. expert and trade attorney with Herbert Smith in Brussels said, “There is a real possibility that the arbitration body will
find that unless the U.S. provides commercially meaningful compensation to Costa Rica and Antigua, it cannot withdraw its commitment on
gambling, without risking trade sanctions from the affected parties.” Costa Rica’s action raises questions about what India and Macao might do
as the other nations that have yet to come to terms with the U.S. over the withdrawal of the Article XXI commitment related to cross-border
gambling services. Under the WTO’s GATS Article XXI rules, any country withdrawing its market access must provide compensation to affected
countries that maintains a general level of mutually advantageous commitments not less favorable to trade than that provided for in schedules
of specific commitments prior to the negotiations. The U.S. negotiated settlements with four of the eight nations seeking compensation – the
E.U., Japan, Canada, and Australia, providing compensation, in the form of markets access to U.S. domestic postal services, warehousing, R & D,
and technical testing sectors. Costa Rica, Macao, India and Antigua did not reach an agreement with the U.S. over the withdrawal of its
gambling commitment, as the above market sectors offered by the U.S. were of no commercial interest to those countries. After the WTO ruled
that the U.S. had violated trade rules in barring Antiguan online gaming operators from the U.S. market, the U.S. withdrew its WTO obligations
with regard to free trade in the gambling area. The U.S. decision to withdraw its market commitments, in order to comply with the WTO, is the
first instance of such an action by a WTO member. The action
by the U.S. sets a precedent that other WTO members
could copy in order to back out of their own commitments once they consider them inconvenient. In turn,
the Costa Rican and Antiguan arbitration requests are the first ever in response to a withdrawal of commitments. It is possible that these
arbitration requests will impact the way in which Antigua decides to implement the $21 million per year in trade sanctions it received as
compensation for U.S. noncompliance with WTO rulings in the gambling dispute. An option available is for the country to take the
“It is time for the U.S. to end its hypocritical practices that
discriminate against foreign online gambling operators, while allowing U.S. gambling operators to accept bets for certain
forms of gambling,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “Regulation of Internet
gambling should be supported as a means to resolve this trade dispute.”
compensation in the form of intellectual property waivers.
Only federal legalization creates a profitable market
Reuters 13 (3/8/13 "Congress in a race with states to pass online gambling law"
www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/09/net-us-onlinepoker-federal-idUSBRE92800M20130309)
(Reuters) - States racing to legalize online gambling may soon be overtaken by the federal government, as efforts to pass a national bill begin to come together.
Legislation in the House is likely to be introduced this spring. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), whose long-advocated federal legislation never got
introduced last year, is working behind the scenes to form a coalition to support the measure. "I think the states' passage gives some incentive to the federal
government to act," said Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), who introduced an online poker bill in 2011 that failed. He plans to introduce a bill this spring.
"Whether you're for or against Internet gambling," said Barton, "you don't want 50 sets of state laws.
You want uniformity ." Similar efforts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), backed by the casino industry,
fizzled last year. The Reid-Kyl bill faced stiff opposition from Republicans and several states' governors and others who felt it unfairly favored Nevada by giving it too
much regulatory clout and a cut of the regulatory fees. Congressional efforts have picked up as more states move forward with their own bills. New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie signed legislation on February 27 authorizing online gambling in an attempt to help the state's struggling casino industry and generate casino tax
revenues. New Jersey is the most populous state to approve online gaming, following Delaware and Nevada. Many others are considering it. An Illinois senate
committee filed a bill earlier this week that could authorize online gambling there. Several states are also trying to figure out how to band together to attract more
gamblers. Proponents of a federal law say it would create uniformity and impose safeguards against fraud,
while opponents say it would usurp states' power and siphon off badly needed revenues. Prior federal efforts have also drawn steadfast opposition from religious
groups such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the Southern Baptist Convention, which blasted the draft legislation circulated last year. That effort was
sidetracked as both parties concentrated on the election, gambling executives and political officials said. Reid and Senator Dean Heller (R-Nevada) say they intend to
try it again." We
should have done it on a federal level ... we are going to try to figure out a way forward,"
said Reid at a recent press conference. "Senator Heller believes federal legislation for online poker is
crucial, and will continue to work with Senator Reid and like-minded colleagues to get a bill passed," said Chandler Smith, Heller's communications director. To
date, proposed federal legislation has sought only to regulate Internet poker and prohibit other forms of online gambling. New Jersey's legislation allows for a broad
array of games, including online slots, blackjack and other table games. The state plans to take 15 percent of the amount won by online casinos from players within
its borders. Nevada intends to keep 6.7 percent. Nevada is expected to be the first state to go live with online gaming, likely by summer, according to regulatory and
industry experts. The state will only allow poker. Draft
federal legislation over the past few years would divide tax
revenue between the federal government and states where the bettors reside and the state where
the legal website is located. Some proposals allow the federal government to take 5 percent to 10
percent of the tax revenue. According to the American Gaming Association, about 85 countries have
legalized online gambling and an estimated $35 billion is being bet worldwide online each year,
including by millions of people in the United States. AGA projects the U.S. market to reach $10 billion a
year by 2017 from about $4 billion in unauthorized gambling in 2011. Caesars and other large casino
operators like MGM Resorts International Ltd have long promoted federal legislation, as it would offer
a larger, more uniform and liquid market.
"We will be prepared with our offerings for Nevada and hopefully New Jersey," said Seth
Palansky, a spokesperson for Caesars Interactive Entertainment. "But there is still time for Congress to step in and provide a federal solution."