***Energy Advantage Extensions
Energy Adv Exts - US - Natural Gas key to Manufacturing
Continued development of shale gas will revitalize the manufacturing industry
Hanger, 7/08/2013 (John, a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. He helped shape the state's policy in the Marcellus Shale natural gas region. Hanger, a
Democrat, is running for governor of Pennsylvania,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-for-environment)
bashir
Shale gas is reshaping America's economy, environment and politics in still surprising ways. It was an
unpredicted phenomenon, but shale gas, now more than a decade old, accounts for 40% of the natural gas in the US. The success of
shale production, that has reached large areas of America where no gas development previously existed, birthed the largest environmental
movement since the anti-nuclear power protests of the Three Mile Island era. The "fracking wars" have come to America and the world, with
the recently fired French energy and environment minister saying shale gas supporters wanted her scalp.
The massive supply of shale gas crashed the price of gas from $13 for a thousand cubic feet in July 2008 to below $4,
delivering heating and electricity savings of $1,000 per year to many US consumers and helping to
fend off further recession in 2011 and 2012. These large price reductions in heat and power – necessities of
life – are especially vital for those living in poverty, and a welcome turn of luck for median-income households.
As a result of shale gas, fortune has smiled as well on millions of Americans who have lease their land
to the drilling industry. They receive payments and royalty checks that total tens of billions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands more get
a paycheck from jobs created directly or indirectly by the shale gas boom and chemical manufacturing associated with it.
Shale gas in the US is no Ponzi scheme, resting on sketchy reserves, as some have recklessly asserted, but a
durable economic bonanza that could return energy intensive manufacturing jobs to many
communities. In fact, the new gas volumes are so real and enormous that they threaten coal, oil, nuclear and renewable energy.
Energy Adv Exts - Mexico - Moving away from oil dependence key
Mexico is overly dependent on oil – leads to economic catastrophe and environmental
destruction
Business Owners Direct 5/17 ( Business Owners Direct, “OECD warns Mexico on Oil dependence”,
5/17/13, http://www.businessownersdirect.com/sales/index.php/news/43-europe-businessnews/5546-oecd-warns-mexico-on-oil-dependence ) Okuno
Mexico is too dependent on oil and environmental degradation has accounted for a drop in gross domestic
production, the OECD said.¶ Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said overhauling the country's energy sector is
a top priority for his administration. Reforms under consideration include letting national oil companies
partner with their foreign counterparts to open the country to new investments.¶ U.S. lawmakers this week passed
legislation that would open the Gulf of Mexico border with Mexico to energy explorers.¶ Oil made up about 16
percent of Mexico's export earnings in 2011 and the industry accounted for more than 30 percent of the
government's revenue, the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports.¶ "While fiscal policy
continues to be prudent, public debt has increased during the recession, as in other countries, and the
government budget is overly dependent on oil," a review from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
states. "The risk of decline in oil output, in the absence of energy reform, is a threat to fiscal stability ."¶ The U.S.
Energy Department said natural gas imports increased 21 percent last year to 2.1 billion cubic feet per day
year-on-year. Though Mexico is one of the 10 largest oil producers in the world, its production has declined steadily since
2004.¶ The OECD added that environmental degradation in Mexico represented a 5 percent loss of GDP
and the country was behind other member states in terms of emissions.
Energy Adv Exts - Mexico - Econ key to fighting cartels
Strong Mexican Economy key to stopping proliferation of Drug cartels – collapse
allows cartels to dominate
Shoichet 2012 (Catherine, writes and edits breaking news and feature stories for CNN Digital. She is
fluent in Spanish and works closely with CNN en Español to report on Latin America and immigration
issues, 11/27/11, CNN Politics, http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/politics/mexico-president-interview )
Okuno
Creating more economic opportunities will be Mexico's greatest weapon in the war on drugs, the country's
president-elect said Tuesday.¶ "That, I think, is going to be the best way my government can prevent organized
crime ," President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.¶ Without jobs and social programs, he said,
"millions of my countrymen have no other option than to dedicate themselves sometimes to criminal
activity."¶ The wide-ranging interview was recorded just a few hours before the incoming leader met with U.S. President Barack Obama in
Washington. In his first meeting with Obama, Pena Nieto said he planned to focus on building trust and boosting
economic ties to create jobs.¶ Mexican leader eyes economic ties with U.S.¶ "We've lost presence and
competitiveness on the international market. ... There's still space, an opportunity, to achieve greater integration as
far as productivity, which will allow us to improve the competitive conditions for creating jobs across
North America," he said.¶ Pena Nieto, 46, said his security strategy will focus on reducing the drug-related violence
that took 60,000 lives during his predecessor's six-year term, though he provided few specifics about how he would stem
the violence or what aspects of outgoing President Felipe Caderon's strategy he will change.¶ "We will keep the policies that I
think work," he said, "including cooperation with the United States to effectively fight organized crime."¶
The way that fight is waged may have to change, he said, in light of changing U.S. policies such as the recent referendums legalizing marijuana
for recreational use in Colorado and Washington state.¶ "Personally, I
am not in favor of legalization of drugs ... because
it's not just about marijuana. It seems to me that is a gateway through which people will start taking much more harmful drugs,"
Pena Nieto said. "But it's clear that this thing that has happened in two states in the near future could bring us
to rethinking the strategy."
Energy Adv Exts - Mexico - Drug Cartels Impacts - Bioterror
Iranian Terrorist groups are using Cartels to raise funds, and form a terror haven– no
defense
112th congress of the United States (Bill to “Counter Iran in the Western Hemisphere” 1/1/12,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3783/text ) Okuno
Congress finds the following:¶ (1) The United States has vital political, economic, and security interests in the
Western Hemisphere.¶ (2) Iran is pursuing cooperation with Latin American countries by signing economic
and security agreements in order to create a network of diplomatic and economic relationships to lessen the blow of
international sanctions and oppose Western attempts to constrict its ambitions.¶ (3) According to the Department of
State, Hezbollah, with Iran as its state sponsor, is considered the `most technically capable terrorist group
in the world’ with `thousands of supporters, several thousand members, and a few hundred terrorist
operatives’, and officials from Iran’s IRGC’s Qods Force have been working in concert with Hezbollah since the 1990s.¶ (4) The IRGC’s Qods
Force has a long history of supporting Hezbollah’s military, paramilitary, and terrorist activities, providing it with guidance,
funding, weapons, intelligence, and logistical support, and in 2007, the Department of the Treasury placed
sanctions on the IRGC and its Qods Force for their support of terrorism and proliferation activities.¶ (5) The
IRGC’s Qods Force stations operatives in foreign embassies, charities, and religious and cultural institutions to foster relationships, often
building on existing socio-economic ties with the well established Shia Diaspora, and recent years have
witnessed an increased presence in Latin America.¶ (6) According to the Department of Defense, the IRGC and its Qods Force
were involved in or behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades, including the 1994
attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, by generally directing or supporting the groups that actually executed the
Reports of Iranian intelligence agents being implicated in Hezbollah-linked activities since the
early 1990s suggest direct Iranian government support of Hezbollah activities in the Tri-Border Area of
Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, and in the past decade, Iran has dramatically increased its diplomatic missions to Venezuela,
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil. Iran has built 17 cultural centers in Latin America, and it currently
maintains 11 embassies, up from six in 2005.¶ (8) Iran has used its proxies in Latin America to raise
attacks.¶ (7)
revenues through illicit activities, including drug and arms trafficking , counterfeiting, money
laundering, forging travel documents, pirating software and music, and providing haven and assistance to
other terrorists transiting the region .¶ (9) According to the Department of Defense, Iran provides support for
Hamas despite ideological differences, and there is concern that Hamas is active in the Western
Hemisphere, most notably in Caracas.
Your general bioterror defense does not apply - drug cartels have the money and the
political standing to finance the development of bioweapons
Hulbert 2k [Dr. R. E. Hulbert is a professor for Washing State University in the science department “ ADDENDUM:
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS; MALIGNANT BIOLOGY” March, 2, 2000
http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/101biologicalweapons.html accessed on July 30, 2013] JAKE LEE
: The potential use of genetic engineering in the production of biological weapons is
illustrated by the on-going studies on the possible of the use of the mold Fusarium oxysporum as a candidate for drug plant
eradication. (28) This fungus, which has devastated commercial crops (e.g. bananas & muskmelon), is being investigated for its
potential to destroy coca and cannabis plants, from which cocaine and marijuana are derived. Preliminary
Fusarium oxysporum
studies indicate that host specificity is narrow and species "jumping" is rare; i.e., targets can be carefully selected without posing danger to other commercial crops.
However, its use in the U.S. could devastate the economies of several regions of the U.S. Obviously,
the same technology could be applied by terrorists to assail the commercial crops of perceived
enemy states. Natural outbreaks of plant epidemics have repeatedly demonstrated, that the potato, corn, wheat and soybean mono-culturing techniques
used to cultivate these crops offer optimal conditions for the spread of plant pathogens. Not only could rogue nations do this, it is possible (as depicted in James
that a criminal organization, such as a drug cartel, with its vast cash and
organizational resources, could engage in such activities as retaliation for its economic loses. It is even
possible that terrorists/criminals might hold a nation(s) up for ransom with the threat of using such a
weapon. Assuming that the research is successful and target-specific F. oxysporum strains are developed, they would then be employed, to destroy coca and
Bond movie, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service)
cannabis crops. The mold pathogen’s spores could be disseminated by conventional aerial crop-spraying techniques, by ground personnel or by small, self-propelled
robots dropped into an area and guided by satellite to the targets (see below; Delivery of BW). Since it is known that environmental conditions, such as
temperature, humidity, cloud cover etc. effect the efficacy of fungal diseases, release could be coordinated with satellite weather data. Bands of robots, equipped
; i.e., chemical sensors that
pick up the emanations from target plants would follow the gradient of the identifying substances to
its source—much as insects do. Once the fungal genes involved in target specificity are known (through gene mapping and sequencing) and
their manipulation becomes routine, new fungi strains could be developed rapidly to counter resistant
cultivars constructed by the drug cartels. It is possible that a biological-arms race could occur with
with analytical tools, could roam the countryside seeking out targeted crops on which they release their biological agent
victims developing resistant plant cultivars and drug-agencies countering with new-strains of the
pathogen capable of attacking the new plant varieties—ad infinitum.
Energy Adv Exts - Mexico - Drug Cartels Impacts - Environment
Drug cartels are destroying the Amazon rainforests - increasing production of cocaine
causes forest land to be destroyed
Jamie Doward, 2009, QUALIFICATIONS, The Guardian, October 24, 2009,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/oct/25/colombia-endangered-species-cocaine Bafia
Until recently, the Gorgeted Puffleg was rather obscure – in fact, until four years ago it did not officially exist.¶ But
although the tiny hummingbird was discovered only in 2005, in a small and remote region of
rainforest in south-western Colombia, it is about to take centre stage in the war on drugs as
governments around the globe alert the younger generation to the dangers of cocaine.¶ Experts fear
the bird is one of several hundred species that will become extinct within decades if Colombia's
rainforests continue to be razed for the purposes of coca cultivation. Other animals under threat –
and that appear in information packs distributed to European schoolchildren – include the harpy eagle, titi monkey, golden poison
frog, tapir, spectacled bear and gorgona blue lizard.¶ Colombia, one of the largest environmental hubs in the planet, with a
territory of more than 1 million square kilometres,
has been warning about the dangers of "ecocide" caused by
the country's drug cartels for several years. As one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, it is home to 50,000 plant
species and 18% of the world's bird species. But now it is attempting to make children aware that the threats facing its rainforests
are a global issue that will have an impact on climatic stability.¶ The move represents a tacit admission that the past strategy of
highlighting the cocaine trade's links to violence and kidnappings has struggled to leave much of an impression on the drug's users.
"The environment is an issue that is important to everyone," said the Colombian minister for the environment, Carlos Costa Posada.
"We are tired of using images of violence. It is all people think about when they think about Colombia – people don't want to come
here for tourism. We are not saying this issue [cocaine's role in the destruction of the rainforests] is the most important issue, but it is
something people can identify with."¶ Cultivation
of illicit crops has led to destruction of 2.2 million hectares
of tropical forest in Colombia, an area slightly larger than Wales. For every hectare of coca grown, three of forest are cut
down. This means that for each gram of cocaine used, four square metres of rainforest are cleared.¶ The
gorgeted puffleg, only 90 millimetres long, is particularly vulnerable. Its habitat consists of only 1,200 hectares of rainforest, 100 of
which are disappearing every year because of coca cultivation. "We have around 400 species that are facing extinction," Costa
Posada said. "Violence is a local issue, but biodiversity is a world issue – deforestation is a major contributor to climate change."¶
Cocaine production creates other problems for Colombians. The jungle laboratories used to refine the
coca leaf into powder require significant amounts of chemicals that end up dumped into local water
sources. Among them are the "dirty dozen", which are highly toxic and resist biodegradation.¶ The
Home Office minister Alan Campbell, who has recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Colombia, said the country was a key
partner in the UK's war on the drugs trade. "Most of the cocaine coming into the UK comes from Colombia," Campbell said. "I've
seen the damage the coca plantations are doing to Colombia at first hand and what it does to those communities."¶ He said that it
was important to "refresh" the message about the harm cocaine can wreak. "Drug use is coming down in the UK, but cocaine has
stuck and is drifting up in Europe," he said.¶ "We need to get people here and in Europe aware their actions will have a wider
impact. Maybe people will not listen to a middle-aged minister saying drugs are harmful, but the message may carry more impact if
they know the harm they are doing to the environment."¶ In conjunction with the Colombian government, the UK is backing "Shared
Responsibility", a global campaign to highlight what it says is "the environmental catastrophe caused by illicit crop cultivation felt
around the globe". The campaign allows children to play interactive games and learn about how cocaine production is putting the
world's rainforests at risk.¶ Costa Posada acknowledged focusing on young children represented a new development in its
awareness campaign, but one that could prove highly effective in the long run. "Children are now being taught about environmental
awareness and their reaction to this is very strong," he said. "You have kids telling off parents for leaving the lights on or not taking
out the recycling. When the time comes to act, adults sometimes don't think, but children do."
Energy Adv Exts - Mexico - Drug Cartels - Democracy
Drug cartels erode Mexican democracy - infiltrate and obstruct the "free and fair
elections" process
Clare Richardson, 2011, Clare Richardson is the World editor at Reuters.com. She previously served as World editor and
as an associate blog editor at The Huffington Post. She is a graduate of NYU., Huffington Post, December 4, 2011,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/04/felipe-calderon-drug-cartels_n_1128106.html Bafia
MEXICO CITY -- President
Felipe Calderon says organized crime is threatening Mexico's democracy
through involvement in elections.¶ Calderon says meddling by drug cartels in elections is "a new
fact, a worrisome fact, a threat to everyone."¶ Calderon urged the country to block such interventions in a 90-minute
speech marking his five years in office Sunday. He did not provide specifics on how he plans to stop cartels from manipulating July's
national elections.¶ His sister recently lost the governor's race in the family's home state of Michoacan in an election fraught with
accusations of criminal manipulation. Prosecutors
are investigating a taped phone call in which a cartel
figure threatened voters and accused a rival of financing a candidate.
***Energy Poverty Advantage
1AC
Advantage _____: Energy Poverty
First, energy poverty is a substantial problem in Mexico - the status quo reforms have
failed - those denied access to energy will only increase as Mexico's population
continues to explode
Ilaca et al ‘12 (Christiane, writer at Global Photovoltaic Business & Resources, “Sustainable
Development as an Aid in Fighting Poverty”, INTERPV, June 2012,
http://www.interpv.net/market/market_view.asp?idx=753&part_code=05, SD)
During the last decade, few projects related to PV technology have been made to improve the quality of life in rural
and isolated communities in Mexico but, there is one that we consider that is really fighting against poverty: the recently
initiated, US$98-million Integrated Energy Services for Rural Mexico (IESRM) project that is a dedicated off-grid project that uses a variety of
renewable energy technologies. The long-term national impact of this project is expected to be larger due to replication effects. According to
the last population census (INEGI, 2005), Mexico had already achieved an electrification coverage of 96.6%, serving approximately all but 3.5
million of the 103 million population. These 3.5 million people represent about 812,000 households concentrated in small communities, the
majority under 500 people. Electrifying the remaining households is challenging, since the majority of them are found in small, remote, isolated
communities. Further, the
un-electrified population is expected to increase by 20% through population
growth over the next decade.About 60% of the people with no electricity are indigenous. Typically,. 70% of the un-electrified
population in extreme poverty is concentrated in the Southern these communities also lack other basic services and
infrastructure such as roads, water, telecommunications, education and health States.Poverty is a
striking hindrance to human life quality, a hindrance to economic development worldwide, and can
breed an immense amount of problems in the future, if not solved quickly. There are many definitions around the
world for poverty, yet the same common element remains in most of them, which is the low quality of life and the little expectations there can
be to overcome that particular situation. Several
approaches have been taken in order to considerably and
drastically reduce the percentage of poverty, although not all of them have been effective. Programs of
general aid have turned out to be largely ineffective, mainly because they do not reduce the incapacities or obstacles that the least well off
sector of society face, and which effectively hinder an improvement in their quality of life. In
Mexico, a rich variety of programs
have been implemented in order to reduce the levels of poverty. Nevertheless, very few have been
successful in both reducing poverty, and having a lasting effect. PV technologies have managed to be a tool for improving quality of
life unfortunately not all people can pay for it. With the use of these technologies, we could develop big changes; poor people just need the
tools to be able to develop.
Access to energy is a fundamental right that ALL individuals are entitled to – only the
plan offers such benefit
Tully 6 – PhD from London School of Economics (Stephen Tully, “The Contribution of Human Rights to
Universal Energy Access,” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 4.3, Scholar, SD)
Second, human rights are universally applicable. All individuals within a government’s territorial
jurisdiction or subject to its control are entitled to benefit. Practically speaking, however, a human right to access
energy will only marginally affect some States or will otherwise be consistent with declared intentions. Western
Europe and North America have already attained near universal access to electricity for urban and rural
households.123 Several Eastern European States including Slovakia also report universal accessibility. In contrast, expanding electricity grids to
rural households is necessary in Northern and Southern Africa since energy supplies remain heavily dependent upon fuelwood. Gambia,
Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Tonga each seek to increase energy access for all users, particularly lowincome
households in remote and rural areas.124 ¶35 Also, a
human rights orientation seeks to ensure equality between
individuals. Approximately 1.7 billion individuals (almost one third of humanity) lack access to a basic
electricity supply: eighty percent are located rurally and around ninety-nine percent reside in developing States.125 The
governments of developing countries are “conscious that a sizeable portion of the world’s population
in the developing countries does not have access to efficient, reliable and affordable forms of
energy.”126 Regional disparities in household electrification rates are also irrefutable. Significantly, no group of States yet enjoys universal
electrification: the OECD is around ninety-nine percent and Africa is the lowest at an average of thirty-four percent.127 ¶36 Further, the
human rights framework raises awareness in favor of individuals currently lacking access. Human
rights carry persuasive moral weight as well as authoritative legal stature which compel governments
to intervene with special measures of protection. Governments become obligated to undertake
initiatives which redirect electricity allocation toward particularly vulnerable social groups such as
the poor, minorities, indigenous peoples,
the elderly or disabled, prisoners, and others.
National electrification
programmes, for example, can prioritize expanding electricity access to rural areas, thereby
enhanc ing quality of life and countering rural-to-urban migration.
Energy poverty is high now – energy infrastructure like the plan is key to solve
Bradbrook and Graham 2006 (“Placing Access to Energy Services within a Human Rights Framework,”
Human Rights Quarterly, 28.2, Muse,SD)
While energy is a multifaceted issue and needs a coordinated international response on many fronts, the
issue that has attracted
most the attention recently has been the need to provide universal access to modern energy services.
This is something that is taken for granted in developed countries, which perhaps explains the tardiness of the world
community in coming to grips with the issue. Somewhat belatedly, the link between poverty and the lack of access to
modern energy services has been recognized , because without access to energy services, people are
destined to live in poverty.3 The provision of such services many decades ago was the major factor lifting the standard of development
in developed countries and is a key ingredient to providing a sustainable way of living for all the world’s population. The magnitude of
the challenge is apparent from the fact that approximately two billion people, one-third of the
world’s population, lack access to electricity supplies. Traditional energy sources principally
include locally collected and unprocessed biofuels, such as animal dung, wood, and crop residues.4
Between 1970 and 1990, rural electrification programs in some countries, particularly in China, connected 800 million people to the electricity
grid and provided 500 million with better cooking facilities. But the number without access to modern energy services remains at two billion as a
result of increases in population.5 Consequently, the
majority of the population of developing countries does not
have electric lighting; clean cooking facilities; modern, efficient, and nonpolluting fuel supplies; or
adequate clean water and sanitation systems6 that those in the developed countries take for granted. The former must rely on
traditional energy sources for their basic needs, such as cooking.7 The lack of access to modern energy services
constrains the ability of the population of developing countries to benefit from opportunities for
economic development and increased living standards.8 Ironically, but importantly in terms of future planning, the
amount of energy required to lift people out of poverty is extremely small by the standards of
developed countries. It has been estimated that each person needs the energy equivalent of only 100 watts of electricity to meet their
most basic energy needs.9 While there may be some scope to develop new and to extend existing electricity grid systems in developing countries,
it is anticipated that in most cases access to electricity services would be provided by stand-alone systems based on renewable energy
resources.10
Policy-makers have an ethical obligation to endorse actions to promote energy as a
universal right
O’Donnell, 96 – (Guillermo, Helen Kellogg Professor of Government and International Studies, Academic
Director of the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame; “POVERTY
AND INEQUALITY IN LATIN AMERICA: SOME POLITICAL REFLECTIONS,” http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/225odonnell.pdf, SD)
Poverty-generated needs are so many and so vital that one is morally and professionally impelled to
alleviate them. But these efforts, and the highly specialized knowledge required, should not detract from attempting to grasp the overall
picture and forging alliances that are premised on broad agreements about a non-naturalized vision of what poverty and inequality are and
what might done about them. Of course,
remedial action should be praised: in terms of actual human beings it
does make a lot of difference. Also praiseworthy is moral indignation leading to energetic
condemnations of the situation and proposals for a much better world—but too often we are not told how to get
from here to there, and in the meantime these invocations often include a disparaging tone toward ‘mere’ remedial actions. Somewhere in the
middle there
are various policy prescriptions, typical of reports of various commissions and
international organizations, with which in most cases I agree.xii These include improving tax collection and making the
tax system less regressive; investing more resources in social policies and finding more creative means of
cooperation between the state and NGOs, churches, and business; correctly targeting some social
policies; promoting popular participation; and other good ideas that I need not detail here. Although some progress in some policy areas has
been registered in some countries, an obvious question is why so little of so much good advice has been actually
implemented. The third hard fact is that the poor are politically weak. Their permanent struggle for survival is
not conducive, excepting very specific (and usually short-lived) situations and some remarkable individuals, to their organization and
mobilization. Furthermore, this weakness opens ample opportunity for manifold tactics of cooptation, selective repression, and political
isolation. Democracy
makes a difference, in that the poor may use their votes to support parties that are
seriously committed to improving their lot. But, if elected, these parties face severe economic constraints. In addition, they
must take into account that determined propoor policies will mobilize concerns not only among the privileged but also among important
segments of the middle class who, after their own sufferings through economic crises and adjustments, feel that it is they who deserve
preferential treatment.xiii These concerns, to which I will return, may coagulate in a veto coalition that threatens not only the policy goals of
those governments but also whatever economic stability or growth has been achieved.
The lack of energy leads to millions of premature deaths
IEF Symposium ’09 (“Reducing Energy Poverty”, IEF Symposium on Energy Poverty, December 8-9
2009, http://www.ief.org/_resources/files/content/events/ief-symposium-on-energypoverty/background-paper.pdf, SD)
Energy poverty poses a severe health risk and impedes the administration of modern health care. In
2004, the World Health Organization found that indoor pollution prematurely kills 1.6 million people a year.
Indoor pollution occurs when biomass and charcoal are burned for cooking in confined quarters. When
lumber is burned, it releases respirable particulates and carbon monoxide into the air. These pollutants lead to Acute Respiratory Infections and
strike women and children most seriously. Other complications from indoor pollution include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung
cancer, cataracts, tuberculosis, asthma attacks, low birth weights and early infant death.10 Additionally, without
access to
electricity, it becomes exceptionally difficult to operate health clinics with modern services ; many
medications require refrigeration and even simple items, like clocks to time HIV medication, are unavailable without ready power.
Energy Poverty Adv Exts - SQ fails
Globally, the status quo fails to recognize the need to provide universal access to
energy - the market does not correct this either
Tully 6 – PhD from London School of Economics (Stephen Tully, “The Contribution of Human Rights to
Universal Energy Access,” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 4.3, Scholar, SD)
The traditional approach of governments to monopolistic electricity provision emphasized security of supply and
sufficient capacity to cover demand at all times.1 However, it is also true that governments have historically
made little effort to improve electricity access, particularly for the poor.2 National energy policies
instead focused upon modern economic sectors (industry, transport, and urban infrastructure) to the
neglect of rural development. Development institutions such as the World Bank, therefore, sought to
provide financial and technical assistance to facilitate electricity access within rural areas and secure the energy
sources required for essential social services.3 However, it also underestimated the complexity and time
required for these contributions to achieve lasting and equitable outcomes.4 ¶3 Over time, the decline
in public development financing for electricity sector investment from such donor institutions
entailed greater national reliance upon private sector investment; indeed, this was made an explicit
condition for continued lending.5 The objective of improving electricity access for disadvantaged social
groups was effectively dropped in favor of improving energy sector efficiency. 6 It was also anticipated
that tendencies to oversupply would be eliminated.7 With financial viability as the overriding concern, there was
little political commitment at the national level to promoting sustainable development through
electricity sector reforms. It quickly became evident that without conscientious governmental effort,
market reforms would not support greater access.8 ¶4 Moreover, national governments believed that
foreign direct investment would provide the principal financial capital for constructing the necessary energy
infrastructure.9 Increasing private sector participation was expected to improve consumer choice in energy service
provision, particularly for the poor.10 However, this liberalization model “ may not be the complete answer,”
particularly where private companies demonstrate little interest in expanding electricity supplies to
rural areas.11 Indeed, electricity expenditure could increase as a proportion of income, especially for the poor,
while consumption remains static.12 Furthermore, falling electricity tariffs typically have not matched productivity
improvements, thereby implying that private operators shared with governments some of the gains through rents
and higher tax revenue.
The inability to access energy is creating poverty worldwide - leads to millions of premature deaths
Sagar ’05 (Ambuj, is the Vipula and Mahesh Chaturvedi Professor of Policy Studies at the Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi, “Alleviating Energy Poverty for the World’s Poor”, Energy Policy, Volume
33 Issue 11, p. 1367-1372, July 2005,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421504000096#, SD)
An estimated 2 billion people worldwide, mostly in rural areas, continue to suffer from energy poverty (World
Bank, 1996, Goldemberg et al., 2000). This remains one of the major challenges facing the development
community. Although much attention has been focused towards this problem, only limited progress has been made in
tackling it. The per-capita energy consumption of these individuals, comprising the poorest third of humanity, is a minuscule fraction of that
of citizens of industrialized countries and much smaller than even that of urban dwellers in developing countries. They do not have
access to safe, clean fuels and subsist mainly on traditional energy sources such as animal dung, crop residues,
and wood (Reddy et al., 1997; Goldemberg et al., 2000). The continuing reliance of poor households on such forms of
energy comes with major disbenefits including: * substantial, and often increasing, time and effort to procure firewood or other
forms of biomass—for example, in rural sub-Saharan Africa, many women have to carry 20 kg of fuel wood an average of 5 km every day (IEA,
2002); * possibly high price per unit of energy services (since subsidies often increase as one goes up the energy ladder (Reddy et al., 1997));
and * severe and widespread health impacts associated with indoor air pollution resulting from the inefficient combustion of energy sources in
poor households, with women and children facing particular risk (Smith, 1993). Recent estimates by the World Health Organization suggest
that about 1.6
million premature deaths can be annually attributed to indoor air pollution from biomass
and coal use in poor households in developing countries (WHO, 2002, cited in Smith, 2003), which makes it the
sixth largest health risk factor in developing countries. Indoor smoke from these solid fuels is, in fact, responsible for
about 38 million disability-adjusted lost years (DALYs)1 in developing countries with their attendant social and economic costs (WHO).
Energy Poverty Adv Exts - Mexico has high energy poverty
Energy poverty is high in Mexico now – an action like the plan is key to solve
Calvo et al, 10 – (Omar Ramirez et al, “Rural Electrification in Chihuahua, Mexico at one
third of the cost vs a conventional
substation,” http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/congresspapers/273.pdf)
Is it possible to have reliable electric energy with power enough to use refrigeration, water pomping,
electrodomestic devices and light at total installation cost of one third compared to traditional substations? Yes, it´s
possible and it’s actually happening in one small and very difficult access rural and poverty comunity
in Mexico. One of the primary goals of Mexico’s government with the creation of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad
(CFE) in 1937 was to extend electrical power service to populations in rural areas. In the beginning, efforts and
economic resources were mainly destined to build generating plants and electrify the surrounding communities. Electrical service in Mexico is
currently being provided to more than 134,617 communities, out of which 131,366 are rural communities and 3,251 urban. Even though
electric power service reaches 97% of the population, more
than 53,000 communities with a reduced number of
habitants are not electrified yet. In other words 3% of the population in Mexico doesn’t have access to
electricity which is equal to 4 million of people.
Energy Poverty Adv Exts - Energy is a basic human right
Access to electricity is a basic need – judge has a moral obligation to prevent energy
poverty
Casillas ’10 (Christian, has worked on the study, design, and implementation of energy efficiency
projects and isolated diesel, photovoltaic, biomass, and wind systems in the US, Africa, and Latin
America, “The Energy-Poverty-Climate Nexus”, Environment and Development, Science VOL 330,
November 26th, 2010, http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Casillas,%20Kammen-%202010%20Energy-Poverty-Climate-Nexus,%20Science.pdf, SD)
Increased access to energy services alone will not eradicate poverty, but it can have immediate effects ( 2, 3). More
than 1.5 billion people live without access to electricity, another billion only have access to unreliable electricity, and
close to half the global population depends on traditional biomass fuels for cooking and heating ( 4).
Energy poverty results in unmet basic needs and depressed economic and educational opportunities that are particularly
pervasive among women, children, and minorities ( 5, 6). Electricity catalyzes rural economic activity ( 7– 10) and increases the
quality of services available to meet basic business and domestic needs through improved lighting, labor saving
devices, and access to information through TV, radio, and cellular telephones ( 11). Provision of highquality public lighting can increase security
and improve delivery of health and education services ( 7, 11). Environmental
shocks related to climate change will first
and most severely affect vulnerable, poor populations, many living in rural areas ( 1, 12). Improving delivery of
affordable, reliable energy services to rural communities is critical for helping them develop human
and economic capacity to adapt in the face of a changing climate. Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized
countries are dominated by electricity generation and transportation, whereas the majority of emissions from the world’s poorest countries
come from agriculture and changes in land use ( 1). However,
with 1.5 billion people without access to electricity,
combustion-related emissions from the rural power sector are expected to grow.
Because of low capital costs
and a large network of suppliers, diesel generators are often the technology of choice in rural areas, without suffi cient consideration of the
volatility of fuel prices, resulting in expensive generation costs ( 9, 13). Given the relationships outlined above, every dollar spent on the
transition to more effi cient low-carbon energy systems in rural areas has the potential to produce greater human development, savings, and
carbon mitigation returns than in more industrialized areas (if economies of scale do not dominate). However, debates
about climate
change and vulnerability have been slow to highlight the energy-poverty-climate nexus. This has been due,
in part, to the lack of meaningful metrics needed to stimulate social, economic, and technical innovation in this sector.
Implementation of energy services allows the poor to access their basic human needs --- health, shelter, water, etc--- judge has moral obligation to prevent poverty in the sq
O’Donnell, 96 – (Guillermo, Helen Kellogg Professor of Government and International Studies,
Academic Director of the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame;
“POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN LATIN AMERICA: SOME POLITICAL REFLECTIONS,” http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/225odonnell.pdf, SD)
What would a legal right to access to energy services consist of? The basic right would be designed
to ensure access on the basis of equality and nondiscrimination to a sufficient, regular, reliable,
efficient, safe, and affordable supply of (ideally clean and sustainable) energy.110 Clearly, any obligations
imposed must be as realistic and achievable as possible. A realistic approach is relevant in a number of
contexts. First and foremost, the supply of energy must match the primary needs of the community it
will serve. As discussed earlier, the major need for energy in the household context is for cooking purposes,
minimal refrigeration, and lighting in the evening. The implementation of the right should require the
supply of sufficient energy to meet the most pressing needs of cooking, lighting, and
refrigeration.111 For health services, and to a lesser extent educational purposes, a constant supply of
energy is crucial. Therefore, the idea of regularity relates to ensuring an adequate supply for all these purposes.
Moreover, there must be no arbitrary disconnections. Energy services are of limited assistance if they are
haphazard and unreliable. Energy services are a crucial input to the primary development
challenge of providing adequate food, shelter, clothing, water, sanitation, medical care, schooling,
and access to information. Thus energy is one dimension or determinant of poverty and
development, but it is vital. Energy supports the provision of basic needs such as cooked food, a
comfortable living temperature, lighting, the use of appliances, piped water or sewerage, essential
health care (refrigerated vaccines, emergency and intensive care), education aids, communication and transport.
Energy also fuels productive activities, including agriculture, commerce, manufacture, industry, and mining.
Conversely, lack of access to energy contributes to poverty and deprivation and can contribute to
economic decline .17
***AT: Natural Gas Bad
solves warming
Natural Gas Good - Solves Warming
Shale gas decreases greenhouse gas emissions - it is displacing the use of coal
Carey 2012 [Julie - energy economist with Navigant Economics, "Surprise side effect of
shale gas boom: A plunge in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions", FORBES,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/12/07/surprise-side-effect-of-shale-gas-boom-aplunge-in-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ ] bashir
In the first quarter of this year, U.S. carbon emissions hit a 20-year low. As Figure 1 below demonstrates, the U.S.
has observed substantial reductions in CO2 emissions over the last five years. These reductions contrast with the increases in
CO2 emissions that the Energy Information Administration forecasted in 1998 when the U.S. was considering
committing to CO2 emissions reductions in the Kyoto Agreement. At the time of these discussions, the EIA estimated that CO2 emissions would
increase at a rate of approximately 1.3 percent annually through 2020. In fact, to reach the Kyoto Agreement target for 2012, the U.S. would
have needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels—to approximately 4,700 million metric tons.
Fast forward to 2012: The U.S. achieved approximately 70% of the CO2emissions reductions targeted
under Kyoto (as compared to the 1998 EIA CO2forecast). That’s substantial progress. A major factor in CO2
emission reduction is shale gas, which, with the continued displacement/retirement of coal plants,
has the potential to provide even more CO2 reduction benefits in the future.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. appears to be within reach of President Obama’s 2009 environmental goal of reducing emissions to 17
percent below 2005 levels by 2020, which equates to 5,000 million metric tons. In 2005, the CO2 emission level was approximately 6,000
million metric tons.
Today, the EIA estimates that total U.S. 2012 energy-related CO2 emissions will equal 5,320 million metric tons.
One of the primary factors for much of the improvement in the U.S. environmental picture includes the shale gas revolution. The
benefits
of the shale gas explosion include the newfound abundant supply which will provide more than
enough natural gas to meet U.S domestic consumption needs and provide an expectation for
relatively low natural gas prices in the future. However, the country’s increased reliance on natural gas
(and displacement of some coal-fired generation) has already benefited the environment, and will
continue to do so in the future.
Natural gas reduces greenhouse gases that contribute to warming
TNN ’13 (Times of India, “Natural Gas: The new emerging efficient fuel”, India Times, June 20 th,
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-20/developmental-issues/40093202_1_gasstorage-dioxide-natural-gas, SD)
A healthy life is often closely associated with our sane judgment, enhanced dependability on modern technology, creating a risk free
environment and efficient utilization of resources. It is the achievement of these conditions that have given rise to the recent growth and
interest of the world in more natural and friendly energy sources, especially for motor vehicles. Concern for a swiftly-depleting environment
has also triggered a parallel interest in the emergence of alternative fuels.¶ The risks that synthetic fuel poses to the environment are myriad. In
contrast is a
string of benefits associated with natural gas that almost guarantee one eco-safe,
uninterrupted supply too. It's, by far, the right fuel by most standards. For one, there's little chance of disruption of supply.¶ Which
brings us to the domestically abundant, Natural Gas which is perceived as a secure source of energy, besides
offering a host of environmental benefits over other energy sources such as fossil fuels.¶ Natural gas can be
used very effectively for transportation considering their performance is similar to gasoline or diesel vehicles with regard to power, acceleration
and speed. However, owing to the energy-dense nature of gasoline or diesel as compared to natural gas, the driving range of NGVs is generally
less. That, however, can be easily countered with extra natural gas storage tanks or the use of LNG to help increase range for larger vehicles.¶
Dual-fuel engines boost the complexity of the fuel-storage system by requiring storage of both types of fuel.¶ To produce the same amount of
heat as petrol or diesel, natural
gas emits 30 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning oil and 45 per cent
less carbon dioxide than burning coal, thereby improving the quality of air.¶ Whether natural gas is compressed
or liquefied, the domestically-produced alternative fuels are modern-day wonders. Their use in natural gas vehicles boosts energy security and
ensures lower emissions thereby safeguarding the environment too.¶ Also, unlike most other fuel sources, natural
gas just doesn't
release by-products like ashes and odors that could create a mess. Acid rain, a huge environmental hazard in Eastern
United States is known to damage crops, forests, wildlife populations and trigger a host of ailments in humans. Caused by a reaction of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides with water vapor and other chemicals in the presence of sunlight, Acid Rain comprises a bouquet of acidic
compounds. Coal-fired power plants are the main source of acid rain-producing pollutants. With natural gas emitting almost no sulfur dioxide
and 80 percent less nitrogen oxides than the combustion of coal, the
increased use of natural gas could provide for fewer
acid rain causing emissions.¶ The surge in greenhouse gases is expected to hike temperatures around the world increasing in several
disastrous, environmental effects. Global warming, as the phenomenon is widely known is a reality that stares humans in the face. Levels of the
gases have been increasing annually owing to the widespread burning of fossil fuels and the surge in human population.¶ The
increased
use of increased use of natural gas in the place of other fossil fuels hugely lessened the emission of
greenhouse gases in the United States. Ground level ozone known to create smog is formed by a chemical reaction of carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and heat from sunlight.¶ The haze that can be perceived in larger cities mostly during
summers is known to trigger huge respiratory issues that range from temporary discomfort to long-lasting, permanent lung damage. The
pollutants that go on to create smog are derived from a string of sources that include vehicle emissions, paints and solvents. As the chemical
reaction is dependent on heat, smog issues are the worst during summers.
Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than any other means of electricity production
PRWEB ’13 (Joseph R. Mathewson is a professional with more than four decades of experience in oil
& gas engineering, heavy and marine construction, environmental permitting and hazardous waste
remediation, “Joseph R. Mathewson Says Rise in Gas production is Good for Environment”, PRWEB, May
14th, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10723839.htm, SD)
“The U.S. has been relying on natural gas more and more heavily, and the positive results of this have proven
myriad,” opines Mathewson, in his press statement. “It’s good for the economy and it’s good for American energy independence, but, as this
energy-related emissions of carbon
dioxide—the greenhouse gas that many believe to be the primary culprit in global warming—have dropped by a
staggering 12 percent since 2005. This means that they are at their lowest level since 1994. The article cites several potential factors
new data suggests, it is also good for the environment.” According to The Wall Street Journal,
contributing to this decline in emissions, with the “sluggish” national economy ranking high on the list; economic slowdown has meant that
factories and power plants have been less active than normal. Even so, experts maintain that the single biggest factor in the emissions decline is
the widespread switch from coal to natural gas as a means of electricity production. “Natural gas emits about
half as much carbon dioxide as coal does, which makes it the environmentally superior option by a long shot,”
claims Mathewson. “As such, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped significantly, and more than anyone ever could
have expected.” These trends seem likely to continue. As new drilling technologies make natural gas easier and less expensive to access, and
more areas in the U.S. are being discovered to have vast gas reserves more of America’s power will be coming from gas rather than coal. In
2012, 30
percent of the power generated in the U.S. came from burning natural gas and it will continue
to increase over the next 10 years. As recently as 2005, that number was just 19 percent. “After nearly two decades of steady
increases in carbon gas emission, emission levels are finally starting to decrease—a natural gas advantage that
nobody saw coming,” concludes Mathewson. Joe R. Mathewson has worked in the oil & gas and environmental industry for forty years
and counting. He and his company, Diversified Project Services International Inc. specialize in the development of Alternative Energy and
Combined Heat and Power Projects utilizing oilfield and industrial waste gas, flare gas and “associated gas” to generate both heat, steam and
electrical energy from this now overlooked natural gas resource.
Natural gas displace the use of coal in the electricity generation reducing carbon
dioxide emissions
Schrag ’12 (Daniel P. Schrag is the Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology at Harvard University,
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering, and Director of the Harvard University Center for
the Environment, “Is Shale Gas Good for Climate Change?”, Harvard.edu Publications, Spring 2012,
http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/128_Schrag.pdf, SD)
National environmental
organizations focused on climate change, as well as organizations concerned with air-quality issues, have
cautiously embraced the new technologies in anticipation that greater availability of low-cost natural
gas may displace coal in electricity generation, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions and substantially
decreasing emission of other pollutants, particularly mercury and sulfur. Indeed, U.S. coal consumption fell 10
percent between 2007 and 2011, while natural gas production rose by 15 percent. A common view, including that of a
recent commission convened by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, is that expanded natural gas activities are inherently
good for climate change mitigation because natural gas has lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal,
which gas will displace for use in electricity generation. A dissenting view is that methane leakage from shale gas
extraction leads to greenhouse gas emissions as bad or worse than those produced from coal,3 although
this view is ½ercely debated. Considering the timescale of the carbon cycle and the climate system, both of these perspectives are
wrong, but for similar reasons. Leakage of methane is not as important as some have argued because its short
lifetime limits its impact on anthropogenic climate change, which has a characteristic timescale of roughly one hundred
years.
AT: Natural Gas leads to warming - Methane NOAA study
The methane study conducted by NOAA is only a small snapshot - only studied two fields
Tollefson, 2013 (Jeff - Nature editor from Congressional Quarterly where he covered energy, climate
and the environment, Knight fellow in science journalism at MIT, science reporter at the Santa Fe New
Mexican, where he covered Los Alamos and the national labs among other topics, "Methane leaks erode
green credentials of natural gas", http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-greencredentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123) Bashir
Whether the high leakage rates claimed in Colorado and Utah are typical across the US natural-gas
industry remains unclear. The NOAA data represent a “small snapshot” of a much larger picture that
the broader scientific community is now assembling, says Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in Boston, Massachusetts.
***AT: Fracking Bad
AT: Fracking Bad - Prefer our evidence
Prefer our evidence - fracking skeptics lack research to support their claim - experts
conclude fracking is safe
Begos 2013 [Kevin - staff writer, "Experts: Some fracking critics use bad science",
ASSOCIATED PRESS: THE BIG STORY, July 22, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-somefracking-critics-use-bad-science] bashir
In the debate over natural gas drilling, the companies are often the ones accused of twisting the facts.
But scientists say opponents sometimes mislead the public, too.
Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many
uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing— to back them.
For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false,
researchers told The Associated Press.
Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren't being
confirmed by monitoring, either.
And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don't acknowledge that natural gas is a far
cleaner burning fuel than coal.
"The debate is becoming very emotional. And basically not using science" on either side, said Avner Vengosh,
a Duke University professor studying groundwater contamination who has been praised and criticized by both sides.
Shale gas drilling has attracted national attention because advances in technology have unlocked billions of dollars of gas reserves, leading to a
boom in production, jobs, and profits, as well as concerns about pollution and public health. Shale is a gas-rich rock formation thousands of feet
underground, and the gas is freed through a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which large volumes of water, plus sand and
chemicals, are injected to break the rock apart.
The Marcellus Shale covers large parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia, while the Barnett Shale is in north Texas. Many other
shale deposits have been discovered.
One of the clearest examples of a misleading claim comes from north Texas, where gas drilling began in the
Barnett Shale about 10 years ago.
Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking
place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo by
environmental groups and by Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of "Gasland," a film that criticizes the industry. Fox, who lives in Brooklyn,
has a new short film called "The Sky is Pink."
But researchers haven't seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said Simon Craddock Lee, a
professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers
checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike
supposedly occurred.
And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a
spike, either.
"We don't," said Chandini Portteus, Komen's vice president of research, adding that they sympathize with people's fears and concerns, but
"what we do know is a little bit, and what we don't know is a lot" about breast cancer and the environment.
Yet Fox tells viewers in an ominous voice that "In Texas, as throughout the United States, cancer rates fell — except in one place— in the
Barnett Shale."
Lee called the claims of an increase "a classic case of the ecological fallacy" because they falsely suggest that breast cancer is linked to just one
factor. In fact, diet, lifestyle and access to health care also play key roles.
Fox responded to questions by citing a press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that doesn't support his claim, and a
newspaper story that Risser said is "not based on a careful statistical analysis of the data."
When Fox was told that Texas cancer researchers said rates didn't increase, he replied in an email that the claim of unusually high breast cancer
rates was "widely reported" and said there is "more than enough evidence to warrant much deeper study."
Another instance where fears haven't been confirmed by science is the concern that radioactivity in
drilling fluids could threaten drinking water supplies.
Critics of fracking note the deep underground water that comes up along with gas has high levels of natural radioactivity. Since much of that
water, called flowback, was once being discharged into municipal sewage treatment plants and then rivers in Pennsylvania, there was concern
about public water supplies.
But in western Pennsylvania, the
Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority did extensive tests and didn't find a
problem in area rivers. State environmental officials said monitoring at public water supply intakes
across the state showed non-detectable levels of radiation, and the two cases that showed anything were at
background levels.
Concerns about the potential problem also led to regulatory changes. An analysis by The Associated Press of data
from Pennsylvania found that of the 10.1 million barrels of shale wastewater generated in the last half of 2011, about 97 percent was either
recycled, sent to deep-injection wells, or sent to a treatment plant that doesn't discharge into waterways.
Critics of fracking also repeat claims of extreme air pollution threats, even as evidence mounts that
the natural gas boom is in some ways contributing to cleaner air.
Marcellus air pollution "will cause a massive public health crisis," claims a section of the Marcellus Shale Protest website.
Yet data
from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that the shale gas boom is helping to
turn many large power plants away from coal, which emits far more pollution. And the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency passed new rules to force drillers to limit releases of methane from
wells and pumping stations.
Some environmental groups now say that natural gas is having a positive effect on air quality.
Earlier this year, the group PennFuture said gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, and it called gas-fired power plants "orders of magnitude
cleaner" than coal plants.
Marcellus Shale Protest said in response to a question about its claims that "any possible benefit in electric generation must be weighed against
the direct harm from the industrial processes of gas extraction."
One expert said there's an actual psychological process at work that sometimes blinds people to
science, on the fracking debate and many others.
"You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them."
AT: Fracking Bad - Environment
Natural gas is environmentally sustainable--- development through hydraulic
fracturing is environmentally friendly
Stewart ’11 (Frank Stewart is the President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the American
Association of Blacks in Energy (AABE), “Natural Gas: Good for the Economy, Good for the
Environment”, Huffington Post, September 18th 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankstewart/natural-gas-shale_b_968752.html, SD)
Not only has investment in shale gas risen to record levels, but the natural gas industry now employs more of our citizens than ever before.
That's especially good news at a time when the national unemployment rate holds at a staggering 16.7% for African Americans. In
addition
to making natural gas a more cost effective, more job creating industry, proactive leadership by state
regulators and advances in production technologies have also made natural gas development through
hydraulic fracturing an even more environmentally friendly. Natural gas companies now drill multiple wells at single
location to reduce the footprint of development, while new regulations have drastically improved water recycling efforts to minimize waste.
Smarter regulation of the industry's operation and better technology has won over a number of environmental
advocates as well. Frank Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council said of natural gas in 2010, "we need to look at ways in which
we can reduce our carbon footprint now and it's appealing that it has a smaller footprint" than traditional methods of oil and gas extraction.
Others, like Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, view natural
gas development as an environmentally friendly alternative to
traditional methods: "Natural gas is an excellent example of a fuel that can be produced in quite a clean way, and
shouldn't be wasted." While the record speaks for itself, it's important that we continue to support environmental improvement while also
trumpeting the
benefits of natural gas development. The balance between these forces has been the driver of U.S. progress in
ensure continued advancement toward a healthier, more environmentally and economically
sustainable future. As our national demand increases over the next several decades, technological advances coupled with proficient,
the past and can
competent regulation is important to our energy security and a prosperous future.
And, the impact is inevitable - EVERY form of energy creates some environmental
hazard
One of the major concerns about natural gas is what happens at the local level. Shale
gas production is an industrial activity
that brings to local areas drilling rigs, hydraulic fracturing pumps, trucks, and pipelines as well as lease
payments, royalty checks, jobs, and cheap energy. It often creates new local sources of diesel air emissions and
drilling waste water whose storage in deep caverns caused an earthquake felt at the surface in Youngstown, Ohio. During the first year
of development of any shale well, shale gas is not a quiet, good neighbor, and it brings lasting challenges.
I saw the issues first-hand when I was Pennsylvania's environmental secretary as the state's Marcellus Shale drilling took off. Mistakes in the
casing and cementing of gas wells caused methane to migrate to 18 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania, and five compressor stations have
erupted in fire in Pennsylvania just since 2011. Gas drilling must be strongly regulated and reasonably taxed. Rules must be strong, regulatory
staff big enough to enforce them, and political leaders must tell their regulators to enforce fully the rules. Excellent
regulation can
help minimize impacts and maximize benefits, but regulation of gas and energy production is too often poor.
Even with the best regulation, gas production cannot be done with no impact on the environment, no
trucks, accidents, leaks, spills, land disturbance. Yet, no form of energy production can meet that standard.
Virtually all of our energy choices have big safety and environmental risks or significant
weaknesses. There is no perfect or excellent energy source that has no environmental impact, is lowcost, and operates continuously. Indeed, especially in terms of the environment, our energy choices today are mostly ugly.
AT: Fracking Bad - Water contamination
Fracking does not contaminate water - recent landmark study proves - first
independent study on the issue
Washington Post 07-19-2013
[APNewsbreak: First federal study finds natural gas
fracking chemicals didn't spread", http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apnewsbreak-firstever-federal-study-finds-natural-gas-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread/2013/07/19/85b75e4e-f03c-11e28c36-0e868255a989_story.html] bashir
A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the
natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling
site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.
After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep
below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist
Richard Hammack said.
Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are the first independent look at whether the
potentially toxic chemicals pose a threat to people during normal drilling operations. But DOE researchers view the study as
just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks.
Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface at the
gas well bore but weren’t detected in a monitoring zone at a depth of 5,000 feet. The researchers also tracked the
maximum extent of the man-made fractures, and all were at least 6,000 feet below the surface.
That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from surface drinking
water supplies, which are usually at depths of less than 500 feet.
AT: Fracking Bad - Safety
Shale production has a proven safety record - fracking is being safely regulated
Lyons 2012 [Donald - staff writer, "Hydraulic fracturing can boost the economy",
MIAMI HERALD-DISPATCH, March 03, http://www.heralddispatch.com/opinions/x583028807/Donald-Lyons-Hydraulic-fracturing-can-boost-the-economy] bashir
What is known as the "shale gale" has turned a natural gas shortage into a surplus of cheap gas. Energy
companies are now engaged in producing shale gas in West Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Louisiana and Arkansas. There are at
least 20 untapped shale formations around the country that could turn Michigan, Colorado and other states into big gas producers. Estimates of
the entire U.S. natural-gas resource base, including shale gas, are now as high as 2,500 trillion cubic feet. That amounts to more than a 100-year
supply.
This same technology is being used to also produce large amounts of shale oil in North Dakota, Texas and Ohio.
Hydraulic fracturing -- known as "fracking" -- has made this possible. When combined with horizontal drilling, fracking can
penetrate shale 7,000 to 9,000 feet below ground and free up natural gas that for many years had been considered beyond reach.
Shale production has a good safety record, and states are doing a responsible job of regulating the
process. Fracking has been used at more than one million conventional gas wells since the late 1940s,
with only a small number of incidents in which drilling fluids leaking from well casings have contaminated underground water
systems.
Yet for the risk-averse, the only acceptable thing to do now is retire all of the drilling rigs immediately
and import more oil and liquefied natural gas from overseas. I am disgusted at the lack of common
sense that attitude shows.
Fracking is done thousands of feet below the water table, separated by more than a mile of
impermeable rock. What's more, companies now are recycling wastewater from fracking instead of
discharging it in disposal wells. Some companies drilling in the Marcellus shale are recycling 100 percent of the water they use,
which reduces the need for groundwater and possible tremors from discharge wells.
Companies also are using better well casing design, especially adequate casing cement around the well pipe, to prevent
leakage. Also, better casing cement prevents methane from escaping into groundwater, the sort of problem that once made it possible to ignite
tap water, as seen in the documentary film "Gasland."
Natural gas is energizing America's economic recovery. Domestic gas production is so high -- and is expected to climb even higher -- that seven
companies are seeking licenses to export gas in LNG tankers to markets in Europe and Asia.
That would never be seriously considered if not for the success of shale-gas production. In 2010, natural gas had a $76 billion share of the GDP,
$33 billion in capital investments, $18 billion in federal tax and royalty revenues, and supported 600,000 jobs, according to a study by IHS
Global Insight. And the price of gas has fallen sharply due to shale-gas production, which helps consumers and the chemical and steel
industries.
***AT: Pipelines Bad
Natural Gas Pipelines safe
Pipelines are the safest way to transport natural gas
Furchtgott-Roth ’13 (Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a
columnist for RealClearMarkets.com, “Pipelines are Safest for Transportation of Oil and Gas”,
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, June 23rd, 2013, http://www.manhattaninstitute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UfQrbo3Ouuk, SD)
The Obama administration’s decision to delay approval for the construction of TransCanada Inc.’s proposed Keystone
XL pipeline was based, in part, on concerns over the safety and reliability of oil and natural gas
pipelines. The pipeline is intended to transport oil from Canada to U.S. refiners on the Gulf of Mexico. In announcing his decision, the
president called for a full assessment of “the pipeline’s impact, especially on the health and safety of the American people.” Pipelines
have been used to transport American natural gas or oil, including from Canada to the United States, for three
quarters of a century. Almost 500,000 miles of interstate pipeline crisscross America, carrying crude oil, petroleum products, and
natural gas. This extensive and operational infrastructure network is heavily regulated by the Department of Transportation, which monitors
the very issues central to the Keystone controversy: safety and reliability. Thus it is possible to answer, based on experience, the question of
whether pipeline transport of oil and gas is safe.
It is, moreover, possible to compare the record of oil and gas pipelines
to that of transport via rail and road. As the major alternative means of fuel shipment, transport by rail and road has been
increasing as limitations on pipeline capacity have become manifest (the underlying reason for the Keystone proposal). A review of safety and
accident statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the extensive network of existing U.S. pipelines—including many
linked to Canada—clearly show that, in addition to enjoying a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and
personal injuries than road and rail. Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a pipeline accident.[1] The question
of how to transport oil and gas safely and reliably is not a transitory one linked only to the Keystone controversy. Petroleum production in
North America is now nearly 18 million barrels a day,[2] and could climb to 27 million barrels a day by 2020. Natural gas production in Canada
and the United States could rise by a third over the same period, climbing to 22 billion cubic feet per day. This
oil and gas will have
to travel to where it is needed. Whether it is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all
over the country, especially since new environmental regulations are resulting in the rapid closures of coal-fired power plants, increasing the
demand for natural gas as a substitute. Similarly, large fleets of buses and trucks are switching to natural gas, and General Motors and Chrysler
are making dual-fuel pickup trucks.
This paper compares the record of transport via pipeline to that of road and
rail and finds that pipelines are the safer option. The first large-diameter long-distance pipelines were constructed during the
Second World War, and they proliferated across the country over the ensuing two decades. Now America has 175,000 miles of onshore and
offshore petroleum pipeline and 321,000 miles of natural gas transmission and gathering pipeline. In addition, over
2 million miles of
natural gas distribution pipeline send natural gas to businesses and consumers.[3] This is expected to
increase as households and businesses shift to natural gas to take advantage of low prices that are expected to last into the foreseeable
future. Pipelines are the primary mode of transportation for crude oil, petroleum products, and natural
gas. As shown in Table 1, approximately 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline on a ton-mile basis. Tanker
and barge traffic accounts for 23 percent of oil shipments. Trucking accounts for 4 percent of shipments, and rail for the remaining 3 percent.
Essentially all dry natural gas is shipped by pipeline to end users. If
safety and environmental damages in the
transportation of oil and gas were proportionate to the volume of shipments, one would expect the
vast majority of damages to occur on pipelines. This paper finds the exact opposite. The majority of incidents
occur on road and rail.
***Foreign Energy Dependence Bad
Energy Dependence Bad - Terrorism Module
Dependence is bad---funds terrorist efforts and creates massive trade deficits that
hurt the US economy
AEI, 10
[American Energy Independence, “National Security,” 2010,
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/security.aspx] STRYKER
President Obama “At
a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our
future as energy. America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has
faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and funds both sides of our struggle
against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation
and sets back our ability to compete.” —Address given at the White House January 26, 2009 Why is energy a national security
issue? “Our entire economy depends on the expectation that energy will be plentiful, available, and
affordable. Nations like Venezuela and Iran can use oil and gas as political and economic weapons by
manipulating the marketplace. Half of our trade deficit goes toward buying oil from abroad, and some of that money ends
up in the hands of terrorists.” —General James Jones is a retired United States Marine Corps four-star general. From July 1999 to
January 2003, General Jones was the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps. After relinquishing command as Commandant, he assumed the
positions of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) and Commander of the United States European Command (USEUCOM). General
Jones was appointed National Security Advisor to the President on January 20, 2009, a position which he held until October 2010.
<Insert terrorism impact here>
Energy Dependence Bad - Terrorism Exts
Dependence on Middle East oil fuels terrorist efforts---only source of revenue
IAGS, 04
[Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, “Fueling Terror,” 2004,
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html] STRYKER
Barrels and bombs It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from
the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the
world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those
with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact , oil and terrorism are entangled . If not for the
West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so
much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations. Consider Saudi Arabia. Oil revenues make
up around 90-95% of total Saudi export earnings, 70%-80% of state revenues, and around 40% of the
country's gross domestic product (GDP). In 2002 alone, Saudi Arabia earned nearly $55 billion in crude oil export revenues. Most
wealthy Saudis who sponsor charities and educational foundations that preach religious intolerance
and hate toward the Western values have made their money from the petroleum industry or its
subsidiaries. Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from the family's construction company that made its
fortune from government contracts financed by oil money. It is also oil money that enables Saudi
Arabia to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the
Treasury Stuart Levey testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist
organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even
today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the
insurgency in Iraq." If Saudi Arabia is the financial engine of radical Sunni Islam, its neighbor Iran is the powerhouse behind the
proliferation of radical Shiite Islam.
Oil dependence on the Middle East leads to terrorism
Stakelbeck, 08
[Erick, CBN News Terror Analyst, “How America Is Funding Terrorism,” 7/5/08,
https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/356986.aspx] STRYKER
Big Oil, Big Terror Much of that imported oil comes from OPEC, a group made up of 13 of the world's most
petroleum-rich nations: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Nigeria, Qatar Venezuela
and Ecuador. While
these nations may have an abundance of oil, most of them lack democracy and
human rights. Worse yet, some of them are state sponsors of terrorism -- and sworn enemies of the
United States. "With only one or two exceptions, OPEC is effectively dictatorships and autocratic kingdoms,"
former C.I.A. director James Woolsey tells CBN News. Woolsey is a member of the Set America Free Coalition. The group highlights the
national security and economic implications of America's dependence on foreign oil. "Ninety seven percent of
our transportation is fueled by oil products of one sort or another," says Woolsey. "And two thirds of the world's proven reserves of
conventional oil are in the Middle East, and about that share is also in the hands of OPEC." Gas and oil prices are currently at an all-time high OPEC sets the market price. Woolsey says Saudi
Arabia is using a chunk of its oil wealth to spread its brand of
radical Wahhabi Islam worldwide. "The Saudis control about 90 percent of the world's Islamic institutions," he says. "And oil is the
reason for that." Iran's big oil profits mean big money for that country's nuclear program and its terrorist
proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Lately, Iranian Pesident Mahmoud Ahmadenijad has been joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in
threatening to help drive oil prices up even further.
Oil dependence on Saudi Arabia is funding terrorist efforts in the Middle East
Kaplan, 03 [David, author and journalist on topics such as terrorism, intelligence, and organized
violence, “The Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network,” 12/7/03,
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm] STRYKER
The CIA's Illicit Transactions Group isn't listed in any phone book. There are no entries for it on any news database or Internet site. The ITG is
one of those tidy little Washington secrets, a group of unsung heroes whose job is to keep track of smugglers, terrorists, and money launderers.
In late 1998, officials from the White House's National Security Council called on the ITG to help them answer a couple of questions: How much
money did Osama bin Laden have, and how did he move it around? The queries had a certain urgency. A cadre of bin Laden's al Qaeda
terrorists had just destroyed two of America's embassies in East Africa. The NSC was determined to find a way to break the organization's back.
Working with the Illicit Transactions Group, the NSC formed a task force to look at al Qaeda's finances. For months, members scoured every
piece of data the U.S. intelligence community had on al Qaeda's cash. The team soon realized that its most basic assumptions about the source
of bin Laden's money--his personal fortune and businesses in Sudan--were wrong. Dead wrong.
force director,
Al Qaeda , says William Wechsler, the task
was "a constant fundraising machine." And where did it raise most of those funds? The
evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia . America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer
had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist
financing. This didn't come entirely as a surprise to intelligence specialists. But until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials did painfully
little to confront the Saudis not only on financing terror but on backing fundamentalists and jihadists overseas. Over the past 25 years,
the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism , while its huge,
unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Those findings are
the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. The magazine's inquiry is based on a review of thousands of pages
of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents. In addition, the magazine spoke at length with more than three
dozen current and former counterterrorism officers, as well as government officials and outside experts in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Among the
inquiry's principal findings: Starting in the late 1980s--after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan--Saudi
Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was
used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members. The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion
Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The
money helped lay the foundation for
hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the
jihad movement, officials say. U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years
Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says,
was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials
to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and
elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism .
Saudi and Iranian oil revenue funds terrorism
Sharman, 07 [Michael, lawyer and author on legal affairs, “Fueling Terrorism with Foreign Oil,”
2/5/07, http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1513] STRYKER
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey drives a Toyota Prius, a gas-electric hybrid. Its bumper sticker boasts:
"Bin Laden hates this car."[1] In 2005, Osama bin Laden told his followers that al Qaeda's operations in
Iraq were costing more than $1,000,000 a month.[2] What's the connection between bin Laden's Iraq
expenditures and James Woolsey's Prius? Since the 1970s, Islamic extremism and terrorists have been
financially fueled by the world's two largest oil exporters, Saudi Arabia and Iran. [3] And those two countries
have a lot of financial fuel to burn. Saudi Arabia's crude oil export revenues were $154 billion in 2006[4], which
gave the Saudis a $57.1 billion budget surplus.[5] Iran's oil revenue jumped 25 percent in 2005[6],
soaring to $55 billion in 2006.[7] By comparison, the United States had a $390 billion budget deficit in 2006.[8] Saudi Arabia's
support for terror is made mostly through its quasi-official charities.[9] In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia which
have no income tax, they have mandatory, non-voluntary giving called zakat, which is collected by the government, mosques or Islamic centers.
Voluntary contributions, or Sadaqah, are given directly to Islamic charities.[10]
Energy Dependence Bad - Mexico Module
Plan gives Mexico a reliable supply of energy---largest shale gas supply in the world
Goldberg, 6/19 [Keith, contributor to Law 360, New York, “Mexico's Oil Reform Plans Will Attract
Intrepid Investors,”
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/Law360_MexicoOilReformPlansAttractInvestors_19june13.pdf]
STRYKER
Mexico is already one of the world's largest oil producers, pumping out 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil per day in 2011,
but production has steadily fallen since 2004, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
which expects it to continue to decline if there are no major changes in technology or policy . There's
little doubt that Pemex desperately needs and injection of capital and technical knowledge
boost flagging oil and gas production,
in order to
especially in the country's deepwater and shale gas plays . While details of
proposed reforms haven't been made public yet, experts say opening up Mexico's oil sector to private competition could spark a flood of
investment from energy majors eager to tap the country's estimated 10 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, as well as one
of the
world's largest shale gas resource bases.
Strong Mexico energy sector key to stability---now is key
Hogan, 11 [Jeffery, Lieutenant Colonel, USMC, “REFORMING MEXICO’S ENERGY SECTOR TO
ENHANCE STABILITY,” 10/27/11, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555290.pdf] STRYKER
Analysis of regulatory actions that will enhance stability in Mexico requires a framework to determine the relationship between these areas of
governance and a method to isolate the industrial subsectors that pose the greatest threat. For the resulting conclusions to have any merit,
they must address structural and enduring problems rather than the minor contours of a particular period or government administration. Using
this approach, the Mexican
oil industry emerges as the most heavily regulated sector and the one posing
the greatest risk to stability. Reforming the nation’s energy sector is the most effective regulatory
action Mexico can take to enhance stability . Petroleos Mexico (Pemex) is the second largest company in
Latin America and the seventh largest producer of oil in the world. 1 The government of Mexico owns the company,
and oil sales account for thirty-two percent of all government revenues annually. 2 In 2004, production of oil in Mexico began
to decline due to a severe reduction in output from the nation’s most prolific oil field, and the failure
of Pemex to develop additional reserves to compensate. 3 Since that time, the crisis in Mexico’s oil industry
has emerged as an escalating threat to the government and the stability it provides through domestic
spending.
Mexico stability is key to a secure border---potential for violence is high
Beittel, 13 [June, Analyst in Latin American Affairs, “Mexico’s Drug Trafficking Organizations: Source
and Scope of the Violence,” 4/15/13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf] STRYKER
Mexico’s stability is of critical importance to the United States and the nature and the intensity of the
violence has been of particular concern to the U.S. Congress. Mexico shares a nearly 2,000- mile border with the
United States and has close trade and demographic ties. In addition to U.S. concern about this
strategic partner and close neighbor, policy makers have been concerned that the violence in Mexico
could “spill over” into U.S. border states (or further inland) despite beefed up security measures. According to
the 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice, the potential harm of Mexico’s criminal
groups is formidable. Mexican DTOs and their affiliates “dominate the supply and wholesale
distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States” and are present in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.
Insecure border leads to terrorism---threat is high
Murdock, 5/1
[Deroy, Scripps Howard News Service columnist, a Fox News contributor and a media fellow with
Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, “U.S.-Mexican border welcomes terrorists,” 5/01/13,
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130502/OPINION02/130509896] STRYKER
There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S.-Mexican border under control. That equals the
number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations that federal officials label
"state sponsors of terrorism" plus 10 "countries of interest." Since January 2010, those flying into the United States via
these 14 nations face enhanced screening. As the Transportation Security Administration announced at the time: "Effective aviation security
must begin beyond our borders." U.S. national security merits at least that much vigilance on our borders. The roaring immigration-reform
debate largely addresses Hispanic aliens who illegally cross the border. Far
more worrisome, however, are the thousands
who break into the United States from countries "where we have concerns, particularly about alQaida affiliates," a top State Department official told CNN. These include Cubans, Iranians, Sudanese
and Syrians, whose governments are federally designated "state sponsors of terrorism." As Customs and
Border Protection's "2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics" reports, 198 Sudanese were nabbed while penetrating the USA. Between fiscal
years 2002 and 2011, such arrests totaled 1,207. (These figures cover all U.S. borders, although 96.3 percent of detainees crossed from Mexico.)
Like other immigrants, most Sudanese seek better lives here. But some may be vectors for the same militant Islam that tore Sudan in two literally.
Terrorism is the biggest impact---destroys lives, which leads to extinction, and
destroys VTL
Fournier, 4/16 [Ron, Editorial Director of National Journal, worked with AP for 20 years, “Why
Boston Bombings Might Be Scarier Than 9/11,” 4/16/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/whyboston-bombings-might-be-scarier-than-9-11-20130416] STRYKER
Call it “terrorism” if a label helps you make sense of this madness. Find who did it and squash him—or them—with what President Obama
called “the full weight of justice.” But in the broad scheme of things, such loose ends matter less than this: Life
in America changed
with the Boston Marathon bombings—again, and as with past attacks, for the much worse. The Oklahoma
City bombing in April 1995 and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were knee-buckling blows that led to an obsession over domestic security and
foreign wars that will mark—and mar—our generation. The
last mass terrorist assault on U.S. soil was carried out by
an Army psychiatrist with loose connections to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, who fatally
shot 13 people and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. There were attacks thwarted by the swelling
ranks of federal police: The so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid; an attempt to bomb the New York
City subway system in 2009; and an unexploded car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Boston is another
bridge too far. The Boston Marathon and its competitors reflect the best of America—always striving,
forever resilient, and, as measured by population and cultural significance, enormous. You might say it’s
Maj. Nidal M. Hassan,
unfair to compare Boston’s relatively low death toll to 9/11 and Oklahoma City, much less to the thousands of casualties in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as the daily total of gun deaths on U.S. streets. But the Boston
attack is notable not for the number of
deaths, but for its social significance. It’s one thing—a dastardly, evil thing—to strike symbols of
economic and military power. It’s another to hit the heart of America. Death at the finish line in Boston makes
every place (and everybody) less secure. Malls. Churches. Schools. Ask a mother or father who lived in Washington from 2001-02 what was
more terrorizing to your family: The 9/11 attacks or the “Beltway sniper”? Many will say the sniper. Two men were later charged in the
horrifyingly random killings of 10 people in several locations throughout the Washington area. The dead and injured included a 39-year-old man
shot while cutting grass, a 54-year-old part-time taxi driver shot while pumping gas, a 34-year-old babysitter and housekeeper shot while
reading a book on a bench, and a 13-year-old boy shot while entering his middle school. Parents kept their kids home from school or formed
human barricades at “drop-off” spots. Malls emptied. For three Sundays, I sat in a back pew with my family and looked for terrorists among my
fellow parishioners. From
the nation’s founding, America has had two sharply delineated lives: one public
and one private. The latter is meant to be safe and sacrosanct, part of what Thomas Jefferson called
“the pursuit of Happiness.” The public life is rowdy and partisan, even violent as reflected in the Civil
War. “What happened in Boston,” said Meg Mott, professor of politics at Marlboro College in Vermont, is that the private
life got blown up and hit deep in the heart of our bifurcated American lives. The lines were blurred,
and that’s scary.” They targeted life. They targeted liberty. Now somebody has attacked a pursuit of
happiness.
Energy Dependence Bad - Saudi Module
Dependence on Saudi collapses US oil supply---Saudi’s running out of oil
Lahn and Stevens, 11 [Glada, Research Fellow for Energy and Development at Chatham House,
Professor Paul, Senior Research Fellow for Energy at Chatham House and Emeritus Professor at Dundee
University, “Burning Oil to Keep Cool,” 12/2011,
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%2
0Development/1211pr_lahn_stevens.pdf] STRYKER
The world’s largest exporter of oil is consuming so much energy at home that its ability to play a
stabilizing role in world oil markets is at stake. Saudi Arabia’s demand for its own oil and gas is
growing at around 7% per year. At this rate of growth, national consumption will have doubled in a
decade. On a ‘business as usual’ projection, this would jeopardize the country’s ability to export to
global markets. Given its dependence on oil export revenues, the inability to expand exports would have a dramatic effect on the
economy and the government’s ability to spend on domestic welfare and services. Following the political unrest in the Middle East since the
start of 2011, the
impulse of the Saudi authorities has been to give out more social benefits – including
cheap energy. Yet the negligible cost of fuel to consumers is encouraging wasteful consumption and
deterring investment in efficiency and alternative energy supplies. In a country powered entirely by
domestically produced oil and gas, this is using up precious natural resources as well as having longterm environmental impacts. One indicator of the problem has been the rise in the burning of heavy fuel oil and crude oil to
generate electricity when gas cannot meet the surge in demand for cooling during the summer months. At a local level, electricity shortages
caused by demand outpacing infrastructure have already triggered rare protests in at least one province.
Elimination of US oil supply destroys the economy---we run on oil
Tverberg, 12
[Gail, writer and journalist on international oil issues, “The Reality Is, Our
Economy Runs On Oil And We Need More,” 2/7/12, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-reality-is-oureconomy-runs-on-oil-and-we-need-more-2012-2] STRYKER
Our economy runs on oil . Most of the tractors used for growing food run on oil. Nearly all of today’s
cars and trucks run on oil. It is popular to talk about changing to some other fuel, but the practicalities
are that any such change will be very slow. There is a huge cost associated with replacing cars and
trucks with vehicles using other fuels, assuming we could figure out the technology to do this . Since 2005,
world crude oil supply has bumped up against what seems to be a limit of 75 million barrels of oil a day. No matter how hard companies try to
extract more crude oil, and no matter how high world oil prices rise, they seem unable to extract more than 75 million barrels a day (MBD). The
US Government is aware of this issue, and now issues data for Total Oil Supply. Total oil supply includes various other liquids that are somewhat
like crude oil, including biofuels, natural gas liquids, and “refinery gain”. But even including the additional categories, growth in supply has been
anemic. Oil prices started rising as early as 2004 because supply (whether defined as crude oil or more broadly) was not rising fast enough to
meet increased demand around the world. With world oil supply virtually flat, countries have had to share what oil is available. Since 1985,
there has been a big shift in which countries are the “winners” in the way the world’s limited oil supply is divided (Figure 2). Clearly the
“winners” in the contest for who is able to buy the oil are the “Remainder” countries—countries like China and India and Korea, and the oil
exporting nations. Over the period 1985 – 2010, the grouping “Europe, US, Japan, Australia” experienced an average real GDP growth rate of
2.4%; the Remainder group experienced an average growth rate of 4.7%. The Former Soviet Union experienced a peak to trough drop in real
GDP of 41% after its breakup in 1991. The grouping Europe, US, Japan, and Australia experienced a major dip in oil consumption and a serious
recession in 2008-2009, while the Remainder countries continued to grow. High oil prices are clearly a problem for oil importing countries,
because funds that would have been used for discretionary spending suddenly need to be used for necessities—food that is grown and
transported using oil, and gasoline used for commuting to work. It
is precisely the big oil importing countries that have
tended to have a problem with reduced economic growth when oil prices are high. In my view, what the world
needs now is inexpensive oil, and lots of it. What we need is enough inexpensive oil to bring oil prices back down to $20 to $30 dollars a barrel,
like it was in the 2001 to 2003 period. If we had inexpensive oil in this large quantity, there would be plenty of oil to go around. It wouldn’t be
only the oil exporters and the countries with large coal-based manufacturing industries that would be able to consume as much oil as they need
for economic growth. Countries like Greece and Spain, which need low oil prices to stoke world tourism, would be able to consume their share
of the oil as well. One issue is of concern is the connection between economic growth and debt. If an economy is growing, as in Scenario 1, it
makes financial sense to borrow money, even if it is necessary to pay it back with interest. Borrowing makes it possible to “pre-spend” a little of
the economic growth that will be available in the future. This relationship is especially important for governmental borrowing, but it also plays a
role for private borrowing. If an economy is shrinking, it is hard to make a case for borrowing. In such a case, the future is likely to have less to
offer than what we have today. This might happen if there is not enough oil to go around, and oil prices are very high (at least until recession
hits). A
great deal has been said about decoupling economic growth from natural resource use. It is not
clear to what extent this really is possible. We can move manufacturing to the Far East, and pretend that the resource use isn’t
ours, but on a world basis, during the past decade, energy use has been rising as fast as world real GDP. This has happened largely because
Asian growth in energy use has offset savings elsewhere. Theoretically, if world oil supply is inadequate, we should be able to make
substitutions that would work—either find a different liquid fuel to substitute for oil, or create new vehicles or machines that use a different
source of energy than petroleum products. The
problem is that making these substitutions is a slow, expensive
process. We are currently using millions of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, boats, and machines that
require petroleum products to operate. Most of them are nowhere near the ends of their normal
lives, so replacing them would be expensive.
<Economic decline leads to war card>
Energy Dependence Bad - Saudi Exts
Dependence on Saudi Arabia isn’t sustainable---they are running out of oil because of
wasteful habits
Saeed, 5/20 [Shan, graduated from University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, USA with an
MBA, has 12 years of solid financial industry experience, “Saudi Arabia is running out of oil,” 5/20/13,
http://economistshan.blogspot.com/2013/05/saudi-arabia-is-running-out-of-oil-by.html] STRYKER
While the world wasn't watching, the Saudis have been covering up a huge secret...A secret so big and gamechanging, they've gone to great lengths to keep it hidden. A secret that, when the rest of the world wakes up to its implications, will send
massive ripples through the energy markets. For those bold enough to see the truth and act quickly, the opportunity it presents is immense.
Saudi Arabia is running out of oil . You didn't read that wrong. It's not a joke, nor is it just my opinion. And I'm most certainly not
crazy.
It's a stone-cold fact. The report I'm talking about is from the world-renowned think tank
Chatham House . I'm sure you didn't see anything in the media touting this report or anything about the Saudis running out of oil on the
evening news. Don't take my word for it... Here's an excerpt of the report from Chatham House: " Saudi Arabia's energy
consumption pattern is unsustainable...That means on a 'business as usual' trajectory, it would become a net oil importer in
2038." That's right. If the Saudis continue at their current rate of oil consumption, they will become net oil
importers even sooner than they want to admit. And truthfully, I think we're looking at much sooner than
2030 . Because it seems Saudi Arabia has developed quite a penchant for wasting the one thing the world
covets most... How much do they waste? To be blunt, too much. We're talking about nearly three MILLION barrels PER DAY.
That's a staggering number, for sure. But get this: That's more than 25% of their oil production. According to the International
Energy Agency, the Saudis consume more oil than Germany, a country with 3x the population. Talk about waste!
The Saudis use as much oil per person as people in USA do and it has a far higher car-to-person ratio. This is a great opportunity for smart and
savvy investors to take position in the global energy market. USA will dictate the global energy market by producing more and more Oil and
Natural gas and becoming the net exporter globally.
***Russia DA Answers
2AC Russian Oil DA Frontline
1 - Non-unique - oil prices low now due to increased oil production in the US - prices
will continue to drop
Strong 7/19 [Michael Strong is a writer for The Detroit Bureau “Efficient Cars Cut Demand and Oil Prices may Fall to $50
a Barrel” http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2013/07/efficient-cars-cut-demand-and-oil-prices-may-fall-to-50-a-barrel/
accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
Improved fuel
efficiency of vehicles and rising oil production in North America are two factors that could
cause oil prices to drop 50% by the end of the year, according to one oil company executive. Oftentimes a dramatic drop in oil
prices – in this case down to $50 a barrel
– portends a severe economic crisis; however, Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski suggested the issue is
matter of ample supply and lower demand. “Demand is weak internationally,” he said. “But domestically demand is even slightly weaker. Traveling (by car) is
picking up, but we’re using much less oil. It is simply more fuel efficient cars and switching to alternate fuels.” Petrowski also noted that North America is
“producing record amounts of oil and natural gas,” adding that OPEC suppliers are up as well. Additionally, demand from countries like China has ebbed, while the
utilities sector has also cut its use of oil. While the demand is going down and the price for oil could drop significantly, there are still plenty of other factors that
contribute to the price of gasoline.
Petrowski estimates that a shortage of pipelines and the need to transport fuel
via rail and truck adds about 40 cents a gallon to gas prices. “Remember: $50 oil does not translate
into $2 gasoline,” he said. It should be noted that gasoline prices began dropping around the July 4th holiday and were predicted to continue dropping;
however, that prediction was false as prices began rising. The national average for regular unleaded gasoline Wednesday was $3.65 a gallon, up
from $3.50 last Wednesday and four cents above levels a month ago, according to AAA Fuel Gauge
Report.
The AAA daily tracking of gas prices rose another penny Thursday to $3.66 for a gallon of self-serve regular, the 11th straight day of rising prices. Gas
is up nearly 20 cents a gallon, or about 6%, during that period. There’s at least a 50% chance gas could top the $3.78 a gallon high for the year reached in February,
according to Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for GasBuddy.com .
A drop in the crude oil price has several implications, not the
least of which is the potential for the destabilization of the governments who rely on oil income for
social programs, such as Saudi Arabia. Any perceived lack of stability tends to inflate gasoline prices,
Petrowski noted.
And, no internal link - Russia's economy is no longer dependent on the oil sector
RIA Novosti 11 [RIA Novosti is a Russia's leading news agency in terms of multimedia technologies, website audience
reach and quoting by the Russian media. Integrated multimedia newsroom, vast network covering over 45 countries of the
world and the Russian regions allow RIA Novosti to deliver news and information in all possible formats, including video,
animated infographics and cartoons to professional clients and the end user in 14 languages. RIA Novosti has proven expertise
in creating tailored interactive news & information services for mobile operators and content providers. “Russia's Putin
reiterates call for end to oil dependence” April 3, 2011 http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110304/162862553.html accessed on July 27,
2013] JAKE LEE
Despite the high prices for oil and other primary commodities, Russia
should work to overcome its dependence on oil
revenues, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday . “Whatever the situation on global markets, it is obvious
that Russia should move away from its dependence on raw materials," he told a regional conference of the ruling
United Russia party that he heads. "The favorable market situation for our raw materials, hydrocarbons, metals,
and chemical products must not serve as cause for complacency or an excuse for not taking any action
on pressing problems." The prime minister urged his party members to search for new growth points, incentives for industrial
development, and ways of enhancing "national competitiveness." He praised United Russia's role in recent history as a
key to political and economic stability but said that was no longer enough. "It is duty bound to find
and propose to society optimal solutions to the current problems in the foreseeable future as well as
in the long term," he said.
And, the impact is non-unique - Russia's economy collapsing now
Cafariello 7/25 [Joseph Cafariello is a reporter for the Wealthy Daily “Russian Economic Collapse” July 25, 2013
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/russian-economic-crisis/4518 accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
Since it came out from behind the socialist iron curtain in the closing days of 1991,
Russia has taken sensational strides in
transitioning from an isolated, centrally planned economy to a more integrated and market-driven
one. the world’s richest resource reserves from oil to gas to precious metals, the Russia St Basil's Endowed with
some of country rode the commodity boom of the opening decade of the new millennium with an envied average annual economic growth
rate of 7%. And then came 2011, with the commodity super cycle running so hard it jumped its tracks and derailed. Russia, economists say, is
now in a slow-motion derailment of its own. What happened to one of the darlings of emerging
economies? Once esteemed as one of the best four emerging markets in the world – becoming the “R” in the “BRIC” group of nations – is Russia about to
succumb to the economic pandemic sweeping across Europe? Rags to Riches – Thrice. Russia is not a novice when it comes to
navigating financial crises. Its recent emergence as a free-market society actually stems from an
economic crisis that ultimately brought down the ex-Soviet Union more than 20 years ago. As Russia
transformed its economy wholesale from top to bottom in the decade immediately following the collapse of the communist block, industries were privatized and
desperately-needed foreign investment poured in over its borders.
It was an economic revolution that took the nation on its
first journey from rags to riches in very short order. But transitions of that magnitude are never easy,
and by 1998, the nation had stumbled into its first post-communist financial crisis, returning to the rags it so
recently shed. Yet this turned out to be a mere respite along the road to prosperity, with a much more powerful second wave of riches coming Russia’s way . In
the opening decade of the new millennium, with its economy averaging 7% annual growth, a Russian
middle class emerged with a real disposable income that had more than doubled. Russia had become one of the
four most promising emerging markets in which to invest – alongside Brazil, India, and China, the hailed “BRIC” group of nations. But as the new millennium’s first
decade was coming to a close, the 2008-09 financial crisis that started in American and quickly engulfed the globe had invaded Russian territory as well.
Russia’s ever increasing integration into the global market made contagion inevitable, especially given
the nation’s heavy reliance on crude oil, which took a serious hit in price. But the resilience of the Russian people to
bounce back from hardship had – for a third time – enriched them yet again, with oil providing the bulk of the windfall. By 2011, the commodity
super cycle had propelled Russia ahead of even Saudi Arabia as the new top oil producer, in second
place among natural gas producers, first place in gas reserves, and second place in coal reserves, plus
the top spot among platinum-group-metals producers. Back to Rags Soon? Yet the disproportionately large reliance on
commodities that pushed Russia screaming past most every resource-based economy on Earth has now turned out to be its Achilles’ heel. The collapse
of the commodity space from 2011 until present is threatening to drag Russia into recession . While the
nation’s economic planners have been steering the nation toward greater diversification since the 2008-09 crisis, with an increasing focus on manufacturing and
technology, Russia is still too heavily dependant upon commodities to avoid a slowdown .
Where 2012’s GDP grew at an acceptable
3.6%, 2013’s growth is expected to be less than half that at 1.6%. At a time when the country really
needs manufacturing to help offset lower revenues in the resource sector, industrial production’s
growth has instead fallen from 3.1% during 2012’s H1 to a snail’s pace at 0.1% in this year’s H1. As a sign that
things will only get worse, construction output this year is already down an alarming 8%. Professors at the Moscow Higher School of Economics have strongly
criticized the Russian government’s “unpredictable”
economic policies. Income is on the decline as the foreign trade
surplus is shrinking; while June’s exports rose 0.4% to $41.6 billion, imports rose by 5.7% to $27.9
billion. Rising inflation is making Russia’s reliance on imported finished goods more costly.
Meanwhile, problems financing economic expansion are being exacerbated by a reduction in foreign
investments by 3.7% and an increase in capital outflows from a previously forecasted €25 billion to a more recent expectation of €40 billion.
Russian economic experts are convinced the nation’s only remaining option is to increase public debt
– to borrow.
1AR exts - Oil Prices Low Now
Gas prices low now
Press Telegram 7/4 [Press Telegram is a newspaper in Los Angeles “L.A., Orange County gas prices drop for 11th
consecutive day” July 4, 2013 http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23599665/l-orange-county-gas-prices-drop-11thconsecutive accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
- The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in Los Angeles County dropped today for the
decreasing six-tenths of a cent to $4.043. The average price has dropped 9.8 cents over
the past 11 days, including seven-tenths of a cent on Wednesday, according to figures from the AAA and Oil Price Information Service . The dropping
prices were immediately preceded by a 15-day streak of increases totaling 15.8 cents. The average
price is 6.7 cents less than one week ago, but 3.6 cents more than one month ago and 30.9 cents
higher than one year ago. The average price is at its highest amount for Independence Day since 2008. The Orange County average price also
decreased for the 11th consecutive day today, dropping nine-tenths of a cent to $4.021, 6.9 cents less than one week ago, but 5 cents more than
one month ago and 33.7 cents higher than one year ago. The average price has dropped 10.1 cents over
the past 11 days, including 1.2 cents on Wednesday. The string of declines was immediately preceded by a 16-day streak of increases totaling 17.6 cents. The
average price is at its highest amount for Independence Day since 2008. The dropping pump prices
follow a large decrease in wholesale gasoline prices as fears of a shortage have disappeared, according to Marie Montgomery
LOS ANGELES
11th consecutive day,
Nordhues of the Automobile Club of Southern California.
Oil prices continue to decline
AP 6/28 [Associated Press “ Pump prices keep falling; oil drops below $97 ” June 28, 2013
http://www.times-standard.com/nationandworldnews/ci_23558633/oil-price-stays-above-97improving-us-data accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
NEW YORK—As the week went along, Americans' commutes got cheaper.
The average price for a gallon of gasoline fell by 6 cents from Monday through Friday, to a two-month low of
$3.51 per gallon. The average fell at least a penny in 48 states, with only Hawaii prices gaining a fraction and Idaho's staying flat. The steepest
declines were in Indiana (15 cents) and Michigan (14 cents). A number of refineries that suffered
outages in the Midwest in the past month or so returned to operation, easing a shortage of gasoline and
dropping prices. The average price has fallen 40 cents in both Michigan and Wisconsin since June 1. Meanwhile,
the price of oil fell Friday for the first time this week, and it finished the second quarter of the year with a slight loss . Benchmark oil for August
delivery fell 49 cents to end at $96.56 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. For the April-June quarter, oil slipped 67 cents,
although it rose 11 percent from a low of $86.68 on April 17. The decline at the gas pump is good news for drivers as the July Fourth
holiday approaches. Most should pay less than on Memorial Day, when gas averaged about $3.65. But this year's June swoon
isn't as large as last year's—by Independence Day in 2012, the average price was $3.34. Brent crude, which is used to set prices for oil used by
many U.S. refineries to make gasoline, fell 66 cents to $102.16 a barrel. In other energy futures trading on the Nymex: — Heating oil fell 1 cent to $2.88 a
gallon. — Natural gas fell 2 cents to $3.57 per 1,000 cubic feet. — Wholesale gasoline rose 1 cent to
$2.75 a gallon.
Russian Oil DA Answers - Global Economy Turn Scenario
And, high global oil prices tanks the global economy
FOX 12 [FOX news is a news station in America “IMF: High Oil Prices Could Imperil Global Economy” February 24, 2012
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/02/24/imf-high-oil-prices-could-imperil-global-economy/#ixzz2aHOFeYaA
accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
The International Monetary Fund flagged higher oil prices as a rising threat to the global economy on
Friday, urging policymakers to keep a close eye on western tensions with Iran, which is facing punitive measures against its crude supplies. Looming U.S.
sanctions on Iran's oil buyers, as well as an impending European Union oil embargo, have forced
countries to cut back on purchases from the world's fifth-largest exporter of crude, pushing up the
price of the commodity. Policymakers from around the globe are converging on Mexico City for a meeting of finance ministers and central bankers
from the Group of 20 economic powers, and several of them raised concerns over the spiralling crude costs. "A new risk on the horizon, or maybe not on the
horizon, maybe right in front of us, is high oil prices ,"
David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director of the International
Monetary Fund, said in a presentation at the G20 gathering. "The situation in Iran is a risk that we
have to be thinking about. Our assessment is that the global economy is not really out of the danger zone," Lipton added,
noting, however, that it was too early to revise down the Fund's growth forecasts. Lipton was speaking just after U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said
Iran. The fear
of tightening supplies, exacerbated by a threat from Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz - the main
Gulf oil shipping lane - have lifted prices to new highs. Western powers are increasingly at
loggerheads with Iran over its efforts to generate nuclear power. Iran insists it wants to harness atomic energy for peaceful
ends, but the West suspects it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. A day after hitting a record high in euro terms, Brent crude jumped above
$124 a barrel, raising worries that a run of sharp price gains could stymie the euro zone's growth
prospects, making it harder for governments to meet budget targets and pull the currency bloc out of
its debt crisis. Mexico, which is hosting the G20 meeting, has been pushing for the euro zone to take further steps to solve the debt crisis and for
policymakers to make progress on increasing the IMF's firepower, lest it be needed to help in Europe. But some countries have
said there can be no talk of more IMF resources without a stronger European firewall, which is to be
discussed among European Union leaders next week. Angel Gurria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic CoWashington was weighing the circumstances that could warrant tapping the U.S. strategic oil reserve to counter the supply disruptions from
operation and Development, followed up on Geithner's comments by saying the jump in oil prices were due to politics and would not be solved by releasing
because there is a lot of tension, these discussions every day over the
Straits of Hormuz and Israel," Gurria told Reuters in Mexico City. Gurria said there was no distortion in
markets and oil prices of up to $100 per barrel were "the new normal". "We are not seeing a situation today where
there is something wrong with (market) fundamentals, in fact, we are seeing a slowdown in the global economy. There should be a
reduction in consumption," he said. The weak dollar also was cited by analysts as a supportive factor for oil. The
dollar index weakened and the euro hit a fresh 2-1/2 month high against the dollar.
reserves. "These prices are due to a great extent ...
And, Economic decline causes war
Royal 2010, [Jedediah - Director Cooperative Threat Reduction @ DOD, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and
the Problem of Economic Crises” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and
Brauer, p. 213-215]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in
this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances
Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that. As such, rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a
pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that
leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk
of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a
permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately.
Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small
powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic
level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions
and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future
trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as
energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources.
trade relations. However, if the expectations of future
Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4
Third, others have
considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a
national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external
conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and
prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international
and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess.
2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has
the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a
sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996),
DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated.
Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than
autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen
(2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration
with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external
linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni
conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Russian Oil Answers - Low prices key to Russia's economy
Turn – Low Oil Prices are key to Russia’s economy
RT 12 [A news network on Russia “Lower oil price 'good for Russia” June 22, 2012 http://rt.com/business/oil-price-russiaeconomy-497/ accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
Russia will benefit from lower oil prices says Jim O’Neill, Chairman for Goldman Sachs Asset Management. This follows news
that Russia is to adopt new policies to make its economy less dependent on the price of crude . "I think it
will be good for Russia if oil prices go down”, Jim O’Neill told RT at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Russia’s economy has long
been heavily dependent on oil exports. Half of the budget revenues come from oil and gas. ”Russia certainly needs to be
not so dependent on the drug of rising oil prices. It has to adopt and change to a quarter balance." And Russia seems to be heading in
the right direction. President Vladimir Putin told the St. Petersburg Forum it was not enough to rely on an oil
price of 115 dollars per barrel to achieve a deficit-free budget. “We need to diversify our economy away from
total reliance on oil revenues, and turn to private capital as a source of growth,” he said. “Russia not
only needs a deficit-free budget but a budget with a reserve of resilience.” Putin also said that
“budget rules will be adopted soon under which "neither state liabilities, nor budgetary expenditure,
nor long-term investment programs will depend on oil prices, and excess profits will go to replenish funds.” Analysts say
Russia, one of the four BRIC countries, has become a particular surprise this year, Russia seems to be more sheltered from the
current global economic crisis than it was during the 2008 and 2009 downturn. Its prospects are brighter than those
of many other economies. The country’s economy is expected to grow between 4-5 percent this year -much higher than any developed country. “If it
carries on growing at these rates it will contribute more to the world this decade than he whole of
Europe,” said Jim O’Neill. Together with the other BRIC nations Russia is ready to tackle the global economic crisis . “Emerging countries,
including BRICS should play a bigger role in the world economy,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told
the Petersburg International Economic Forum. Brazil, Russia,
***China DA Answers
2AC China DA Frontline
Non unique and No link - No China involvement in Mexico - little foreign direct
investment now
Godoy 1/22 (Emilio, is a Mexico-based correspondent who covers the environment, human rights and
sustainable development. With 17 years of experience, IPS, 1/22/13,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/china-mexico-ties-grow-thin/ ) Okuno
We are completely ‘clueless’ when it comes to China.” This statement by Enrique Dussel, director of the Centre for ChinaMexico Studies of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, perfectly describes the currently stale state of relations between the two
countries.
“We have no policy to speak of for China . There’s no strategy that adequately reflects China’s global importance and
trade partner. We seem to have hit an all time low. I don’t think economic
and trade relations can get any worse,” Dussel said in an interview with IPS.
China is Mexico’s second biggest trading partner, behind the United States, yet no efforts have been made by the Latin
American country to modify its highly negative bilateral trade balance with the Asian giant or to attract
Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI), which is marginal.
This distancing of the two countries is best illustrated by the controversy over the construction of the
Dragon Mart retail complex, planned by local and Chinese investors for the area surrounding the southeastern town of Puerto
Morelos, some 1,634 kilometres south of Mexico City.
The mega-project, announced in 2011, will cover 192 hectares in total, including storefronts, storage facilities,
and luxury residences, with an estimated investment of more than 1.5 billion dollars and some 6,000 new direct
does justice to our second leading
and indirect jobs, according to Mexican press sources and the official Chinese newspaper, ‘China Daily’.
This sprawling infrastructure is set to be the trade platform from which Chinese-made goods will be
supplied to all of Latin America, and it will create a Chinese enclave in a major tourist hotspot, as it will be located just 34
kilometres from the resort city of Cancún, in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo.
The project has raised concerns in Mexico, Latin America’s second largest economy, where both the leading
business associations as well as academics and environmentalists have expressed their objections ,
fearing that the shopping complex will foster smuggling, unfair competition and the sale of counterfeit products, in addition to causing the
area environmental harm.
Ricardo Samaniego, director of the Applied Economics and Public Policy Centre, strongly opposes the project, telling IPS that construction of
“Dragon Mart must
be put off until its environmental and socioeconomic costs are assessed.
“The project is part of a strategy deployed by China to secure energy and natural resources. Chinese involvement in commercial projects is
subsidised by the government,” he argued.
“increasing worldwide complaints against Chinese trade practices and the project’s negative
economic externalities” compound the situation.
“Mexico must hold out for a more reciprocal deal before it makes certain concessions. And this has to do with the country’s
In his opinion,
general policy towards China,” the expert noted.
The Dragon Mart complex projected for the leading port of Quintana Roo replicates and expands the huge Dragon Mart established by China in
2004 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) city of Dubai.
At the same time, criticisms of the project feed China’s wariness to invest in Mexico and explain why economic and trade relations between
both countries are tense, despite maintaining full diplomatic ties since 1972.
Mexico has a high trade deficit with China, having purchased 52 billion dollars worth of Chinese goods in 2011, while selling
products to that country for a value of only two billion dollars.
China’s FDI in Mexico is equally discouraging, although the two countries give different figures for this
indicator. Mexico’s Finance Secretariat puts the figure at 157 million dollars in 2011, while Beijing says it was almost four times that much,
roughly 614 million dollars.
And, no link - Latin America influence is not zero-sum
Global Time Agencies 5/31 (5/31/13, “China, US not competing over Latin America: Expert”,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/785721.shtml#.UffRMJqWXck ) Okuno
Both the US and China deny they are competing with each other. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said
last week that the two countries can "carry out cooperation in Latin America by giving play to their
respective advantages." ¶ Tao Wenzhao, a fellow of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told
the Global Times that it is a coincidence that the two leaders chose to visit Latin America at a similar time, and
that China has no intention to challenge US influence in the area.¶ "It's not like in the 19th century when countries
divided their sphere of influence in a certain area. China and the US' involvement in Latin America is not a zero-sum
game," Tao said, explaining that it is a good thing for Latin America.¶ Chinese and US leaders visit Latin America
out of their respective strategic needs, Tao said. All countries need to interact and cooperate with other countries, and visits
of such high-level are usually arranged long time before they starts, Tao said.
And, No internal link – The pivot will never happen – China is gearing up
Gertz 6/7 (Bill, Bill Gertz is an American editor, columnist and reporter for The Washington Free
Beacon and The Washington Times. He is the author of six books and writes a weekly column on the
Pentagon and national security issues called "Inside the Ring". During the administration of Bill Clinton
Gertz was known for his stories exposing government secrets.[1][2] He is also an editor for the
Washington Free Beacon., 6/7/13, Washington Free Beacon,
http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/china-moves-against-u-s-pivot-to-asia-with-stepped-upmilitary-diplomatic-economic-ties-to-americas/ ) Okuno
China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer
military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.¶ The strategy is
a Chinese version of what Beijing has charged is a U.S. strategy designed to encircle and “contain”
China. It is also directed at countering the Obama administration’s new strategy called the pivot to Asia. The pivot calls for closer
economic, diplomatic, and military ties to Asian states that are increasingly concerned about Chinese encroachment throughout that region.¶ “The Chinese
are deftly parrying our ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ with their own elegant countermoves,” said John Tkacik, a former
State Department Asia hand.¶ Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to question President Barack Obama about the U.S. pivot during the summit meeting set to
begin Friday afternoon in California. Chinese
state-run media have denounced the new U.S. policy as an effort to
“contain” China and limit its growing power.¶ The Chinese strategy is highlighted by Xi’s current visit to Trinidad, Costa Rica, and
Mexico where he announced major loans of hundreds of millions of dollars that analysts say is part of buying influence in
the hemisphere.¶ U.S. officials say the visit to the region has several objectives, including seeking to bolster Chinese
arms sales to the region amid efforts by Russian arms dealers to steal market share.¶ States including Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia, and Mexico recently purchased Chinese arms but are said to be unhappy with the arms’ low quality.
For example, Chinese YLC radar sold to Ecuador in 2009 did not work properly and sales of Chinese tanks to Peru also ran into quality problems. Both states are now
looking to buy Russian weaponry, a U.S. official said.¶ Venezuela, a key oil-producing U.S. adversary, announced Thursday that China
agreed to a $4
billion loan for oil development.¶ And in Mexico this week, Xi announced China is extending a $1 billion line of
credit for oil development and pledged another $1 billion trade deal.¶ A joint Mexico-China statement
said Mexico pledged not to interfere in China’s affairs on Taiwan and Tibet, a reference to the previous government of
Mexican President Felipe Calderon who in 2011 invited exiled Tibetan leader the Dalia Lama, a move that angered Beijing. ¶ U.S. officials say there are
concerns that the pro-Beijing shift by the current government of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto,
who visited China in April, will be exploited by China for such political goals, and could be used to generate support for China’s claims to
Japan’s Senkaku Islands.¶ U.S. officials said there are growing fears that some type of military confrontation could break out between
China and Japan over the disputed islands that are said to contain large underwater gas and oil
reserves.¶ North of the U.S. border, Canada this week concluded a military cooperation agreement with China during the visit to Beijing by Canadian Defense
Minister Peter G. Mackay. The agreement calls for closer cooperation between the two militaries, including bilateral military exchanges. ¶ Chinese ambassador to
Canada Zhang Junsai said China is deepening ties to Canada for infrastructure development, in Calgary last month. Chinese state-run companies have spent $30
billion for Canadian oil sands and natural gas, he said. ¶ At a security conference in Singapore last month, the
commander of U.S. military
forces in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, confirmed the earlier disclosure by a Chinese military officer
that China’s military has been conducting naval incursions into the 200-mile U.S. Economic Exclusion
Zone around U.S. territory.¶ The locations of the incursions were not given but they likely included submarine or warship visits to the western Pacific
island of Guam, a key U.S. military base.¶ A Chinese military official initially stated at the conference that the incursions
were part of a People’s Liberation Army Navy effort at “reciprocating” for frequent U.S. Navy transits
through China’s 200-mile EEZs along the coasts. The zones are technically international waters and China has claimed U.S. transits are
“illegal” under international law.¶ It is not clear why China is conducting naval operations it considers illegal for its maritime boundaries inside U.S. EEZs.¶ “They are,
and we encourage their ability to do that,” Locklear said, without explaining why the activity was encouraged or where the Chinese vessels had transited.¶ Larry
Wortzel, a former military intelligence official and specialist on China, said the
Chinese military has sent intelligence collection ships
into Guam’s economic zone and also the zone around the Hawaiian islands.¶ “The EEZ transits may indicate that in the
future they could revise their position on the Law of the Sea and military activities,” Wortzel said.¶ Wortzel said he does
not see China’s efforts in South and Central America as a counter to the U.S. Asia pivot.¶ Chinese arms sales, military exchanges,
investment and developmenet has been underway for a decade, he said.¶ The Financial Times, which first disclosed the
Chinese EEZ forays, quoted one Chinese military source as saying, “we are considering this as a practice, and we have tried it out,
but we clearly don’t have the capacity to do this all the time like the U.S. does here.”¶ On Chinese inroads in the
western hemisphere, Rick Fisher, a China military affairs analyst, said China is moving strategically on Latin America, working methodically as part of a decades-long
effort to build economic and political clout there. ¶ “It
has cultivated far better military relations with the openly antiAmerican regimes in the region and could become a sort of political-economic godfather to ensure the
survival of the Castro dictatorship system in Cuba,” said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.¶ Intelligence
cooperation with Cuba is “substantial,” Fisher says, and will expand sharply in the region through the activities of its state-run telecommunications firms such as
Huawei Technologies and ZTE in the region.¶ China currently is “promoting almost all of its non-nuclear weapons in that region,” Fisher said. ¶ “It has promoted the
Chengdu J-10 4th generation fighter in Venezuela and Argentina, and even Peru may be considering the J-10 for its future fighter program,” he said.¶ A State
comment.¶ At a recent arms expo in Peru, China was selling a 22,000-ton
helicopter amphibious assault ship and an export version of its relatively advanced Yuan-class attack
submarine.¶ In Venezuela, China is helping the Caracas government circumvent U.S. arms embargoes by helping repair Venezuela’s U.S.-made gas turbine
engines on frigates, he said.¶ “Another company was marketing several short range ballistic missiles—with no
apparent consideration about how it might promote a regional missile arms race,” Fisher said. “The basic
U.S. policy is to ‘welcome’ China’s growing influence in Latin America but it is now time for Washington
to use both positive and negative pressures to limit China’s strategic military reach into this
hemisphere.”¶ Tkacik said China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.¶
Department spokeswoman declined to
“And if they [Chinese nationals] get in trouble, as they did in Libya in 2011, China’s navy and air forces can coordinate to support them,” he said. “This support of
émigré Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of China’s new security policy .”¶ China
also has set up commercial
bases in key chokepoints around the Caribbean, through its Chinese-run port facilities in Panama, Bahamas, Trinidad, and Venezuela over
the past decade.¶ Tkacik said those facilities are partly aimed at drawing American attention and easing U.S. geopolitical pressure in Asia .¶ China also is
investing heavily in Africa, the Middle East, and Indian Ocean region.¶ “At bottom, however, China’s
strategic targets are closer to home: East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific,” Tkacik said. “That’s why
Washington’s Pivot to the Pacific unsettles Beijing so. It threatens to check Beijing’s rising new influence
in the Asia-Pacific.¶ Tkacik said Chinese naval patrols in U.S. economic zones have been carried out for years through
Chinese ocean fishing fleets.¶ “It doesn’t need to send out military vessels to Guam or Hawaii or the Aleutians except to ‘tweak’ the U.S.,” he said.
2AC Asia Pivot Turns - Key to US Heg
The pivot is key to sustaining US heg – checks back Chinese influence
Gerson 2012 (Joseph, currently Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security
Program for the AFSC in New England. focuses on challenging and overcoming U.S. global hegemony, its
preparations for and threats to initiate nuclear war, and its military domination of the Asia-Pacific and
the Middle East., Foreign Policy in focus, 9/13/13, http://fpif.org/reinforcing_washingtons_asiapacific_hegemony/ ) Okuno
After Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, the Pacific became an “American Lake.” Hundreds of new U.S.
military bases were established in Japan, Korea, Australia, the Marshall Islands, and other Pacific nations
to reinforce those in the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii, which were greatly expanded. Together these bases
“contained” Beijing and Moscow throughout the Cold War, serving as launching pads for the Korean and
Vietnam wars as well as for military interventions and political subversion from the Philippines and Indonesia to the Persian Gulf.¶ In the
late 1990s, when China was first seen a potential strategic competitor for Asia-Pacific hegemony, the
Clinton administration adopted a two-track policy of engagement and containment. Deng Xiaoping was
welcomed to Disneyland, President Clinton was welcomed in Beijing, and China was given the green light to join
the World Trade Organization. Meanwhile, the U.S.-Japan military alliance, which has long functioned as
the NATO equivalent in East Asia, was reinforced. The Clinton administration sent nuclear-capable aircraft carriers through
the Taiwan Strait and accelerated missile defense deployments designed to neutralize China’s missile capabilities. Before they were sidetracked
by the “war on terror,”
President George W. Bush and company promised to “diversify” U.S. Asia-Pacific
military bases, reducing their concentration in Northeast Asia in order to distribute them more widely along China’s
periphery.¶ Although the Bush administration extended the “war on terror” to Indonesia, the Philippines, and
southern Thailand, it otherwise largely neglected Asia and the Pacific. This opened the way for growing Chinese influence,
deepening the integration of ASEAN nations into China’s surging economic orbit. With the pivot, the
Obama administration has signaled its determination, according to the Guardian’s Simon Tidal, “ to beat
back any Chinese bid for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific,” even at the expense of a new Cold War. As General Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it, “the U.S. military may be obliged to overtly confront China just as it faced down the
Soviet Union.”
Asia Pivot key to Heg – strengthens economy, hard, and soft power
Rogin 3/11 (Josh, covers national security and foreign policy and writes the daily Web column The
Cable. His column appears bi-weekly in the print edition of The Washington Post, 3/11/13, Foreign
Policy, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/11/donilon_defends_the_asia_pivot ) Okuno
The White House's top national security official defended the Obama administration's rebalancing
toward Asia and pledged to continue that policy in President Barack Obama's second term in a speech Monday.¶ National Security
Advisor Tom Donilon addressed the Asia Society in New York Monday afternoon on the U.S. government's Asia policy
and said that changing administrations in China, Japan, and South Korea this year marked a crucial point
in the future of Asian diplomacy and America's role in the region. The U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, also
known as the "pivot," was Obama's premier strategic foreign policy initiative in the first term, he said.¶ "It was clear [in 2009] that
there was an imbalance in the projection and focus of U.S. power. It was the president's judgment that we were
over-weighted in some areas and regions, including our military actions in the Middle East," Donilon said. "At
the same time, we were underweighted in other regions, such as the Asia-Pacific. Indeed, we believed this was our
key geographic imbalance."¶ For a definition of the strategy, Donilon pointed Asia hands to Obama's Nov. 2011 address to the
Australian Parliament in Canberra, which coincided with the announcement of greater U.S. military deployment in Australia and Southeast
Asia.¶ "So
make no mistake, the tide of war is receding, and America is looking ahead to the future that
we must build," Obama said then. "Our new focus on this region reflects a fundamental truth -- the
United States has been, and always will be, a Pacific nation."¶ But Donilon focused on defending the pivot against
accusations that it necessarily denotes a turn away from American engagement in the Middle East or Europe. He also pushed back against the
widely held regional view that the strategy is meant to contain China's rise.¶ "Here's
what rebalancing does not mean. It
doesn't mean diminishing ties to important partners in any other region. It does not mean containing
China or seeking to dictate terms to Asia. And it isn't just a matter of our military presence," Donilon said. "It
is an effort that harnesses all elements of U.S. power -- military, political, trade and investment,
development and our values."¶ He also emphasized that America's commitment to the Asia-Pacific region will
not be diminished by the country's fiscal woes or the defense cuts that will have come as a result of the
sequester. Donilon pledged to keep former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's promise to commit 60 percent of the U.S. naval
fleet to the Pacific by 2020 and he promised the United States would "prioritize" the region when rolling out new
military platforms and technologies.¶ "In these difficult fiscal times, I know that some have questioned whether this
rebalance is sustainable. After a decade of war, it is only natural that the U.S. defense budget is being
reduced. But make no mistake: President Obama has clearly stated that we will maintain our security
presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific," he said. "Specifically, our defense spending and programs will
continue to support our key priorities -- from our enduring presence on the Korean Peninsula to our
strategic presence in the western Pacific."
2AC Asia Pivot Turns - Key to US/Sino Relations
Asia pivot key to US-China relations, stopping SCS conflict, and the economy –
leverage in TPP key
Mendis 3/6 (Patrick, Patrick Mendis is Senior Fellow and Affiliate Professor at the School of Public
Policy, George Mason University, 3/6/13, East Asia Forum,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/06/how-washingtons-asia-pivot-and-the-tpp-can-benefit-sinoamerican-relations/ ) Okuno
In November 2011, President Obama embarked on an unusually lengthy ten day tour of the Asia Pacific during
which he met with over 25 heads of state, reiterating America’s commitment to and presence in the Asia Pacific and,
most significantly, reaffirming the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).¶ The TPP aims to create a tariffeliminating, free trade zone through a network of expansive trade agreements with eligible Pacific Rim
economies. Launched in 2006 as a free trade pact between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP has
expanded to include negotiations with the Australia, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. It forms a key part of
the Obama administration’s new ‘Asia pivot’ policy, which calls for a shift of security priorities from the
Middle East and Europe to the Asia Pacific.¶ Yet China, the world’s second-largest economy and Asia’s dominant economic
and trading power, is noticeably absent from the TPP. China views the TPP, and other aspects of the
Washington’s pivot strategy (including the US Marine’s revived presence in Australia and strengthened ties to countries such as
Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) as part of a new containment policy not
unlike that employed against the former Soviet Union. According to state-run Chinese Xinhua news, American
intervention in South China Sea disputes is seen as part of a set of ongoing ‘provocative moves’ under the
guise of freedom of navigation. Overseas, Obama’s Asia pivot has also played out as a clear attempt to
comprehensively contain China and to counterbalance a perceived China threat.¶ But Washington’s pivot
strategy is better understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) — a twist
on the Cold War containment practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).¶
First, at present, strong interdependent economic relations exist as importer–exporter, debtor–creditor and
consumer–producer between the United States and China. This already forces the two countries to caution
and resort to trade diplomacy within the WTO framework, rather than retaliatory competition or military threats to resolve
differences.¶ Second, Sino–American trade and commercial history suggests that convergence between the two
largest economies — intensifying indirectly and multilaterally through the TPP — may instead solidify this
existing symbiotic economic relationship. Since America’s founding, commerce has been the uniting factor among states and
with foreign nations. To achieve Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an ‘Empire of Liberty,’ Alexander Hamilton devised an ingenious strategy that
entailed a strong manufacturing base, a national banking system, the centralised federal government and an export-led economic and trade
scheme protected by the US Navy. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s export-led liberalisation of Chinese economic policy also implicitly recognised the
role of trade and commerce as a unifier of peoples.¶ There
are three dimensions to the new MAP framework —
geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-security — intertwined to the extent that the lines of distinction between each are
blurred. Geopolitically, Washington’s re-engagement with the Asia Pacific after a decade of distraction is not so
much a paradigm shift as the revival of a traditional and historic role. Since the Cold War, the United States has
underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with allies such as Australia, Japan,
South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. In recent years as South China Sea tensions have intensified,
Beijing’s perceived use of force in its own neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity
of its current status as a regional hegemon, and to look for a balancer. America’s return to the Asian region reassures
stakeholders that China will not overwhelm its neighbors.¶ Economically, through trade engagement and transparency via
the TPP, Washington affords smaller countries the opportunity to collectively rebalance asymmetries in
bilateral trade with China without undermining China as a valued and vital trade partner. This simultaneously
eliminates the need for naval competition, reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South
China Sea disputes of the so-called gunboat diplomacy sort — a term often applied to Washington’s historically preferred method of
advancing foreign trade policy objectives in Asia.¶ Meanwhile,
from a security perspective, China will be able to continue
to prosper from regional stability. The expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the establishment
of ports of call for PLA Navy ships will seem less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region in a
cooperative, multilateral fashion, avoiding direct confrontation but implicitly projecting the show of force without war to restrain the
This may give China the space to ease into its role as the dominant — but not
domineering — regional power in a way that will best serve its own economic growth and national
security interests. It is also the finest insurance policy for China that holds over $1 trillion worth of American treasury securities.¶
Ultimately, a regional TPP-led free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’ security architecture for long-term
stability between the two economic superpowers in the Pacific Ocean. The TPP will deliver benefits for
individual restraint between the two power centres, and may advance regional development, encourage the
integration of the Chinese economy, and allow surrounding nations to hedge their bets on (and therefore contribute to) China’s ‘Peaceful
Rise.’ In the Asian century, alliances are complex, and multilateralism and flexibility are the new currency. This era of Sino–
American relations will require measured diplomacy.
adversarial behaviour.
2AC Asia Pivot Turns - Key to solving conflict
Pivot Solves conflict – empirically proven
Morris 4/22 (Anna, writer for world politics review, 4/22/13, World Politics Review,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12887/u-s-pivot-to-asia-passes-first-test-in-korea-crisis )
Okuno
The Obama administration’s response to the steady drumbeat of threats issuing from North Korea in recent
weeks could not have been clearer. “The United States will, if needed, defend our allies and defend ourselves,” U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry said during his April 12 visit to South Korea. The American F-22 stealth fighter jets and nuclear-capable B-2
bombers that flew drills over South Korea in March and the two missile-defense ships that sidled up to South Korea earlier this month
undoubtedly sent the same message. ¶ As
a crisis management policy, that message was exactly right. As a
strategic signal of America’s future in the Pacific, its implications go far beyond the Korean Peninsula. ¶ The immediate U.S.
response was well-calibrated to this particular crisis. North Korean provocation is nothing new, but it has reached a hysterical pitch, even by
North Korean standards, under its unpredictable young leader, Kim Jong Un.
Kim’s intentions, whether they be extracting
concessions from the international community or burnishing his military credentials for a domestic
audience, are unknown. But the unambiguous U.S. position made it clear that the cost to North Korea of an attack on the South would
be military retaliation. It also reassured South Korea that the United States would come to its defense. ¶ Both of
these signals reduced the risk of miscalculation either by the North or the South and the potential for the tensions to turn into
an actual exchange of fire. The situation could still escalate, particularly if North Korea launches a missile at South Korea or Japan, but signals
over the past week suggest that concerns about an attack have subsided. ¶ The
broader, strategic implications of the robust
American response, for the consumption of allies and nonallies, was that the United States is and
intends to remain a Pacific power. The Obama administration has not made a secret of this point and Kerry reiterated it last week
in Japan. After more than a decade of intense focus on the Middle East and Afghanistan, the U.S. is “pivoting” to Asia, directing
diplomatic, economic and military resources toward this increasingly important region, reassuring allies
of U.S. support and deepening trade cooperation. However, the pivot also represents a U.S. commitment to remaining the
predominant power in Asia over the long run as China grows stronger. Even if the administration avoids saying so out loud, it is hard to
read the policy any other way.¶ Nonetheless, many of America’s Asian partners that have historically
welcomed the U.S. as the guarantor of regional stability have been skeptical of the pivot. The basis of
American influence in the region is U.S. military power, but operationally speaking, the military rebalancing has been marginal, consisting of a
deployment of a couple thousand Marines to Australia and increased littoral ship rotations in Southeast Asia. This has raised questions,
especially among states that are increasingly rattled by Chinese assertiveness in territorial disputes, about the real level of commitment of the
The fact that the U.S. has remained relatively quiet about escalating tensions
between China and Japan, America’s most important Asian ally, over the disputed Senkaku Islands has not helped. ¶ In this
context, the crisis on the Korean Peninsula can be seen as the first test of the U.S. pivot to Asia, and the
U.S. passed. It is clear that the U.S. remains deeply invested in a stable Asia and in forestalling conflict that
would have serious consequences for Asia and America alike. In the Korean case, war would kill a million or
more people by one prediction, including thousands of Americans, and pit the U.S. against an
unpredictable autocrat with weapons, possibly nuclear weapons, trained on South Korea. Even limited war
would send shock waves through global markets, negatively impacting economies throughout the region, not to
mention the still recovering U.S. economy.
U.S. to preserving regional stability.
1AR Exts - No China involvement in Mexico now
Sino-Mexican relations at lowest point in years - economic relations low - prefer our
evidence which is a consensus of over 100 experts
Powell 2/3 (Helena, Writer, author, and columnist for varies news sites, 2/3/13, Pulsa America,
http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2013/02/03/chinalatin-america-mexican-relations-with-china-at-lowestebb-in-recent-years-according-to-experts/ ) Okuno
Mexican relations with China at lowest ebb in recent years according to experts¶ Mexico is ‘completely
clueless when it comes to China… There’s no strategy that adequately reflects China’s global importance and does justice to our
second leading trade partner. I don’t think economic and trade relations can get any worse.’ This damning assessment
of Sino-Mexican relations came from Enrique Dussel, director of the Center for China-Mexico Studies of the National Autonomous University of
Mexico.¶ Mr
Dussel is not alone in his view; indeed he is one of a group of 100 academics, businessmen
and politicians who have devised a Strategic Agenda for Mexico-China Relations, which was presented to
President Peña Nieto shortly after he took office. The proposed agenda covers the economy, culture, environment
and education, and highlights the absence of a coherent short and long term plan for China. It also
stresses the need to prioritise forming a strategy, in conjunction with Beijing, otherwise trade and
economic ties will suffer.¶ This issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks over the Dragon
Mart controversy, (see last week’s article). Plans to build Chinese-financed retail complex near Cancun have received widespread
criticism in Mexico from environmental groups and public figures who questioned the transparency of
China’s trade practices. It is the latest incident in a somewhat chequered history; last year Mexico filed a
complaint against China in the WTO over malpractice in the textile industry, and in 2011 Mexico failed in its bid for
the International Monetary Fund’s head position when China refused to back candidate Agustin Carstens.¶ Such tensions
will not help Mexico in resolving issues within the bilateral economic relationship. Mexico has a starkly
negative trade deficit with China, importing $52bn worth of Chinese goods in 2011 while exporting just $2bn worth in return.
Furthermore China’s FDI in Mexico is surprisingly low; the two countries disagree widely about the exact figure (Mexico
estimates the 2011 figure to be $157m while China puts it at $614m), however put into perspective both figures are noticeably paltry compared
the Mexican government has made scant effort to redress the trade
imbalance or attract further investment.
to the US 2011 contribution of $8bn.¶ As yet
China and Mexico moving away from cooperation – competition and controversy
Helu and Wong 6/6 (Alfredo, Masters Degree in Political Science and reporter for Quarterly
Americas, and Jessica, Reporter for Quarterly americas, 6/6/13, Quarterly Americas,
http://www.americasquarterly.org/dragon-mart-controversy-implications-china-mexico-traderelationship ) Okuno
Still, mutually perceived rivalry remains a challenge for cooperation in other areas. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in Cancún, Mexico, where resistance to the construction of the commercial complex
known as “Dragon Mart” has flared. Dragon Mart is a joint venture between Mexican businessmen, Chengkai Investment
Company, and the Chinamex Middle East Investment and Trade Promotion Centre—a business promotion company under the
supervision of China’s Ministry of Commerce. The Dragon Mart complex will function as an exhibition center
featuring Chinese products and goods from other countries, including Mexico. According to the Chinese media,
the project represents a $1.54 billion investment.¶ 1¶ Comment on this post¶ Promoters of Dragon Mart have stated that the complex will add
can serve as a point of communication for Chinese and
Mexican governments and private enterprises. ¶ Mexican manufacturers have overlooked the fact that
Dragon Mart would draw Chinese business at a point when Mexico’s capabilities to export high-valueadded goods, such as telecommunications equipment and automobiles, have taken off. ¶ The project’s critics have claimed that Dragon
8,550 jobs, but it offers even farther-reaching benefits as it
Mart would ease the flow of inexpensive Chinese imports into Latin America, the Caribbean and North
American markets. Negative reactions from domestic producers have contributed to local authorities’ recent
decision to deny the project’s license, which is likely to cause further delays in construction.¶ In the past, China and
Mexico were pitted as rivals because they depended on exports to the United States. But now, times have
changed and the paradigm casting China and Mexico as competitors is obsolete. Rising wages have driven up the price of
manufacturing in China, so China must find ways to maintain economic competitiveness. As Dragon Mart
shows, Chinese enterprises are considering moving some manufacturing to Mexico to lower costs.
Mexico does not see China as a good partner – wants them out
Guthrie 1/17 (Amy, Mexican correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal,
1/17/13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578243880802729850.html )
Okuno
Plans to build a large, permanent exposition center for Chinese-made goods near Cancún have triggered an
outcry from Mexican industrialists who struggle to compete with Chinese manufacturing.¶ Promoters of
Dragon Mart Cancún, a $180 million project that would inhabit 1,370 acres south of Mexico's Caribbean resort, say the center seeks to spur
greater trade between China and the Americas and to promote cross-cultural ties.¶ Enlarge Image¶ Dragon Mart Cancun¶ The Cancún
center's chief, Mr. López, speaks in front of its proposed site.¶ The Dragon Mart development plan, modeled after one in
Dubai, includes 722 homes for Chinese administrators of more than 3,000 storefronts promoting toys, construction materials, electronics and
other goods.
The village would also host events to spotlight Chinese music, dance and culture.¶ But so far
the center is generating anxiety. Its large scale and proximity to a protected coral reef have triggered
objections from environmentalists and hotel operators. And locals and business leaders fear it would
flood Mexico with Chinese products and function as a self-contained colony with little benefit for
Mexican workers. The mayor of Cancún is vowing to deny the construction permits.¶ "This project has many
detractors," Cancún Mayor Julian Ricalde said, explaining that the expo center's promoters have failed to convince the local community that
Dragon Mart Cancún is beneficial for Mexico.¶ Trade
relations between Mexico and China have long been tense as
the countries vie for market share of U.S. imports. Once the star of emerging-market nations, Mexico bled manufacturing
jobs after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, as thousands of factories relocated to China.¶ Bilateral trade is also heavily
skewed, with
Chinese exports to Mexico accounting for about 90% of the roughly $60 billion of goods that
flow each year between the two countries, according to Mexican government data. The trade deficit has
fueled resentment and xenophobia in Mexico, he added.¶ For China, the expo represents a way to diversify
its exports, which are still heavily dependent on the shaky economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan. It also comes as Chinese companies try
to build global brands that command higher profits rather than acting merely as final assemblers of parts made elsewhere or suppliers of
generic components.¶ Dragon Mart Cancún is a joint venture between Mexican investors and a unit of Chinamex, an overseas promotion effort
of China's Ministry of Commerce. A precursor to Chinamex helped develop the Dubai site.
Mexico pushing China away - they are not seeking further involvement - WTO rules
violations
Miles 2012 (Tom, Mexico correspondent for Reuters, 10/15/12, The Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1015/Mexico-accuses-China-of-breakingworld-trade-rules ) Okuno
However the Strategic Agenda seeks to change this, recommending a $50m credit programme to promote
Mexican exports to China and a $40m a year Chinese Investment Attraction Fund to bring in capital from
Beijing¶ Mexico has accused China of breaking World Trade Organization rules by giving tax breaks and
other favorable deals to its own clothing and textile businesses, the global trade body said on Monday.¶ Other Chinese
support that Mexico said broke WTO regulations included cash payments from government agencies
and discounts on loans, land rights and electricity prices.¶ It was Mexico's fourth WTO complaint against
China, a competitor in many sectors including clothing and textiles.¶ China's use of subsidies and its failure to disclose
them to the WTO have been the subject of strong criticism, especially from the United States. The brief WTO
statement announcing the latest dispute did not provide details about the size of the alleged Chinese support or its impact on Mexico's trade.¶
called Mexico's official complaint
"a highly important move."¶ "The existence of subsidies in China, which violate WTO regulations, give
producers from that country an unfair advantage, distort international markets and seriously damage Mexican
industry," they said.¶ Under WTO rules, China has 60 days to resolve the dispute by explaining its actions or changing its behavior. If no deal
is reached, Mexico could ask the WTO to rule on the case.¶ In December 2011, Mexico and China signed off on a
series a trade agreements that sought to protect Latin America's second largest economy from cheap
Chinese imports.¶ The treaty - negotiated over a period of seven years - formed part of China's conditions for entering the WTO.
Mexico's textile (CANAINTEX) and clothing industry (CANAIVE) associations, in a joint statement,
1AR Exts - No Link - Not zero-sum
Latin America Influence is not a zero-sum game – both can cooperative
Xiaoxia 5/6 (Wang, Professor at Normal University and political reporter on international affairs,
5/6/13, World Crunch, http://www.worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-srising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/ ) Okuno
what does China want exactly in entering Latin American? Is it to obtain a stable supply of energy and
resources, and thus inadvertently acquire political influence? Or the other way round?
So
Presumably most U.S. foreign policy-makers are well aware of the answer.
China's involvement in the Latin American continent doesn’t constitute a threat to the United States, but brings
benefits. It is precisely because China has reached "loans-for-oil" swap agreements with Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and other
countries that it brings much-needed funds to these oil-producing countries in South America. Not only have these funds been
used in the field of oil production, but they have also safeguarded the energy supply of the United States,
as well as stabilized these countries' livelihood -- and to a certain extent reduced the impact of illegal immigration and the drug
trade on the U.S.
For South America, China and the United States, this is not a zero-sum game, but a multiple choice of mutual
benefits and synergies. Even if China has become the Latin American economy’s new upstart, it is still not in a position to
challenge the strong and diverse influence that the United States has accumulated over two centuries in the
region.
Cooperation is not a zero-sum game – Latin America wants both
Shixue 2011 (Jiang, a professor at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Vice President of Chinese
Association of Latin American Studies, 11/3/11, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/the-u-sworry-factor-in-sino-latin-american-relations/ ) Okuno
Finally, China
does not wish to be used as a “card” against the United States. It has no enthusiasm for
getting entangled in the problems of U.S.-Latin American relations.¶ ¶ It is encouraging to see that in the U.S. there are
other voices commenting about Sino-Latin American relations. For instance, Manuel Rocha, former U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, also said,
“Were it not for China, Latin America would probably be showing a much more lackluster [economic]
performance.” In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, in June 2008,
Daniel P. Erikson, then a senior researcher at the Inter-American Dialogue, pointed out that “while China’s
expansion into Latin America may imply a potential loss for some U.S. business sectors, it is important to
note that trade is not a zero sum game. To the extent that China’s involvement is sparking economic growth
in Latin America, it may contribute to economic stability and well-being in a manner that suits the U.S.
desire to see a prosperous and healthy neighborhood.” Erikson added, “China’s engagement in Latin America is not yet a
major concern for the United States, and there are few signs of any real frictions between the two countries on that score.”¶ ¶ So,
President Monroe does not need to roll over in his grave.
US and China can cooperate – Latin America is not a zero-sum game
Castaneda 2011 (Sebastian, is a graduate student at the University of Hong Kong and a contributor to
Foreign Policy in Focus., 4/18/11, Foreign Policy in Focus, http://fpif.org/chinese_takeover_of_south_america/ ) Okuno
More telling, however, are the results of a similar Gallup poll carried out in 2006. Five years ago,
U.S. approval ratings stood at 30
percent while disapproval reached 45 percent. Regarding China, although 28 percent approved of its
leadership, 22 disapproved. Comparing the 2006 with the 2010 results, it is clear that Washington has gained an
advantage in soft power over Beijing, especially given China’s repression of human rights activists.¶ China’s economic
activities in Latin America, especially South America, are not a zero-sum game. Although China’s
engagement results in more influence, Beijing’s methods also decrease its effectiveness.¶ Nevertheless, the
self-serving U.S. strategy in the region may be counterproductive. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated Washington’s vision:
“Enhancing our competitiveness, accelerating innovation, achieving energy security, and expanding our
exports — all of these require robust engagement with Latin America.” Focusing on only increasing U.S. exports to the
region while decreasing aid may push countries to fully embrace China’s type of economic engagement. Washington would be wiser
to encourage imports of manufactured goods from Latin America that compete directly with Chinese
goods and create good jobs in the region.
1AR Exts - Pivot Defense
Pivot wont happen – administration is going to kill the effort
Dreyfuss 3/7 (Bob, A national contributor and editor specializing in American Security and Asian
Affairs, 3/7/13, The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/blog/173247/dods-asia-pivot-dead# ) Okuno
Nothing could be a better sign from the administration of President Barack Obama than a decision to kill the “pivot.”¶
The pivot, of course, is the vastly expensive, counterproductive and highly provocative shift of American military resources from the war-weary
Middle East to China and the Pacific.
At best, the pivot is a transparent effort by the military-industrial complex to
justify its bloated spending on “defense” by yapping about the supposed threat from China. At worst, the pivot is an actual, onthe-ground (and on-the-sea and in-the-air) effort to “contain” China.¶ Sequester aside, with levels of spending on
the Department of Defense likely to fall during the 2010s, the United States can’t afford the pivot. Much of
it would involve vastly expensive naval and air force weapons systems programs that Washington cannot
pay for.¶ Already, the right-wing Washington Times is reporting:¶ National security officials in the military and at the
Pentagon are voicing growing worries that the second Obama administration is preparing to jettison the
new policy focus on Asia known as the “pivot” or rebalancing.¶ And worry they should. The paper also reports:¶
Evidence cited by these officials includes a recent Chinese government visitor who was told that the White House plans to kill the
shift to Asia in mid-2013 as part of its conciliatory approach to China. Beijing is the key, but unspoken, target of the major
military and diplomatic effort to increase security in Asia and calm the fears of US allies alarmed by what they see as the new Chinese hegemon
in Asia.¶ The new Obama foreign policy team, especially Chuck Hagel, are reported not to be enamored of the idea of an Asian pivot, says the
Times.¶ Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!¶ And
then there’s the messy Middle East,
including a hot war in Syria and a still-simmering one in Afghanistan, that doesn’t want to be pivoted
away from. As the Wall Street Journal reports today:¶ The Obama administration hopes to “pivot” away from a
hyper-focus on the Middle East during its second term, but John Kerry’s maiden overseas mission as
secretary of state—a nine-nation odyssey across Europe and the Persian Gulf—highlighted why that goal
may be elusive.¶
Asia Pivot won’t happen – Obama can’t overcome setbacks
Stuster 6/7 (Dana, a Joseph S. Nye National Security Research Intern at Center for a New American
Security, is a writer living in Washington, DC, 6/7/13, Foreign Policy,
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/07/the_obama_administration_just_cant_seem_to_get_it
s_asia_pivot_right ) Okuno
Ever since the Obama administration first rolled out its signature Asia pivot policy, the effort seemed
ambitious. The United States was wrapping up its war in Iraq and still surging troops in Afghanistan -- and yet,
policymakers planned to "rebalance" military forces to the Pacific while strengthening business and diplomatic ties
with partners in the region. Since then, events have stymied the administration's policy at seemingly every
turn.¶ In the latest example, President Obama's summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday was overshadowed by
new revelations of an extensive domestic surveillance program. But Asia getting pushed to the backburner is nothing
new. The administration's series of high-profile trips to the region last fall had to jockey for attention with the news that Israel might any day
launch a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip (and now there's Secretary of State John Kerry's initiative to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace
negotiations). Since then, the
administration's Asia policy has also been a bone of contention in the fight over
cuts to the defense budget.¶ Even the administration's modest successes have suffered setbacks. Earlier
this week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel showed off the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom in Singapore in an effort to showcase the
increased U.S. naval presence in Southeast Asian waters.
But that came after the ship was stranded in port when its
propulsion system gave out on its maiden deployment. Then there's the deployment of U.S. Marines to Australia -- when
the first 180 Marines arrived in Darwin in April 2012, they were supposed to be followed by more than
2,000 more. That might never happen, though, as Australian enthusiasm for the project has waned.
Despite plans for 2,500 U.S. Marines to be stationed in Australia by 2017, Australia is still evaluating the effects of a force less than half that
size.¶ With
all the setbacks, maybe the administration is happy that the media isn't paying attention to
the pivot
No pivot coming - American public does not support
Kelly 2012 (Robert, Senior Analyst at Wikistrat, is a professor of political science at Pusan National
University, South Korea, 3/29/13, CNN World,
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/why-america-wont-pivot-to-asia-anytime-soon/ )
Okuno
A U.S. ‘pivot’ to Asia is the foreign policy talk of the moment, but I think Americans are unlikely to
embrace it.¶ True, Asia outweighs other global regions as a U.S. interest. Europe and Latin America are mostly democratic,
fairly prosperous and at peace. Africa, sadly, remains a U.S. backwater. The Middle East is overrated. Israel and
oil are important but hardly justify the vast U.S. presence. The terrorist threat is ‘overblown.’¶ By contrast, Asia’s economies are
growing fast. Asian savers and banks fund the U.S. deficit. Asia’s addition of two billion people to the global labor pool kept world inflation down for a
generation. Asian markets are now major export destinations for American industries. Five hundred million people live in the Middle East but three times that just in
India. Half the world’s population lives in South, Southeast, and Northeast Asia. ¶ Lots of people mean friction, and lots of money means weapons. Big, tightly
packed, fast-growing economies spend more for bigger militaries, while nationalism and territorial grievances create sparks. Regional conflict would dwarf anything
the world has seen since the Cold War. China’s
rise to regional hegemony would have obvious ramifications for the
U.S.¶ But four trends in U.S. domestic politics contravene this narrative:¶ 1. Americans don’t care that
much about Asia¶
Which constituency in America cares enough about this region to drive a realignment away from long-standing U.S. interests in
Europe and the Middle East? The
business community might, but they’re souring today because of China’s
relentless mercantilism. Asian-Americans are few and have not loudly organized to demand this. Asian
security is still scarcely on the media radar compared to the coverage of U.S. domestic politics or the Middle East.¶ Does Obama’s
electoral coalition care? As a rule of thumb, the less wealthy you are, the less you care about far-off issues like
foreign policy. So it’s unlikely that the underprivileged and youth who helped Obama win care much.
While college-educated whites, who also broke for Obama, likely support this, the rest of the
Democratic coalition traditionally focuses on domestic issues.¶ By contrast, the GOP deeply cares about the
Middle East. Something like 30-40% of Americans claim to have had a born-again experience. For them, Israel is, easily,
America’s most important ally, which the Republican primary on made very obvious. A Kulturkampf with Islam, not Asia, mobilizes these ‘Jacksonian-Christianist’
voters.¶ What does the Tea Party know or care about China or India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, or Taoism? It’s all about culture and religion to
the base of the American right these days, and Asia is like another planet to those voters. ¶ 2.
Americans know less about Asia than any
other region bar central Africa ¶ Of course, it’s true Americans don’t know a lot about the world generally. As a
superpower, we don’t have to know about others; others have to know about us. But Asia is the most culturally different
social space in the world from the U.S. I can think of, with the possible exception of Bantu Africa.¶ Latin
America, Europe, Oceania, and Russia are all in, or close enough to, Western Civilization that our memory of high school civics classes applies. They look like us (kind
of); they eat like us, their languages are fairly similar (Indo-European roots); they dress like us; they worship like us. The tribal cultural gap (how others eat, dress,
is not that wide.¶ But consider how many Americans can speak a non-Latinate Asian
language, identify a major Asian author, discuss even the basics of Buddhism or Confucianism, use chopsticks properly, distinguish Hindu
gods, recognize Angkor Wat, etc.?¶ What does that say about the American electorate’s cultural-intellectual interest
in this pivot? The U.S. public, mostly descended from European immigrants, had a fair idea of Europe, so a
talk, worship, look, write, etc.)
‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ was a coherent concept.
***Renewable Energy Trade-off DA Answers
Renewable Energy Tradeoff 2AC
No link - shale gas boom is not trading off with development of solar and wind
Hanger, 7/08/2013 (John, a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. He helped shape the state's policy in the Marcellus Shale natural gas region. Hanger, a
Democrat, is running for governor of Pennsylvania,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-for-environment)
bashir
So far, shale gas is co-existing with solar and wind, whose capacity skyrocketed respectively 14 and 2
times since 2008, but is in mortal combat with coal. Cheap natural gas is coal's market nemesis,
plunging coal electricity to only 37% of the market in 2012 from 48% in 2008 and causing investors to pull the plug on 150 planned coal-fired
power plants. Though Republicans reflexively charge President Obama with a war on coal, Adam Smith's market forces caused coal to lose
market share at a rapid pace.
And, non-unique - Mexico is already developing some natural gas now
Iliff 5/16 [Laurence Iliff is the Mexico correspondent for WSJ “Mexico Aims to Triple Natural Gas Imports from U.S.” May
16, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487104065985868.html accessed on July 31, 2013]
JAKE LEE
MEXICO CITY—The
construction of a natural gas pipeline from southern Texas to central Mexico will allow
for a tripling of imports from the U.S. to meet increasing demand from industry, an official from Petroleos
Mexicanos has said. Alejandro Martinez Sibaja, the director of the state-owned company's gas division, said that Mexican industry is currently hampered by its
because of the lack of pipeline capacity for natural gas to come across the
border. Pemex Gas Director Alejandro Martínez Discusses Pipeline Project "The lack of gas means that our industries
are having to burn fuel oil," which is currently about three times as expensive as natural gas, Mr. Martinez said in an interview on Wednesday. "A lot of
investment is looking to come to Mexico, so we have to respond by providing natural gas as part of
our offer to get these companies to come." The gas supply problem is expected to be alleviated with
the Los Ramones project, a pipeline that Mr. Martinez said will carry around 3 billion cubic feet of
natural gas per day by 2015 from southern Texas to the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, which is
a hub for the Mexican auto industry. Pemex plans to release bidding rules next week for the longest
part of the pipeline, a 740-kilometer (460-mile) stretch from Nuevo León to Guanajuato. Mr. Martinez
said the estimated cost of section of the pipeline being tendered is about $1.8 billion. The first two sections of
reliance on more expensive fuels
the pipeline have already been assigned. The 200-kilometer section from the Agua Dulce gas hub in Texas to the Mexican border will require an investment of about
$800 million, and the 114-kilometer section from the border to the Ramones gas hub in Nuevo León state will cost about $600 million, he said. Meanwhile, the
state-owned electricity company Comision Federal de Electricidad, or CFE,
is building a separate natural gas pipeline on the Pacific
side of Mexico. Pemex and CFE are currently importing liquefied natural gas by ship from Nigeria and
other nations at about four to five times the price of piped-in gas from the U.S., where increased
production from shale formations has lowered prices in recent years. The imported LNG is just enough to keep Pemex
pipelines from reaching a critical state due to a lack of pressure. Critical alerts in the past have forced industry to cut back on their use of the fuel. Mr.
Martinez said that while Pemex's immediate goal is to guarantee sufficient natural gas supplies, he
expects the company to eventually increase its own production from the current 6.4 billion cubic feet
per day by exploiting Mexican shale-gas deposits, which are now in the exploration phase. President Enrique Peña Nieto has
proposed changes to Mexico's government-dominated energy industry that would allow more private investment, and the three main political parties are
Mexico nationalized the oil industry in 1938 and relies on oil revenue for about a
third of the federal budget.
negotiating an energy package.
And, we solve your impact - natural gas solves global warming
Plumer 12 [Brad Plumer is
a reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly energy and
environmental issues. “Can natural gas help tackle global warming? A primer.” August 20, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/20/can-natural-gas-really-help-tackle-global-warming-hereseverything-you-need-to-know/ accessed on July 31, 2013] JAKE LEE
This winter,
the United States reached a striking milestone. Carbon-dioxide emissions from the energy
sector sank to their lowest levels in 20 years. At a glance, the country appears to be making major
progress in tackling climate change. And many analysts give credit to the recent flood of cheap natural
gas, which is shoving aside coal as America’s top source of electricity. Yet some environmentalists have argued that the
accolades for natural gas are premature. True, the shale gas boom has led to lower carbon pollution
from U.S. power plants. But the process to extract natural gas from shale rock — known as “fracking”
— can release plenty of methane into the atmosphere, which also heats the planet. That muddies the
climate picture a bit. What’s more, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Even if it produces less carbon than coal, it still produces a
fair amount of carbon. So how do all these factors shake out? Below is a primer, but here’s the short version: It’s still uncertain how big an improvement natural gas
is over coal, because of those methane leaks. The good news is that those leaks can be plugged. The bad news is that even if the leaks are plugged, a flood of cheap
natural gas isn’t, by itself, enough to prevent the planet from heating up significantly. There’s only so much more carbon the world can emit if it wants to avoid a
2°C rise in global temperatures.
Natural gas can help avert drastic global warming, but only if paired with a
broader set of efforts to curtail emissions. 1) Producing electricity from natural gas is less carbonintensive than producing it from coal. If you burn natural gas to produce a certain amount of energy, you get, on average, about half as much
carbon-dioxide as you get from burning coal. What’s more, modern natural-gas power plants tend to be more efficient than
coal plants. So natural gas beats coal from a carbon perspective. And carbon-dioxide is the main gas
warming the planet. That’s a key point. 2) But the production of natural gas also emits heat-trapping
methane. Natural gas is itself mainly methane. And methane, when it escapes into the air, is a potent
greenhouse gas — it lingers in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide, but it’s far,
far more effective at trapping heat. So every time some methane seeps out, during drilling or from
pipeline leaks, natural gas’s contribution to global warming goes up. 3) If these methane leaks are high enough, the
climate benefit from switching to natural gas dwindles. A recent PNAS study found that if the leakage rate from natural-gas production rises to 6 percent, then a
natural gas plant would contribute more to global warming than a coal plant would over the first 25 years of their lifespans. After that, however, the natural gas
But the
leakage rates are one key question here. 4) Judging from existing research, natural gas appears to be
an improvement over coal, though it’s still not clear how much. Officially, the EPA estimates that
those methane leakage rates are about 3 percent. That would make natural gas a clear winner. But the
plant starts to win out. (That’s because methane breaks down in the atmosphere more quickly, while carbon dioxide persists for hundreds of years.)
EPA number is only an estimate, and it’s based on industry data that is hard to verify. One recent independent study sampled the air over a natural gas field in
Colorado and found that the leakage rate might well be twice as high. So there’s a great deal of uncertainty over how much cleaner natural gas is than coal. As David
McCabe, an atmospheric scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, explains, many of the half-dozen recent studies that have tried to compare coal with natural gas are
“we believe that burning natural gas
for electricity produces about 30-50% less greenhouse gas than burning coal.” But that’s not a definitive number, and
plagued by questionable assumptions and flaws. “From the best of the collective work,” McCabe notes,
more research needs to be done here. 5) It’s possible to plug those methane leaks and clean up natural gas further. The good news on natural gas is that those
methane leaks can be reduced. Gas producers can employ a range of technologies, from better pipeline maintenance to dry seals on compressors, that can
reduce the amount of methane escaping into the air. The Clean Air Task Force estimates that “more than half of [the leaked methane] could be eliminated, in
just a few years, at little or no cost to the industry.” That would make natural gas look a lot better from a climate perspective. Yet the industry will actually need
to use these technologies. Currently, the EPA is proposing new rules on fracking wells that would help curb leaks from drilling. 6) Natural gas is still a fossil fuel
and can’t, on its own, avert significant global warming.
The International Energy Agency has outlined some “golden rules”
for natural-gas production that include plugging those pesky leaks at relatively low cost. If all those
rules came to pass and natural gas use surged around the world, displacing coal in countries like China
and India, then the IEA estimates that worldwide greenhouse gases would be about 1.3 percent
lower in 2035 . That’s a real dent, though only a partial one. (See Andrew Revkin for a longer look at what would happen if China shifted from coal to gas.)
Now, if this was the only change made to our energy system, the IEA estimates that the world would still be on track to increase atmospheric carbon emissions to
about 650 parts per million, “a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C
target.” In other words, relying solely on natural gas to clean up emissions would put the world on pace for global warming that Tyndall Center director Kevin
Anderson says is “likely to be beyond ‘adaptation.’ ” This basically comes down to what Bill McKibben has called the “new math” of global warming. The best
climate science suggests that world can only emit about 500 more gigatons of carbon by mid-century if we want a shot at staying below that 2°C threshold. Even if
natural gas displaced coal entirely, we’d likely still reach that point soon (albeit at a slower pace ).
7) At the moment, cheap natural gas
appears to be hindering the development of even lower-carbon energy sources. In addition to pushing
aside dirty coal, the flood of cheap shale gas in the United States has also undermined the advance of
lower-carbon sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power. And some analysts fear that could prove
counterproductive in the long run. One study from MIT suggested that cheap natural gas could
actually lead to higher greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States by 2050 if it stunts the growth
of renewable energy. MIT study author Henry Jacoby said in January. ”But it is so attractive that it threatens other energy sources we ultimately will
need.” 8) Overall, natural gas can help tackle climate change if it’s part of a larger, more comprehensive
climate policy . As Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out, having a climate policy that explicitly reduces emissions (say, a carbon
cap or tax) is likely to have a far bigger influence on the future course of climate change than how much cheap natural gas is available. To see why, check out the
graph from the U.S. Energy Information Administration below: The top two lines predict the trajectory of U.S. power-sector emissions through 2035 if there’s no
climate policy at all. Whether or not there’s lots and lots of natural gas doesn’t make much difference. Emissions keep growing. The bottom two lines, meanwhile,
assume that the United States puts a hard cap on carbon emissions. Emissions go down whether or not there’s abundant natural gas. (Although cheap gas would
make the transition much easier.) “The lesson is simple,” Levi notes. “It’s the policy, not the gas resource, that matters most.” So what more could be done on the
policy front? As Jesse Ausebel explains here, there are ways to curb the emissions from natural gas even further. Natural
gas plants might one
day employ carbon-capture technology (CCS) to store their carbon underground, a technology that’s
still being developed. And natural gas could, in theory, help support a renewable energy system that
eventually zeroes out emissions. Yet it’s still not clear that either of these developments will automatically occur, unless there are changes in
energy policy that actually push these steps forward.
AT: Renewable Energy Tradeoff DA - Coal add-on
Natural gas trades-off directly with coal - decreases amount of soot, carbon dioxide
and other pollutants in the atmosphere
Hanger, 7/08/2013 (John, a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. He helped shape the state's policy in the Marcellus Shale natural gas region. Hanger, a
Democrat, is running for governor of Pennsylvania,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-for-environment)
bashir
Since burning gas emits no lethal soot or sickening toxic metals and about 50% less carbon
dioxide than coal, the displacement of coal generation by natural gas slashes the amounts of
major air pollutants like mercury, lead, arsenic, soot, and carbon dioxide. America's carbon
emissions have dropped 800 million tons since 2007 and are back to 1995 levels, with gas
displacing coal and some oil responsible for about half of the total reduction. The carbon benefits of
gas will increase as methane rates are cut by increasing green completions and other practices
reducing leakage that the US Environmental Protection Agency has mandated in rules taking effect
in 2014.
More evidence - natural gas squeezing out coal in domestic market
Hanger, 7/08/2013 (John, a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. He helped shape the state's policy in the Marcellus Shale natural gas region. Hanger, a
Democrat, is running for governor of Pennsylvania,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-for-environment)
bashir
So which energy source is winning the battle for market share around the world? Oil remains the world's biggest energy source, but coal is
closing the gap and could become the world's top fuel. Indeed, last year, coal reached its highest market share of the world's energy in more
than 40 years. China, the second biggest and fastest growing economy, gets 70% of its total energy from coal and just 5% from natural gas.
Only in America is coal struggling, because the shale gas revolution has made gas cheap and is
displacing it here.
AT: Renewable Energy Tradeoff DA - Coal Impact Exts
Coal is the evil energy - leads to massive amounts of air pollutants, water
contamination and habitat construction
Coal production involves blowing up mountains, tearing apart land, burying streams with spoil,
discharging acidic waste water that destroys aquatic life, and disposal of gargantuan volumes of ash
after combustion. The burning of coal releases big volumes of air pollutants – mercury, lead, arsenic, carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and soot. Soot pollution that comes from coal and diesel can be lethal, and is
estimated to cause 34,000 premature deaths per year just in America.
Oil leaks and spills everyday, fouling streams and groundwater. It's burning releases soot and huge amounts of carbon dioxide as well as other
air pollutants. Nuclear power creates the world's most toxic waste stream, until it has a bad day, and then nightmares come true. After
Fukushima, more than 1% of the nuclear plants built in the world have melted down, with radiation released at Chernobyl alone responsible for
the deaths of about 4,000 people.
***Politics
Politics Link Turns - GOP supports energy investment in Mexico
GOP lawmakers support policies to make North America more energy independent they want Nieto to increase energy activity
O’Neil 12 (Shannon K. O'Neil, senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization. Her interests and expertise
include politics and economics in Latin America and immigration. She is the director of the U.S.-Mexico
Initiative at CFR.[1] O’Neil publishes the blogs Latin America’s Moment and Latintelligence. The GOP
Platform on Latin America, 8-29-12, http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2012/08/29/the-gop-platform-on-latinamerica/ ) Martel
On Latin America’s two biggest economies—Brazil and Mexico—there is close to nothing. Apart from
saluting Mexico’s cooperation in the drug war, the more important mention is on energy. The GOP heralds the
abundant resources of Mexico, Canada, and the United States and presents a long term vision of
North American energy independence. While a good idea, making this a reality depends much more on Mexico’s
next president, Enrique Peña Nieto (and his willingness and ability to change the Mexican constitution), than on the next U.S. president.
Politics Link Turns - GOP supports natural gas
GOP lawmakers support an increase in the natural gas sector due to job creation- they
bash arguments about the dangers of fracking
Abbott 7/25 (Ryan Abbott, Ryan Abbott, M.D., J.D., M.T.O.M., is Associate Professor of Law at
Southwestern Law School and Visiting Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of
Medicine at UCLA. Professor Abbott has published widely on issues associated with health care law and
intellectual property protection in legal, medical, and scientific peer-reviewed journals. EPA's Fracking
'Witch Hunt' Decried by GOP, 2013, http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/25/59697.htm ) Martel
Republicans bashed the Environmental Protection Agency's three-year investigation of the effects hydraulic
fracturing has on drinking water, calling the agency's efforts a "witch hunt" that demonizes a job-creating
system of developing cheap natural gas.
The joint hearing held Wednesday by the subcommittees on the environment and energy, two arms of the House Committee Science, Space
and Technology, was Congress' response to the EPA's abrupt abandonment of its investigation of hydraulic fracturing - a controversial practice
known as fracking - in Pavillion, Wyo., after linking contamination of Pavillion's drinking water to fracking.
"EPA's science is so bad when it comes to Pavilion, Wyoming, that it has embarrassed me as a previous defender
of the EPA," said Wyoming Republican Cynthia Lummis, angrily pointing a finger at the two EPA officials present to testify.
"It humiliated and destroyed a lot of opportunities for fracking by industry in Wyoming."
She added: "We have a very sophisticated, world-class oil and gas industry in Wyoming because we are
such an enormous producer, and to have that kind of science released as a draft study when it was so
faulty - it was probably the EPA itself that polluted the wells - that it completely shattered my ability as a
Republican trying to defend the EPA."
Lummis was referring to a 2011 EPA draft report that blamed fracking for the pollution of a Pavillion
aquifer.
According to that draft report, "a pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of
cancer-causing compounds and at lease one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results."
On Wednesday, the GOP attacked the methodology of the EPA investigation, focusing their frustrations on Dr. Fred Hauchman and Dr. David
Dzombak, the EPA's science policy director and chair of the hydraulic fracturing research advisory panel, respectively.
Hauchman said he is focusing on the drinking water study.
"And I sit here with confidence telling you that we are conducting a rigorous study that will be following all appropriate procedures," he added.
But Republicans were out for blood over the impugning of a process they claim is a safe method of
harvesting cheap shale gas while creating thousands of jobs.
"What we have is a motive for those pushing more and more regulation," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.,
said. "The motive is to wean ... the American people off an oil and gas industry, and our dependency on that as
our basic source of energy, and that motive is based on the idea that oil and gas is changing the climate of the
Earth. ... I hope we take an honest look at the safety of the American people in this new way of
producing gas, and that we don't approach it to placate the desire of a fanatic group of people in our
country who want to change our system because they believe that the climate of the earth is being changed because people drive
automobiles."