1AC Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should authorize companies to provide
services for the development of Cuban offshore oil resources.
1
1AC Environment Advantage
Cuba will drill for oil in the gulf inevitably. Only American involvement can prevent
catastrophic spills that destroy the environment and the costal economy.
Bert and Clayton 2012 (Captain Melissa –2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S. Coast Guard, and Blake –
Fellow for Energy and National Security, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill”, March,
<http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515>
Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S.
response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far
more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore
gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated
submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to
work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow
response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental
damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and
encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved relations
with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or
letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a
potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter broader
U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern.
The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of
Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on
Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges
that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or military.
What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger emanating from
Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the United States.
Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and preparation
with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these
precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
2
Without U.S. support Cuban oil spills would spread destroying costal habitats. Only
economic engagement solves.
Stephens and Colvin 2011 (Sarah – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas,
and Jake – Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the National Foreign Trade Council, “US-Cuba policy,
and the race for oil drilling”, 9/29, <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/184661-uscuba-policy-and-the-race-for-oil-drilling>
To protect the national interest — and for the sake of Florida's beaches and the Gulf of Mexico's
ecosystem — it is time to stop sticking our heels in the sand when it comes to U.S.-Cuba policy. Before
the end of the year, a Chinese-made drilling platform known as Scarabeo 9 is expected to arrive in the
Gulf. Once it is there, Cuba and its foreign partners, including Spain’s Repsol, will begin using it to drill
for oil in waters deeper than Deepwater Horizon’s infamous Macondo well. The massive rig,
manufactured to comply with U.S.-content restrictions at a cost of $750 million, will cost Repsol and
other companies $407,000 per day to lease for exploration. They are taking this financial risk because
Cuba needs the oil and its partners — Spain, Norway, Russia, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Canada, Angola,
Venezuela, and possibly China — believe that drilling in waters said to contain undiscovered reserves of
approximately 5 billion barrels of oil is good business. In virtually every other country in the world,
developments like these would prompt high-level discussions about how to exploit these resources
safely or to anticipate a crisis were a disaster to strike. Experts who have studied the currents say a spill
in Cuban waters would send 90 percent of the oil into the Keys and up the East Coast of Florida. But
the embargo leaves Florida’s sensitive coastal resources defenseless. Due to the fact that the drilling
involves Cuba, American companies and workers cannot lend their expertise to what could be a risky
operation. U.S. economic sanctions prevent our private sector from helping Cuba drill safely and
paralyze the U.S. government, which ought to be convening bilateral discussions on best practices and
coordinating disaster response. In fact, the U.S. has no emergency response agreement with Cuba for
oil spills. While some specific licenses have been granted to permit U.S. firms to conduct limited
transactions with Cuba, current sanctions bar the United States from deploying the kind of clean-up
equipment, engineers, spare parts for blow-out prevention, chemical dispersants, and rigs to drill
relief wells that would be needed to address an oil crisis involving Cuba. One welcomed development
came earlier this month, when William Reilly, a former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and co-chair of the Commission that investigated the Deepwater Horizon disaster, led a group of
experts to Cuba to take a look at their plans. While the administration has done well giving permission
to Mr. Reilly, as well as to other experts, to discuss the problem with Cuban counterparts, it should
move more aggressively to work with the Cuban government to cooperate on plans for safe drilling
and responding to a possible crisis. Rather than moving forward, some in the U.S. Congress would make
the problem worse. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-R), who criticized Mr. Reilly’s visit to Cuba as “giving
credibility to the regime’s dangerous oil-drilling scheme,” has offered legislation to try and stop Repsol
from drilling. Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-R) would deny Repsol the right to drill in U.S. waters if it helped
Cuba drill in its waters. Thirty-four members of both parties have written Repsol directly, threatening
the company if it drills with Cuba. Yet this tactic can’t work. Even if they could deter Repsol from drilling
– which is unlikely – they cannot stop Cuba and partners from countries like China, Russia, and
Venezuela, from using the rig and searching for oil. At some point, it is likely that drilling will begin and
the United States ought to do what it can to prepare for that eventuality. The U.S. government should
facilitate access by Cuba and its drilling partners to the resources they need to drill safely. President
Obama should instruct the Treasury Department to issue a blanket general license now that would
allow private industry to provide what oil expert Jorge Piñon calls ”any conceivable response” in the
event of a crisis.
3
An oil spill would result in massive biodiversity loss in the Everglades.
Alles 2007 (David L. Professor of Biology – Western Washington University, “Biodiversity Hot Spots:
The Florida Everglades”, 3-7-2007, http://www.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Everglades.pdf)
"Biodiversity hot spots are areas where endemic species with small ranges are concentrated. Not all are in
the tropics, but most are. Hot spots can be extraordinarily concentrated; thousands of species may be found within a relatively small area.
Species with small ranges are particularly vulnerable to impacts. Nature has put her eggs in a small number of baskets, and we are in danger of
dropping them. On land, worldwide 25 areas are recognized as hotspots which contain concentrations of endemic species that are
disproportionately vulnerable to extinction from regional habitat destruction. These areas retain less than 10% of their original habitat and
The Florida Everglades contains one of the highest
concentrations of species vulnerable to extinction in the United States. The 5,000-square-kilometre wetland in
have unusually high human population densities." (Pimm, 2001)
southern Florida is home to at least 60 endangered species, including the American crocodile (Mason, 2003). And the area retains less than 10%
of its original habitat as the human population density of southern Florida threatens to over-run one of the most unique habitats in North
America. Nourished by the rain soaked Kissimmee River Basin and stretching south from 700 square mile Lake Okeechobee (left center), the
Everglades are a wide slow moving river of marsh and saw grass covering some 4,500 square miles, flowing slowly towards the mangrove
The Everglades are a unique habitat; there are no other
everglades in the world. No other place combines a subtropical climate, a broad, shallow river, and a
stunning diversity of plants and animals into such a complex and fragile ecosystem. No other place is so
estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico (right below center).
dramatically defined by annual rhythms of drought and flood, fire and sunshine and torrential rain. Everglades National Park is the largest
Its abundant wildlife includes rare and endangered species,
such as the American crocodile, Florida panther, and West Indian manatee. Alligators, like the one
shown above, are an important part of this ecosystem, and are regarded as a “keystone” species of
the Everglades. The Florida Everglades ecosystem is also the only place in the world where alligators and crocodiles exist side by side. The
remaining subtropical wilderness in the United States.
American crocodile, shown above, was listed as an endangered species in Florida in 1975. It’s numbers had dropped dramatically because of
hunting and loss of habitat. Today, it’s estimated that between 500 to 1,200 crocodiles live in Florida, up from approximately 200 to 400 two
decades ago. They are found in the U.S. in the remaining tidal marshes in the Everglades along Florida Bay and in the Florida Keys. Though the
species resemble one another, crocodiles vary greatly from the more than 1 million alligators found in Florida. Crocodile color ranges from olive
green to gray compared with the black hue of alligators. Their snouts are narrower, and the bottom and top teeth are visible from the side
when the mouth is closed; only the upper teeth are seen on an alligator. Adult crocodiles are 7 to 15 feet long and weigh 150 to 450 pounds.
Decidedly less aggressive than the infamous Nile and Australian crocodiles, American crocodiles are rarely seen by people.
The West
Indian manatee is a large, herbivorous, aquatic mammal. These gentle creatures are endangered
throughout their range. High annual mortality, primarily associated with human activity, as well as a low reproductive rate and loss of
habitat continue to keep the number of manatees low and threaten the species’ future. The manatee population has long been the focus of
battles between conservationists and boaters. Boating kills dozens of manatees a year, crushing or gashing the slow-moving mammals as they
rise to the surface to breathe. Red tide algae blooms have been another cause of mortality for manatees along
Florida's south-central Gulf Coast. The one-cell organism that causes red tide releases a toxin when it dies, sickening manatees. Once the toxin
is in the animal, it affects their coordination and causes paralysis (Flewelling, et al., 2005). "Manatees on Florida’s Gulf coast are frequently
exposed to brevetoxin, a potent neurotoxin produced by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis, during red tide events. In 1996, 151 manatees were
documented to have died in southwest Florida from brevetoxicosis. This epizootic was particularly detrimental to the manatee population
because more adults were killed than any other age class. Other red tide epizootics in 1982, 2002, 2003, and 2005 resulted in the deaths of 37,
34, 96, and (preliminarily) 81 manatees, respectively. There is no clear evidence that these events have been increasing in frequency along
Florida’s coast, but certainly the impact on the manatee population has increased over the past two decades.
Viewed globally,
harmful algal blooms have been increasing over the past 25 years in frequency and in their impacts on
the economy, public health, and marine life." In addition to rare and endangered species, the Everglades are rightly famous
for the profusion of bird species found there, with 347 species recorded within the Park boundaries. The mangrove estuaries of Florida Bay, in
particular, are a breeding habitat for Roseate Spoonbills, Wood Stork, White Ibis, Glossy Ibis, and eleven species of egrets and herons. Once,
water flowed freely from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a “river of grass”, Florida environmentalist Marjory Stoneman Douglas's poetic
phrase. It is a river that is 120 miles long and 50 miles wide, but less than a foot deep. In this flat landscape, even a few inches of elevation
meant the difference between wet marsh and dry ground. Today, the Everglades is an ecosystem in danger of extinction.
Canals and levees capture and divert its water for human use, including drinking water, irrigation, and flood control. Often, too much water is
withheld from the Everglades during the wet season, or too much is diverted into it during the winter drought, disrupting the natural cycles of
feeding and nesting which depend on these patterns. Much of the time the water is contaminated by pollutants.
4
Additionally oil spills would be devastating to local mangrove populations.
Rebecca Hoff et al, 2010, July Dept. of Commerce, “Oil Spills in Mangroves; Planning and Response
Considerations,” http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/34_mangrove_complete.pdf, pps
The last observation is consistent with conditions observed at several oil spills in mangrove areas. In
fact, obvious signs of mangrove stress often begin occurring within the first two weeks of a spill event,
and these can range from chlorosis to defoliation to tree death. In the 1999 Roosevelt Roads Naval Air
Station (Puerto Rico) spill of JP-5 jet fuel, an initial damage assessment survey conducted in the first
month post-spill determined that 46 percent of mangrove trees, saplings, and seedlings along a transect
in the most impacted basin area were stressed (defined as showing yellowed, or chlorotic, leaf color).
This compared to 0 percent along the unoiled reference transect (Geo-Marine, Inc. 2000). Figure 2.1
shows the most heavily impacted area about nine months after the initial release with many of the
initially stressed trees dead. Color infrared, aerial photography taken at regular intervals through 19
months post-spill confirmed the visual observations. Analysis of the infrared photographs of the affected
mangrove area shown in Figure 2.1 indicated that two weeks after the release, 82 percent of the total
mangrove area was classified as “impacted” relative to pre-spill conditions. Under more controlled
conditions, studies using fresh crude oils have suggested that defoliation, when it occurs, should reach a
maximum between 4-12 weeks post-spill. A monitoring study conducted in Australia after the Era spill in
1992 found a consistent set of mangrove responses including leaf staining, chlorosis, leaf death, and
complete defoliation. Within three months after the oil washed ashore, extensive defoliation of
mangrove trees had begun and many appeared to be dead. The degree to which mangroves were
damaged and the extent that they recovered from spill damage were correlated to extent of oiling
(Wardrop et al. 1996). In the 1986 Bahía las Minas (Panama) spill, scientists monitoring the effects of
the oil on mangroves recorded a band of dead and dying trees where oil had washed ashore five
months previously. A year and a half after the spill, dead mangroves were found along 27 km of the
coast. Photographs taken just before the spill showed no evidence of tree mortality (Jackson et al.1989).
5
Mangroves are essential for biodiversity and Florida’s fishing industry.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012 “Mangroves: Walking Trees”
(developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute with
funds provided by a grant from the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA)
<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/mangroves.htm>
Florida's estimated 469,000 acres of mangrove forests contribute to the overall health of the state's
southern coastal zone. This ecosystem traps and cycles various organic materials, chemical elements,
and important nutrients. Mangrove roots act not only as physical traps but provide attachment surfaces for various marine
organisms. Many of these attached organisms filter water through their bodies and, in turn, trap and cycle nutrients. The relationship
between mangroves and their associated marine life cannot be overemphasized. Mangroves provide
protected nursery areas for fishes, crustaceans, and shellfish. They also provide food for a multitude of marine species
such as snook, snapper, tarpon, jack, sheepshead, red drum, oyster, and shrimp. Florida's important recreational and
commercial fisheries will drastically decline without healthy mangrove forests. Many animals find
shelter either in the roots or branches of mangroves. Mangrove branches are rookeries, or nesting areas, for beautiful
coastal birds such as brown pelicans and roseate spoonbills. Worldwide, more than 50 species of mangroves exist. Of the three species found in
Florida, the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) is probably the most well-known. It typically grows along the water's edge. The red mangrove is
easily identified by its tangled, reddish roots called "prop-roots". These roots have earned mangroves the title, "walking trees". This mangrove,
in particular, appears to be standing or walking on the surface of the water. The black mangrove, (Avicennia germinans) usually occupies slightly
higher elevations upland from the red mangrove. The black mangrove can be identified by numerous finger-like projections, called
pneumatophores, that protrude from the soil around the tree's trunk. The white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) usually occupies the
highest elevations farther upland than either the red or black mangroves. Unlike its red or black counterparts, the white mangrove has no
visible aerial root systems. The easiest way to identify the white mangrove is by the leaves. They are elliptical, light yellow green and have two
distinguishing glands at the base of the leaf blade where the stem starts. All three of these species utilize a remarkable method of propagation.
Seeds sprout while still on the trees and drop into the soft bottom around the base of the trees or are transported by currents and tides to
other suitable locations. Florida's mangroves are tropical species; therefore, they are sensitive to extreme temperature fluctuations as well as
subfreezing temperatures. Research indicates that salinity, water temperature, tidal fluctuations, and soil also affect their growth and
distribution. Mangroves are common as far north as Cedar Key on the Gulf coast and Cape Canaveral on the Atlantic coast. Black mangroves can
People living along the
south Florida coasts benefit many ways from mangroves. Mangrove forests protect uplands from
storm winds, waves, and floods. The amount of protection afforded by mangroves depends upon the width of the forest. A very
occur farther north in Florida than the other two species. Frequently, all three species grow intermixed.
narrow fringe of mangroves offers limited protection, while a wide fringe can considerably reduce wave and flood damage to landward areas by
enabling overflowing water to be absorbed into the expanse of forest.
Mangroves can help prevent erosion by stabilizing
shorelines with their specialized root systems. Mangroves also filter water and maintain water quality
and clarity.
6
The fishing sector is key to the economy.
NOAA 2013 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) “NOAA report finds commercial and
recreational saltwater fishing generated $199 billion in 2011”
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreation
al.html>
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales and
supported 1.7 million jobs in the nation’s economy in 2011, according to a new economic report released by NOAA’s
Fisheries Service. The report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011, is published annually on a two-year lag to allow data collection,
analysis, and peer review. It provides economic statistics on U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries and marine-related businesses for each
coastal state and the nation. Key to the report are the economic effects--jobs, sales, income, and value added to Gross National Product--of the
commercial and recreational fishing industries. “Economic impact” measures how sales in each sector ripple throughout the state and national
economy as each dollar spent generates additional sales by other firms and consumers. The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors
and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2
million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included in the report.
Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales
impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are
up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales. “Commercial and recreational fishing are integral parts of
the nation’s social and economic fabric,” said Sam Rauch, deputy assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service.
“While there’s still work to do, to see landings and value climb in 2011 shows we’re moving in the right direction, even in this time of
challenging transition for many fishing communities.” The annual report also breaks down the sales impacts, income impacts and job figures for
each coastal state. The five states that generated the most jobs from fishing in 2011 were California, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, and
Alaska. The states with the most growth in the number of commercial fishing jobs compared to 2010 were Alabama (76 percent, net increase of
4,743 jobs), Mississippi (45 percent, net increase of 1,722 jobs), Oregon (32 percent, net increase of 4,483 jobs), Louisiana (29 percent, net
increase of 7,272 jobs), and Alaska (17 percent, net increase of 9,288 jobs). The greatest portion of the nation’s landings revenue generated by
Saltwater
recreational fishing generated its highest economic effect in sales impacts and jobs in West Florida
($4.9 billion sales, 47,000 jobs) East Florida ($3.3 billion sales, 29,000 jobs); Louisiana ($2 billion sales, 18,000
the commercial fishing industry was in Alaska ($1.9 billion), followed by Massachusetts ($433 million), and Maine ($381 million).
jobs); North Carolina ($2 billion sales, 18,000 jobs); Texas ($1.9 billion sales, 15,000 jobs); and New Jersey (1.7 billion sales, 10,000 jobs).
7
Economic decline undermines democracy and multinational cooperation, causes
terrorism, proliferation, and great power wars.
Burrows and Harris 2009 (Mathew J. Burrows, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, PhD in European History from
Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, April 2009 “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical
Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there
is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that
the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include
the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on
the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential
for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic
environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood
that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those
terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established
groupsinheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacksand newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of
economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any
economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the
region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear
ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War
would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a
nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states
involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and
mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of
Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises Types of conflict that
the world continues to experience, such as over
resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a
Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to
assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if
resort to neo-mercantilist practices.
government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival
of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a
rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the
most obvious funding targets may be military.
Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing
moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer
in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
8
Biodiversity is critical to human survival—multiple studies prove.
Science Daily 2011 ("Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World," Cites
Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, August 11,
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm>
The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk
through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services
provided by nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying
qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called ecosystem services are what makes
Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the
production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a
local scale, researchers are asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in
maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and
services. In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists
from ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen
from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and
reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine
the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a
higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings
were always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at
which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study
published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which
the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a
multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species
included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years,
locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use
intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee
the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the
ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings
indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is
changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's lifesupport functions.
9
1AC Cuba Relations Advantage
Chavez death opens possibility for new relationship with the entire region- Cuba open
to new engagement
Tisdall 3/5 (Simon Tisdall, writer for the Guardian, March 5th, 2013, "Death of Hugo Chávez brings
chance of fresh start for US and Latin America" www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavezdead-us-latin-america/print)
Hugo Chávez's departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela,
but also with other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected
by Chávez's politics of polarisation and the Bush administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction .¶ In
particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba, if the White House can summon
the requisite political will.¶ Possibly anticipating a transition, Washington quietly engineered a diplomatic opening with
Caracas last November after a lengthy standoff during which ambassadors were withdrawn.¶ Roberta Jacobson,
assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, telephoned Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela's vice-president and Chávez's preferred successor, and
discussed, among other things, the restoration of full diplomatic relations.¶ "According to US officials, the Venezuelan
vice-president offered to exchange ambassadors on the occasion of the beginning of President Barack Obama's second term. Jacobson, in turn, is said to have
proposed a step-by-step approach to improve bilateral relations, starting with greater co-operation in counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and energy issues,"
Andres Oppenheimer reported in the Miami Herald. ¶ There is much ground to make up. "Relations between the United States and Venezuela have ranged from
difficult to hostile since Chávez took office in 1999 and began to implement what he calls 21st-century socialism," wrote a former US ambassador to Caracas,
Charles Shapiro.¶ "Chávez blamed a failed 2002 coup against him on the United States (not true), nationalised US companies, insulted the president of the United
States and blamed 'the empire' – his term for the United States – for every ill … In foreign affairs, the government actively supports the Assad regime in Syria, rejects
sanctions on Iran and generally opposes the US at every turn."¶ Despite such strains, economic self-interest always prevented a complete rupture. The US remained
Venezuela's most important trading partner throughout Chávez's presidency, buying nearly half its oil exports. Caracas is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US. ¶
In fact, the US imports more crude oil annually from Mexico and Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. This shared commerce now provides a formidable
incentive and a launch platform for a fresh start.¶ Whether the opportunity is grasped depends partly on Maduro, a Chávez loyalist but a reputed pragmatist with
close ties to Raúl Castro in Cuba.¶ Yet it
depends even more on Obama, whose first term, after a promising start,
ended up perpetuating Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do
better.¶ The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening
dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone,
exports and imports rose by a massive 20% in both directions. ¶ "We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business
with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is
the world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).¶ Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has continued to
lag, Sweig argued.¶ "For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda – whether on issues of trade,
immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she said. ¶ Obama
could
change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the Cuban problem, which
continues to colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban
American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on
Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs
rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.
10
Offshore drilling is the key issue to jumpstart relations
Grogg 12 (Patricia – IPS, Citing Luiz Rene Fernandez – Senior Research and Professor at University of
Havana specializing in international economics, “CUBA: Oil Drilling Opens Up New Possibilities”, 2/16,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/02/cuba-oil-drilling-opens-up-new-possibilities/)
The search for oil in Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters, launched by the Spanish firm Repsol, has triggered speculation
about future prospects for Cuba and the possibility of this country one day making the transition from importer to exporter of
crude. Moreover, given its strategic importance for both the United States and Cuba, some analysts believe that
energy offers a potential area for cooperation that could eventually help pave the way to the
normalisation of relations between the two countries. For the moment, the Cuban authorities and oil industry personnel are
remaining discreetly silent on the subject. CUPET, the state-owned oil company, has limited itself to officially confirming the arrival in the country on Jan. 19 of the
Scarabeo 9 oil rig for “the resumption in the coming days of deepwater drilling for oil exploration.” Drilling operations presumably began in late January. According
to CUPET, the goal is to continue testing to determine the potential for oil and gas production in Cuba’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Gulf of Mexico. The
results of the drilling will contribute to defining that potential. After opening up its economy to foreign investment in 1991, Cuba divided the EEZ, which covers an
area of 112,000 sq km, into 59 oil and gas exploration blocks. On Jan. 18, Rafael Tenreiro, director of exploration and production at CUPET, reiterated a previous
estimate of a potential 20,000 million barrels in the area. At the launching of the book “Perforación de pozos petroleros marinos” (“Offshore Oil Well Drilling”) by
Rolando Fernández, supervisor of the Gulf of Mexico operations group, Tenreiro stated that it was “possible” that Cuba could become an oil exporter. “We have to
prepare the country for this good news,” he added, stressing the need for the production of technology and participation in the entire process. In 2011, more than
20 offshore exploration blocks had already been leased to large foreign energy companies, including, in addition to Repsol, StatoilHydro of Norway, ONGC Videsh of
India, PETRONAS of Malaysia, PetroVietnam, Gazprom of Russia, Sonangol of Angola the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA. Reflecting on the potential
ramifications should Repsol’s exploratory drilling prove successful, university professor Fernando Martirena told IPS that large-scale development of the Cuban oil
industry would obviously provide a boost to the government programmes currently underway, since it would represent “a needed injection of fresh foreign
currency into a tense national economy.” This scenario, “combined with the package of measures being implemented as a result of the ‘updating’ of the Cuban
economic model, will heat up the issue of the blockade,” said Martirena. Under
the U.S. economic embargo against this Caribbean island
companies are shut out from profiting from a potential oil boom in
Cuba. In Martirena’s view, if the U.S. Congress wants to be pragmatic, “it will have to choose between
continuing to support the hysterical Cuban-American bloc that does so much lobbying around the issue of the blockade,
or simply accepting reality – that there is no reason to maintain this policy.” Cuban-American members of Congress
nation, in place for 50 years this month, U.S.
headed up by the chairwoman of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have attempted to block Repsol’s drilling operations in
Cuban waters. While they claim that their opposition is based on concerns for the environment and the security of the United States, analysts believe that their
motivation is primarily political. Before arriving in Cuban waters, the Scarabeo 9 drilling rig – built in China and assembled in Singapore, and therefore exempt from
the prohibitions of the U.S. embargo – successfully passed inspection by personnel from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard. CUPET has also vouched that the cutting-edge equipment leased by Repsol for its drilling operations has been duly verified
to include the necessary features to guarantee the utmost efficiency and safety. The exploratory drilling is expected to last roughly two and a half months.
“Technically speaking, the chances of a mishap occurring in Cuba’s economic area are extremely small, not only because of the precautions taken, but also for
purely statistical reasons. This is one drilling rig out of the countless rigs operating outside of Cuban waters” in the Gulf of Mexico, economist Luis René Fernández
commented to IPS. An expert on Cuba-U.S. relations, Fernández noted that while there are political risks associated with the issues of security and environmental
impacts, there are also experiences that indicate that these “could and should be reduced.” “(Socialist) Venezuela has not stopped supplying oil to the United
States, although it has tried to diversity its markets,” he mentioned as an example. He also pointed to the migration accords signed by Havana and Washington and
Cuba’s purchases of food from U.S. companies despite “all of the restrictions and limitations.” “In these cases, among the reasons for a certain type of
communication and collaboration, it always boils down to the importance of geography . There
are common issues in which it is more
beneficial for both sides to address them directly and even to cooperate. Not doing so could have high costs, not only
economic, but also for the environment and security,” he said. Fernández stressed that the U.S. government is not a “unified actor” and that
there are different agencies that deal with matters such as energy and the environment. “There
are experts and professionals
who fulfil their missions and could have real impacts on the concrete political situation,” he said, due to
geographical proximity but also because “it is advisable to cooperate in spite of political and ideological
differences.” In his opinion, both countries are moving in the mid term and especially in the long term towards the normalisation of
relations, regardless of the particular political circumstances in the United States. “On the Cuban side, there is a well-known
willingness to cooperate and even to debate, on respectful and equal terms, all of the aspects of the bilateral conflict,” he stressed.
“This could be another important area for cooperation, precisely because of the strategic significance
of energy sources for both the United States and Cuba. Are there risks? Without a doubt. But the benefits of
cooperation definitely outweigh them,” Fernández concluded.
11
Immediate Action is key
Boston Globe 2/9 (“Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”, 2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-dragpolicy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)
Relations between the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full
economic embargo in 1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change
the status quo. Yet while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The
communist government of the ruling Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to
promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow
Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled to return home. These changes, and the
beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s gestures
and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the Castros, the
Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century. The Cuban-American population, which has
historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting greater contact with friends, family, and the Cuban
economy now animates a younger generation of Florida voters. Because
of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with
Cuban-American voters as Romney — has more maneuvering room politically. The first step would be to end the silly claim,
reinstated by the Obama administration last summer, that Cuba remains a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The administration argued that Cuba
harbored members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. It has, but the FARC and Colombia are now in negotiations; those
peace talks are supported by the Obama White House in order to end a bloody civil war. By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the
United
States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions, starting with promoting cultural exchanges; ending the travel ban; and
eventually allowing for trade in oil, gas, and other commodities. Over time, billions of dollars in new trade between the two
nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping Cubans. Direct relations would also further
US national security and environmental interests; as Cuba opens up, other countries will sweep in to
seek influence, as China has already done. Especially as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling
and other maritime exploration, the United States must improve communication with Havana. Currently, even though the
United States and Cuba are separated by a narrow channel, the two countries have no bilateral communications to
ensure safety standards for their mutual protection from oil spills. Secretary of State John Kerry should make Cuba a
focus of his first months in office. Unfortunately, his successor as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is Robert Menendez of
New Jersey, a son of Cuban immigrants who has opposed the administration’s efforts to ease relations. Menendez will need to be convinced
that he can help Cubans more by resetting American policy. Absent military intervention, there
are very few opportunities for a
president to dramatically alter relations with a historic foe; Obama has taken such advantage of a disorientingly rapid
liberalization by Burma’s military rulers. Raul Castro’s recent decision to lift travel restrictions on Cuban citizens is similarly
momentous — and signals that the timing is ripe for a new diplomatic agenda with Cuba.
12
US- Cuba relations key to solve Caribbean stability
Tierney 9 (John F. – Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, “Hearing on
"National Security Implications of U.S. Policy toward Cuba"”, 4/29,
http://tierney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=588&Itemid=500141)
Current U.S. policy toward Cuba is anachronistic and unsustainable - and it is a source of contention
between the United States and the rest of Latin America, as well as the European Union. In the lead-up to the recent Fifth
Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion observed that, quote, "all of Latin America is asking for
an end to Cuba's isolation." In today's hearing, the Subcommittee aims to identify concrete ways in which increased U.S.-Cuba
cooperation is in our own national security interest, ways it could support the safety and security of U.S. citizens, and the
nature of the threat the U.S. would face should our interaction stagnate or lessen. The U.S. and Cuba have many shared
concerns and a long history of shared collaboration - such as joint medical research that predates the Spanish-American war; so-called
"fence talks" between Cuban and American soldiers on Guantanamo; overflights by U.S. hurricane hunters to predict extreme weather; and
piecemeal partnerships between our Coast Guards. Most of this cooperation requires nothing more than political will to implement it.
Increased cooperation in these fields could give political leaders in both countries the confidence they
need to end this fifty-year era of mistrust. An April 13, 2009 letter from 12 retired generals and admirals to President Obama
gave a persuasive argument for greater U.S.-Cuba engagement. It stated: Cuba ceased to be a military
threat decades ago. At the same time, Cuba has intensified its global, diplomatic and economic
relations with nations as diverse as China, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, and members of the European Union. ... Even worse, the embargo
inspired a significant diplomatic movement against U.S. policy...when world leaders overwhelmingly cast their vote in the United Nations
against the embargo and visit Havana to denounce American policy, it is time to change the policy, especially after 50 years of failure in
attaining our goals. These
generals and admirals recommend, and I quote: ...renewed engagement with Havana
on key security issues such as narcotics trafficking, immigration, airspace and Caribbean security...This idea of
engagement underlies our current policies in Iran, Syria and North Korea, all much graver concerns to the United States - where Americans are
currently free to travel. Experts generally agree that U.S. national security would be strengthened if Cuba pursued alternatives to Venezuelan or
Russian influence. Increasing energy trade with Cuba would contribute to U.S. energy security and would create competition with the "exportoriented" populist agenda of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, while dampening Venezuela's efforts to strengthen its regional presence through
visible aid to Cuba. U.S. energy trade could also limit the attractiveness of the more assertive foreign policy of Russia, and China's increased
presence in Latin America and investment in Cuba's energy sector. Cuba's
strategic location and its apparent seriousness
of purpose in fighting drugs is another strong argument for comprehensive U.S.-Cuban cooperation. Closer
coordination could also help close off trafficking routes in the western Caribbean and disrupt ongoing
operations of South American cocaine mafias.
Caribbean instability causes bioterrorism
Bryan 1 (Anthony T., Director of the Caribbean Program – North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn,
Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, “Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The
Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation”, 10-21,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html)
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug trafficking and
terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The
security of major industrial complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major
industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium
sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has
shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in
Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one considers the possible use of
Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after
departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can
sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in
the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help counter this possibility, some
countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such
citizenship.) Again, Caribbean
countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and
deployment of biological weapons within national borders.
13
Bioterrorism causes extinction
Sandberg et al 8 – Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. PhD in
computation neuroscience, Stockholm—AND—Jason G. Matheny—PhD candidate in Health Policy and
Management at Johns Hopkins. special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of
Pittsburgh—AND—Milan M. Ćirković—senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of
Belgrade. Assistant professor of physics at the University of Novi Sad. (Anders, How can we reduce the
risk of human extinction?, 9 September 2008, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/howcan-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction)
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in
reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a
resulting nuclear winter. We may face
even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic
biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge,
equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike
other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially
destructive. Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by
reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated
individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality
might be capable of causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may
increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
14
US-Cuba relations are key to preventing new Cuba-Russia cooperation- that causes
war
Inter-American Dialogue 12 (U.S. based think tank for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in
Western Hemisphere affairs, “Are External Tensions Entangling Latin American Countries?”
http://www.cepr.net/documents/CEPR_News/LAA120810.pdf)
A Stephen Johnson, senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "It
may or may not be
true that Russia's government is seeking to build resupply bases for its navy in Cuba, Vietnam and the
Seychelles islands. While Russian navy officials say 'da,' the foreign ministry says 'nyet.' Similar talk of establishing bases elsewhere, such as
Venezuela, has not materialized. In any case, it would not present a direct threat unless such a facility became an entry point for hostile arms similar to the nucleartipped missiles that provoked the 1962 crisis. Like any other state, Russia can strike diplomatic agreements to base military units in other countries. On the other
hand, it would be a challenge. First, it
would rekindle a military relationship that ended when Russia transferred its
signals intelligence facility at Lourdes to the Cuban government in 2002. A new base might be a shot in the arm to
the Cuban economy, helping the Castro brothers hang on to aspects of their old command economy without going cold turkey for market
reforms. A
base could also serve as a hub for military weapons sales to other Latin American nations
when the region needs help in fighting transnational crime. The Soviet Union fell more than 20 years ago, but Russia
still has large military industries and needs to sell arms more than washing machines. Its prime
customers would, like Cuba, be in the Bolivarian alliance. Second, a Russian navy station in Cuba might
complicate U.S. politics, specifically any plans a U.S. administration might have to hand back Guantanamo Naval Base in the near
future, for which Cuba's current government refuses to cash our rent checks. At a time when U.S. Northern and Southern
Commands are gearing more toward military support for civilian law enforcement missions, it would
reintroduce a strategic deterrence component into joint exercises and training. That might not be a bad thing, but it
would argue for more U.S. defense spending on the Western Hemisphere. All of which seems to argue that recent
threat trends in the Americas are not very predictive and that certain old alliances won't go easily into the sunset."¶ A
Stephen Wilkinson, chairman of the International Institute for the Study of Cuba: "Russia is in military talks with Cuba for
three reasons. One is economic, related to Russian investment in Cuban nickel and oil and the need to guarantee protection of
these investments. Another factor is geostrategic. Recent events in Syria have confirmed Russian fears of
the long-term strategic aims of the United States. The Russians are very aware that the United States
and Western Europe have been supporting the rebels in Syria and they see this as an indirect attack upon
their interests as Assad provides them with a naval base at Tartus, on the Mediterranean. The third reason is possibly rather more
personal, Vladimir Putin has turned his face against Washington since his recent re-election because he
perceived a U.S. hand in organizing the protests against him. From Cuba's point of view, having a Russian military
base would be a guarantee of security since it would mean that U.S. military action against it would
be less likely. If Washington would not wish for Havana to have such an ally, it ought to reconsider its
own policy toward the island. At present, the embargo, and especially the Helms Burton Law, makes it sensible
for the Cuban government to seek alliances with as many powers as possible in order to protect itself. U.S. military presence
in Latin America has grown in recent years. There are now 24 bases including two new ones in Chile and Argentina. Seven bases in Colombia are
being expanded. The justification for this expansion is the war on drugs and for humanitarian intervention purposes. However, it should come
as no surprise that this is not the way that Cuba or its closest allies such as Hugo Chávez or Evo Morales view them. They see the bases as
potential threats to their independence and sovereignty and a sign that Washington's hegemonic designs on the region are very much alive."¶ A
Wayne S. Smith, senior fellow and director of the Cuba Project at the Center for International Policy: "Given the
history of the 1962
U.S.-Soviet missile crisis, for the Russians now to propose exploring with the Cubans the setting up of
naval bases on the island would seem a rather maladroit idea. The United States made it clear in 1962 that the
positioning of offensive nuclear missiles on the island was unacceptable and demanded that they be
withdrawn. The world has never been so close to an allout nuclear war. Fortunately, both Kennedy and
Khrushchev showed themselves to be sensible men. They reached an understanding under which Khrushchev agreed to withdraw the missiles
and Kennedy gave assurances that the United States would not invade Cuba. Subsequently, without informing the United States, the Soviets
began building a submarine base on the island, but when it was made clear to them that the United States would consider this a violation of the
Kennedy-Khrushchev understanding of 1962, work on the base was quietly halted and never resumed. The
United States should of
course oppose the positioning of Russian bases in Cuba today, as should the other countries of the hemisphere. They
would serve no reasonable purpose and could only unnecessarily add to tensions. The United States has not increased its
military presence in Latin America. There is no reason for the Russians to do so."
15
That causes miscalculation
Orozco 08 (Jose, Correspondent for Christian Science Monitor, “Cold war echo: Russian military
maneuvers with Venezuela,” http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2008/0912/p01s05woam.html)
The last time a Russian Navy ship plied the azure waters of the Caribbean for major joint maneuvers
with an anti-US country was during the cold war.¶ But in a move out of Cuban leader Fidel Castro's historical playbook,
Venezuela's Hugo Chávez announced this week that his nation will host four Russian warships and 1,000 troops in November for joint military
exercises.¶ That was followed Wednesday by the arrival in Venezuela of two Russian long-range bombers.¶ Although
Latin American
leaders so far have shrugged off the moves as another act of bravado in Mr. Chávez's push against what he calls
"Yankee hegemony," some diplomats and US officials see the potential for real trouble.¶ The US typically ignores
the leftist leader's angry tirades, and is playing down the news.¶ Still, an extensive military relationship between
Venezuela and Russia could heighten tensions and signal the start of a new regional cold war.¶ "This is
a risky step that could provoke the US," says retired Navy Vice Admiral and former Vice Minister of Defense Rafael Huizi Clavier.
"Any incident, any error, could bring problems." This week, Russia announced that it will send a naval squadron, including the
nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, as well as long-range patrol planes for the upcoming joint exercises with Venezuela.
Extinction
Helfand and Pastore 2009 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of
Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”,
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-3109_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]
President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let
the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the
greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of
nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There
remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in
the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be
fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can
destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale
unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the
Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An
attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on
which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge
swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant . They would have no food,
no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S.
population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and
immediate impact on climate world wide. If
all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were
drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper
atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees
Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would
stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct.
It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30
years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The
most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket
launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But,
unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear
weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.
16
1AC Solvency
The plan facilitates greater cooperation on offshore oil development.
Pascual and Huddleston 2009 (Carlos – Vice president and Director of Foreign policy – the
Brookings Institution, and Vicki – Visiting Fellow, “CUBA: A New policy of Critical and Constructive
Engagement”, April,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)
Licensing U.S. companies to provide services for the development of Cuban offshore oil and gas would
provide benefits to the United States and Cuba. (At this point it should be noted that the Secretary of Treasury has
always had and continues to have the authority—as embodied in OFAC regulations—to license any
transaction found to be in the U.S. national interest. This power has been used over the past fifteen
years by various Republican and Democratic administrations to license a variety of commercial transactions be - tween the
United States and Cuba). The following are some of the reasons we might wish to become engaged in developing Cuba’s offshore oil and gas.
First, if
U.S. and other reputable companies are involved in Cuba’s offshore oil development it would
reduce Cuba’s dependence on Venezuela for two-thirds of its oil imports. Second, it is preferable that
U.S. oil companies with high standards of transparency develop these resources rather than, for example,
Russia’s notoriously corrupt oligarchy. Third, U.S. influence in Cuba is likely to increase if U.S. companies
have an economic relationship on the ground. Fourth, U.S. companies have the technology and expertise
to develop Cuba’s offshore oil and gas.
17
Environment Adv. Ext
18
2AC Biodiversity Impacts
Hotspots like the Everglades are uniquely key to human survival.
Nautiyal and Nidamanuri 2010 (Sunil and Rama Rao – Centre for Ecological Economics and
Natural Resources @ Institute for Social and Economic Change & Department of Earth and Space
Sciences @ Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, “Conserving Biodiversity in Protected Area
of Biodiversity Hotspot in India: A Case Study,” International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 36 (2-3): 195-200, 2010)
The hotspots are the world’s most biologically rich areas hence recognized as important ecosystems
not important only for the rich biodiversity but equally important for the human survival as these are
the homes for more than 20% of the world’s population. India got recognition of one of the megadiversity countries of world as the country is home of the two important biodiversity hotspots: the
Himalaya in north and the Western Ghats in the southern peninsula. Policy makers and decision takers
have recognized the importance of biodiversity (flora and fauna) and this has resulted to segregate (in
the form of protected areas) the rich and diverse landscape for biodiversity conservation. An approach
which leads towards conservation of biological diversity is good efforts but such approaches should
deal with humans equally who are residing in biodiversity hotspots since time immemorial. In this
endeavor, a study was conducted in Nagarahole National Park of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, in Karnataka.
Our empirical studies reveal that banning all the human activities in this ecosystem including
agriculture, animal husbandry has produced the results opposite to the approach ‘multiple values’ of
national park. To monitor the impact, existing policies have been tested from an economic and
ecological view-point. Unfortunately, the local livelihoods (most of them belongs to indigenous tribes)
in the area have received setbacks due to the implementation of the policies, though unintentionally.
However, the ecological perspective is also not showing support for the approach and framework of the
current policies in the hotspots. Satellite data showed that the temporal pattern of ecosystem
processes has been changing. An integrated approach for ecosystem conservation and strengthening
local institutions for sustainable ecosystem management in such areas is therefore supported by this
study.
19
Oceans are unique
Craig 2003 (Law Prof-Indiana, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they
do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates.
For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service
coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental
fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems
provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling
of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very
real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability
to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine
ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the
face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems
are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component
species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem
functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise
insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and
restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems
have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861
Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value,
or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of
ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of
such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual
effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect
marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now
know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about
how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and
hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has
within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not
know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will
take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and
productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and
dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of
jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
20
Irreversibility means you shouldn’t take a chance with species loss
Chen 2000 (Jim, Professor of Law at University of Minnesota and Dean of Law School at Louisville,
Globalization and Its Losers:, 9 Minn. J. Global Trade 157’ LexisNexis Legal)
Conscious decisions to allow the extinction of a species or the destruction of an entire ecosystem
epitomize the "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources" that NEPA is designed to
retard.312 The original Endangered Species Act gave such decisions no quarter whatsoever;313 since 1979, such decisions have rested in
the hands of a solemnly convened "God Squad."314 In its permanence and gravity, natural extinction provides the baseline by which all other
types of extinction should be judged.
The Endangered Species Act explicitly acknowledges the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical,
recreational, and scientific value" of endangered species and the biodiversity they represent.315 Allied bodies of international law confirm this
view:316 global biological diversity is part of the commonly owned heritage of all humanity and deserves full legal protec- tion.317 Rather
remarkably, these broad assertions understate the value of biodiversity and the urgency of its protection. A Sand County Almanac, the
eloquent bible of the modern environmental movement, contains only two demonstrable bio- logical errors. It opens with one and closes with
another. We can forgive Aldo Leopold's decision to close with that elegant but erroneous epigram, "ontogeny repeats phylogeny."318 What
concerns erns us is his opening gambit: "There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot."319 Not quite.
None of
us can live without wild things. Insects are so essential to life as we know it that if they "and other
land-dwelling anthropods ... were to disappear, humanity probably could not last more than a few
months."320 "Most of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals," along with "the bulk of the flowering plants and ... the physical
structure of most forests and other terrestrial habitats" would disappear in turn.321 "The land would return to" something resembling its
Cambrian condition, "covered by mats of recumbent wind-pollinated vegetation, sprinkled with clumps of small trees and bushes here and
there, largely devoid of animal life."322 From this perspective, the mere thought of valuing biodiver- sity is absurd, much as any attempt to
quantify all of earth's planetary amenities as some trillions of dollars per year is ab- surd. But the frustration inherent in enforcing the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has shown that conservation cannot work without appeasing Homo
economicus, the profit-seeking ape. Efforts to ban the interna- tional ivory trade through CITES have failed to stem the slaugh- ter of African
elephants.323 The preservation of biodiversity must therefore begin with a cold, calculating inventory of its benefits. Fortunately,
defending biodiversity preservation in human- ity's self-interest is an easy task. As yet unexploited species might give a hungry world a larger
larder than the storehouse of twenty plant species that provide nine-tenths of humanity's cur- rent food supply.324 "Waiting in the wings are
tens of thousands of unused plant species, many demonstrably superior to those in favor."325 As genetic warehouses, many plants enhance
the pro- ductivity of crops already in use. In the United States alone, the lates phylogeny" means that the life history of any individual
organism replays the entire evolutionary history of that organism's species. genes of wild plants have accounted for much of "the explosive
growth in farm production since the 1930s."326 The contribution is worth $1 billion each year.327 Nature's pharmacy demonstrates even
more dramatic gains than nature's farm.328 Aspirin and penicillin, our star analgesic and antibiotic, had humble origins in the meadowsweet
plant and in cheese mold.329 Leeches, vampire bats, and pit vipers all contribute anticoagulant drugs that reduce blood pressure, pre- vent
heart attacks, and facilitate skin transplants.330 Merck & Co., the multinational pharmaceutical company, is helping Costa Rica assay its rich
biota.33' A single commercially viable product derived "from, say, any one species among... 12,000 plants and 300,000 insects ... could
handsomely repay Merck's entire investment" of $1 million in 1991 dollars.332 Wild animals, plants, and microorganisms also provide ecological services.333 The Supreme Court has lauded the pes- ticidal talents of migratory birds.334 Numerous organisms process the air we
breathe, the water we drink, the ground we stroll.335 Other species serve as sentries. Just as canaries warned coal miners of lethal gases, the
decline or disappearance of indicator species provides advance warning against deeper environmental threats.336 Species conservation yields
the great- est environmental amenity of all: ecosystem protection. Saving discrete species indirectly protects the ecosystems in which they
live.337 Some larger animals may not carry great utilitarian value in themselves, but the human urge to protect these charis- matic "flagship
species" helps protect their ecosystems.338 In- deed, to save any species, we must protect their ecosystems.339
Defenders of biodiversity
can measure the "tangible eco- nomic value" of the pleasure derived from "visiting, photograph- ing, painting, and just looking at wildlife."340
In the United States alone, wildlife observation and feeding in 1991 generated $18.1 billion in consumer spending, $3 billion in tax revenues,
and 766,000 jobs.341 Ecotourism gives tropical countries, home to most of the world's species, a valuable alternative to subsis- tence
agriculture. Costa Rican rainforests preserved for ecotour- ism "have become many times more profitable per hectare than land cleared for
pastures and fields," while the endangered go- rilla has turned ecotourism into "the third most important source of income in Rwanda."342 In
a globalized economy where commodities can be cultivated almost anywhere, environmen- tally sensitive locales can maximize their wealth
by exploiting the "boutique" uses of their natural bounty.
The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they
embody is "literally . . . incalculable."343 What, if anything,
should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the
story of Noah's Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preser- vation.344 Others regard the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the biblical
stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's deplorable environmental record.345 To avoid getting bogged down in an
environmental exegesis of Judeo- Christian "myth and legend," we should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the
gravest problem
facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that "our descend- ants [will] most regret," the "loss
of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even "energy
depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or con- quest by a totalitarian government."347
Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth with a diversity of species approximating that
of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens - in ten mil- lion years, perhaps a hundred million.348
imperatives of our moment in natural "history."346
The loss of biological diversity is quite
arguably the
21
Newest studies prove
Science Daily 2011 ("Biodiversity Critical for Maintaining Multiple 'Ecosystem Services'" Cites McGill
University, August 19, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110819155422.htm)
By combining data from 17 of the largest and longest-running biodiversity experiments, scientists
from universities across North America and Europe have found that previous studies have
underestimated the importance of biodiversity for maintaining multiple ecosystem services across
many years and places. "Most previous studies considered only the number of species needed to
provide one service under one set of environmental conditions," says Prof. Michel Loreau from McGill
University's biology department who supervised the study. "These studies found that many species
appeared redundant. That is, it appeared that the extinction of many species would not affect the
functioning of the ecosystem because other species could compensate for their loss." Now, by looking at
grassland plant species, investigators have found that most of the studied species were important at
least once for the maintenance of ecosystem services, because different sets of species were
important during different years, at different places, for different services, and under different global
change (e.g., climate or land-use change) scenarios. Furthermore, the species needed to provide one
service during multiple years were not the same as those needed to provide multiple services during
one year. "This means that biodiversity is even more important for maintaining ecosystem services than
was previously thought," says Dr. Forest Isbell, the lead author and investigator of this study. "Our
results indicate that many species are needed to maintain ecosystem services at multiple times and
places in a changing world, and that species are less redundant than was previously thought." The
scientists involved in the study also offer recommendations for using these results to prioritize
conservation efforts and predict consequences of species extinctions. "It is nice to know which groups of
species promoted ecosystem functioning under hundreds of sets of environmental conditions," says
Isbell, "because this will allow us to determine whether some species often provide ecosystem services
under environmental conditions that are currently common, or under conditions that will become
increasingly common in the future." But Michel Loreau, of McGill, adds au cautionary note: "We should
be careful when making predictions. The uncertainty over future environmental changes means that
conserving as much biodiversity as possible could be a good precautionary approach."
Extinction.
MAJOR DAVID N. DINER, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review
Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the
ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several
strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole."
n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its
dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction.
Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets
from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
22
Coral Raf
Oil Spill in Cuba causes damage to environment and Florida’s economy.
NOVA 2012 [“Long-term Response Plan for Cuban Oil Spill,” January 29, 2012,
http://nsunews.nova.edu/longterm-response-plan-cuban-oil-spill/]
Nova Southeastern University (NSU) and Florida International University (FIU) researchers have drafted
a plan to best prepare South Florida for an oil spill off the coast of Cuba.¶ The proximity of intended
Cuban oil drilling and production puts the U.S. coastal zone at risk from Florida to the Carolinas and
northward. Oil from a spill would quickly enter the Gulf Stream and reach Florida’s shores in hours or
days with potentially devastating effects on the densely populated South Florida coastline and its
coastal ecosystems. South Florida’s accounts for 3.4 million jobs and 45 percent of the $587 billion
contribution to Florida’s GDP generated by coastal and ocean economic activity.¶ A likely first impact
of a major spill would be the iconic and economically valuable Florida Reef Track, a coral reef
ecosystem that stretches from the Dry Torgugas in the Keys to Palm Beach County. Effects could be
devastating to the ecology of the reef, Florida’s beaches, coastal property and South Florida’s
economy.¶ The sustainability plan calls for a partnership between the U.S. Coast Guard, other federal agencies, and a consortium of South
Florida academic institutions, including Nova Southeastern University’s Oceanographic Center, Florida International University, other schools,
an oil leak
originating in Cuban waters will very quickly enter Florida waters, research, planning and preparation activities must
and private industry. The Coast Guard is the designated operational leader in any response to a Cuban oil spill.¶ Because
be undertaken in advance of an accident so that authorities can respond effectively.¶ The conceptual plan —- a collaborative effort completed
by Richard E. Dodge, Ph.D., dean of NSU’s Oceanographic Center, and John R. Proni, Ph.D., executive director of FIU’s Applied Research Center
and others – was presented Monday in Sunny Isles Beach to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. At the hearing, Proni provided oral and written testimony which contained the elements of the plan.¶ The following were the
recommendations that were highlighted:¶ • Implement an oil spill early-warning monitoring system using acoustic, geophysical, satellite and
other relevant methods.¶ • Baseline assessment of the status of coral reef and associated ecosystems in the likely spill path (Straits of Florida,
SE/E Florida coast) to prioritize areas for spill response and to set restoration targets should a spill occur.¶ • Ocean observations for description
of the physical oceanography and current movements to have more complete knowledge of the ocean hydrodynamic movements of the Gulf
Stream and Loop Current, shallow to deep, from the Yucatan Channel to the Southeast/East coast of Florida.¶ • Oil and dispersed oil toxicity
characterization and toxicity studies to determine effects on a range of coral reef ecosystem and other organisms to develop risk assessments.¶
• Modeling for prediction of ocean dynamics for spill movement prediction over time and space both in the vertical and horizontal.¶ •
Modeling for prediction of ecological /biological effects under various spill and response scenarios.¶ • Modeling to assess the potential impact
of different observing strategies on baseline data collection, analysis of information, and data required for response and mitigation.¶ If this
NSU-FIU long-term oil spill sustainability plan were to be implemented, it would involve the following elements:¶ 1. Inviting and integrating
other federal agencies, in addition to the Coast Guard, into a Cuban oil drilling/production effort for response to a Cuban oil spill.¶ 2.
Establishment of a partnership between the U.S. Coast Guard and a consortium of South Florida institutions having the in-depth experience,
local knowledge, data, and expertise to be most effective in our unique oceanic and coastal environments.¶ 3. Jointly planning a system for
gathering operational data and concurrently for gathering research data with quick payoff for operational activities, e.g. real-time current
information for transport calculations and modeling.¶ 4. Jointly planning and implementing a system to gather data which will be of use in
longer term damage and impact issues such as oil characterization (both at well site proximity and U.S. coastal water locations), ecotoxicological impacts, coral reef, inlet and port and spatial coastal planning impacts.¶ 5. Evaluating the use and need for, and implementing as
necessary, a non-intrusive monitoring system utilizing water borne and bottom borne energies originating at the Cuban oil operation sites.¶ 6.
Utilizing/developing systems and platforms, including optical, acoustical, and sampling systems — both manned and autonomous — that is
capable of detecting, mapping and sampling subsurface oil.
23
Oil Spills have proven to cause major damage to coral, which is essential in the ocean
ecosystem.
Huffington Post 2013 [“Gulf Oil Spill: Coral Death 'Definitively' Linked To BP Spill,” March 26, 2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/gulf-oil-spill-coral-death_n_1380712.html]
After months of laboratory work, scientists say they can definitively finger oil from BP's blown-out well
as the culprit for the slow death of a once brightly colored deep-sea coral community in the Gulf of
Mexico that is now brown and dull.¶ In a study published Monday, scientists say meticulous chemical
analysis of samples taken in late 2010 proves that oil from BP PLC's out-of-control Macondo well
devastated corals living about 7 miles southwest of the well. The coral community is located over an
area roughly the size of half a football field nearly a mile below the Gulf's surface.¶ The damaged corals
were discovered in October 2010 by academic and government scientists, but it's taken until now for
them to declare a definite link to the oil spill.¶ Most of the Gulf's bottom is muddy, but coral colonies
that pop up every once in a while are vital oases for marine life in the chilly ocean depths. The injured
and dying coral today has bare skeleton, loose tissue and is covered in heavy mucous and brown fluffy
material, the paper said.¶ "It was like a graveyard of corals," said Erik Cordes, a biologist at Temple
University who went down to the site in the Alvin research submarine.¶ So far, this has been the only
deep-sea coral site found to be seriously damaged by the spill.¶ On April 20, 2010, the well blew out
about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, leading to the death of 11 workers aboard the Deepwater
Horizon drilling rig and the nation's largest offshore spill. More than 200 million gallons of oil were
released.¶ "They figured (the coral damage) was the result of the spill, now we can say definitely it was
connected to the spill," said Helen White, a chemical oceanographer with Haverford College and the
lead researcher.¶ She said pinpointing the BP well as the source of the contamination required sampling
sediment on the sea floor and figuring out what was oil from natural seeps in the Gulf and what was
from the Macondo well. Finally, the researchers matched the oil found on the corals with oil that came
out of the BP well.¶ Also, the researchers concluded that the damage was caused by the spill because an
underwater plume of oil was tracked passing by the site in June 2010. The paper also noted that a
decade of deep-sea coral research in the Gulf had not found coral dying in this manner. The coral was
documented for the first time when researchers went looking for oil damage in 2010.¶ The findings were
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.¶ The scientists said that they have
gone back to the dying corals by submarine since 2010, but that they are not ready to talk about what
they've seen at the site.¶ However, Charles Fisher, a biologist with Penn State University who's led the
coral expeditions, said recovery of the damaged site would be slow.¶ "Things happen very slowly in the
deep sea; the temperatures are low, currents are low, those animals live hundreds of years and they
die slowly," he said. "It will take a while to know the final outcome of this exposure."¶ BP did not
immediately comment on the study.¶ The researchers said the troubled spot consists of 54 coral
colonies. The researchers were able to fully photograph and assess 43 of those colonies, and of those,
86 percent were damaged. They said 10 coral colonies showed signs of severe stress on 90 percent of
the coral.¶ White, the lead researcher, said that this coral site was the only one found southwest of the
Macondo well so far, but that others may exist. The researchers also wrote in the paper that it was too
early to rule out serious damage at other coral sites that may have seemed healthy during previous
examinations after the April 2010 spill.¶ Jerald Ault, a fish and coral reef specialist at the University of
Miami who was not part of the study, said the findings were cause for concern because deep-sea corals
are important habitat. He said there are many links between animals that live at the surface, such as
tarpon and menhaden, and life at the bottom of the Gulf. Ecosystem problems can play out over many
years, he said.¶ "It's kind of a tangled web of impact," he said.
24
Collapse of Coral Reefs causes poverty, hunger, and instability
Skoloff 2010 [Brian Skoloff, March 25, 2010, “‘Complete collapse’ of coral possible,” MSNBC,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36040614/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/complete-collapsecoral-possible/#.Ud4NS22G7XE]
Coral reefs are dying, and scientists and governments around the world are contemplating what will happen if they disappear altogether.¶ The
idea positively scares them.¶ Coral
reefs are part of the foundation of the ocean food chain. Nearly half the
fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide — by
some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone — depend on them for their food and their livelihoods.¶ If
the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and political instability could ensue. ¶ "Whole nations
will be threatened in terms of their existence," said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature.¶ Numerous studies predict coral reefs are headed for extinction worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and coastal
development, but also because of damage from bottom-dragging fishing boats and the international trade in jewelry and souvenirs made of
coral.¶ At least 19 percent of the world's coral reefs are already gone, including some 50 percent of those in the Caribbean. An additional 15
percent could be dead within 20 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.¶ Complete collapse a scenario¶ Old
Dominion University professor Kent Carpenter, director of a worldwide census of marine species, warned that if
global warming
continues unchecked, all corals could be extinct within 100 years.¶ Concerns about coral "You could argue that a
complete collapse of the marine ecosystem would be one of the consequences of losing corals,"
Carpenter said. "You're going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the oceans."¶ Exotic and
colorful, coral reefs aren't lifeless rocks; they are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard calcium carbonate exoskeleton. Once the
animals die, the rocky structures erode, depriving fish of vital spawning and feeding grounds.¶ Experts say cutting back on carbon emissions to
arrest rising sea temperatures and acidification of the water, declaring some reefs off limits to fishing and diving, and controlling coastal
development and pollution could help reverse, or at least stall, the tide.¶ Florida, for instance, has the largest unbroken "no-take" zone in the
continental U.S. — about 140 square miles off limits to fishing in and around Dry Tortugas National Park, a cluster of islands and reefs teeming
with marine life about 70 miles off Key West.¶ Many fishermen oppose such restrictions. And other environmental measures have run into
resistance at the state, local, national and international level. On Sunday, during a gathering of the Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, restrictions proposed by the U.S. and Sweden on the trade of some coral species were rejected.¶
Fish as a luxury?¶ If
reefs were to disappear, commonly consumed species of grouper and snapper could
become just memories. Oysters, clams and other creatures that are vital to many people's diets would
also suffer. And experts say commercial fisheries would fail miserably at meeting demand for
seafood.¶ "Fish will become a luxury good," said Cassandra deYoung of the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization. "You already have a billion people who are facing hunger, and this is just
going to aggravate the situation," she added. "We will not be able to maintain food security around
the world."¶ The economic damage could be enormous. Ocean fisheries provide direct employment to
at least 38 million people worldwide, with an additional 162 million people indirectly involved in the
industry, according to the U.N.¶ Coral reefs draw scuba divers, snorkelers and other tourists to seaside
resorts in Florida, Hawaii, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean and help maintain some of the world's
finest sandy beaches by absorbing energy from waves. Without the reefs, hotels, restaurants and other
businesses that cater to tourists could suffer financially.¶ Many Caribbean countries get nearly half
their gross national product from visitors seeking tropical underwater experiences.¶ People all over
the world could pay the price if reefs were to disappear, since some types of coral and marine species
that rely on reefs are being used by the pharmaceutical industry to develop possible cures for cancer,
arthritis and viruses.¶ "A world without coral reefs is unimaginable," said Jane Lubchenco, a marine
biologist who heads NOAA. "Reefs are precious sources of food, medicine and livelihoods for hundreds
of thousands around the world. They are also special places of renewal and recreation for thousands more. Their exotic beauty
and diverse bounty are global treasures."
25
2AC Mangroves Key to Bio-D
Mangroves are key to biodiversity.
“A Review of Mangrove Biodiversity Conservation and Management” (Professors at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark) <http://mit.biology.au.dk/cenTER/MCB_Files/2002_Review_WB_MCB_Final.pdf>
3. OBJECTIVES Recognising the importance of conserving mangrove forest ecosystems worldwide, the
World Bank has commissioned a desk review with the title: “Mainstreaming Conservation of Coastal
Biodiversity through Formulation of a generic Code of Conduct for Sustainable Management of
Mangrove Forest Ecosystems”. This report is intended to serve as a resource document to facilitate the
development of a Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forest Ecosystems
(here after referred to as “the Code of Conduct”). Formulation of the Code of Conduct will be based on
existing knowledge, experience and concepts. The objective will be to arrest the recent and rapid
destruction of the coastal mangrove ecosystems, to improve their management, and to conserve
biodiversity in these critical natural habitats. JUSTIFICATION Mangrove forest ecosystems support
important wetland communities of plants and animals. They are characterised by unique species of
trees and shrubs that fringe the intertidal zone along sheltered coastal, estuarine and riverine areas
in tropical and subtropical latitudes. Coastal habitats across the world are under heavy population
and development pressures. Mangroves have been particularly vulnerable to exploitation because
they contain valuable wood and fisheries resources, and occupy coastal land that is easily converted
to other uses. The scale of human impact on mangroves has increased dramatically over the past three
decades or so, with many countries showing losses of 60-80% or more of the mangrove forest cover
that existed in the 1960s. Compounding this problem, several of the countries with the most significant
mangrove resources also have high human populations (e.g. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and
Vietnam). Overall, the world’s mangroves have declined in area by about 50%, and regionally Asia has
lost 61% and Africa 55%; most of the remaining mangrove forests have also suffered moderate to
severe degradation.
26
Cuban Oil = Spills
Cuba Oil Inexperienced
Alyssa Tremblay 2010 (Dawson newspaper) October “Cuba plans Gulf well”
http://theplantpaper.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/cuba-plans-gulf-well/
Cuba recently announced that it will begin offshore drilling to build new oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico
as of next year. “The discovery of potential deep-water oil and gas reserves off Cuba’s northern coast
has caught the eye of the world’s energy-hungry nations” such as China, Venezuela, India and the US,
BBC News reported. However, scientists warn that a spill from one of these new wells could “send oil
spewing onto Cuban beaches and then the Florida Keys in as little as three days,” the New York Times
reported, continuing to state that the oil could easily “flow up the coast to Miami and beyond” if it
reached the powerful Gulf Stream ocean current. Fears over a spill are rising due to Cuba’s relatively
young and inexperienced oil industry, which, in a crisis situation, would be “far less prepared to
handle a major spill than even the American industry was at the time of the BP spill,” the New York
Times stated.
27
Oil Spills Kill Fishing Industry 2AC
Oil spills lead to lack of marine biodiversity that quashes the fishing industry.
Jorge R. Piñon and Muse 2010 (Visiting Research Fellow with the Cuban Research institute at Florida
international University) and Robert L. Muse (attorney with long and substantial experience in U.S.-Cuba
legal matters) May 2010 US-Cuba Relations at Brookings “Why U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is
Critical”<http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill%20cuba
%20pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf>
Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the natural
heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the
economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that
spawn in Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.S. waters and caught by commercial
and recreational fishermen. Florida and the southeastern United States are situated in the
downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and
sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vectors of Cuban spilled oil.
Oil spills eliminate fishing jobs
Gabriel Elizondo 2010, 7 Jul 2010, Al Jazeera, “Effects of a Brazilian oil spill 10 years on : Little hope
for US Gulf Coast as example of Guanabara Bay reveals a still devastated area a decade after
environmental catastrophe,” Gabriel Elizondo is an Al Jazeera staff correspondent based in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/effects-brazilian-oil-spill-10-years
Evo da Silva, a local fisherman I met, said before the spill he it was not uncommon to net 100 kilos of fish
and crab a day. Today, on a good day, he is happy with five kilos; 10 kilos is a great day. He said after the spill the
fish died off, and have yet to come back to pre-spill levels. "There are some types of fish that simply
do not exists anymore here in our bay," da Silva told me from Magé, a small town bordering the bay
where he lives. "I think they are extinct after the spill." The problem, I was told, is that once the
mangrove were killed by oil, it also permanently disrupted the life cycle of the fish and crabs that
needed the healthy swamplands to feed and multiply. Put simply, it's a vicious cycle: Oil kills
mangrove, which in turn kills fish and crab, which in turn kills livelihoods of the local fishermen. Until the
mangrove can recuperate, the rest of the cycle can't be fixed properly. Problem is, once the mangrove is dead it is hard to bring back to life.
"The mangrove is one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world and unfortunately, when industrial accidents – particularly petroleum –
enter the areas of mangrove, it’s a very slow process for the ecosystem to recuperate,” Herrera, the environmentalist, told me. Herrera said
once the oil was cleaned off the water surface area after the spill, it can reappear years later in ways not imaginable at the time. "What is
happening in many parts of the effected mangrove in the Guanabara Bay is that bubbles of oil were formed that are below the surface,"
Herrera said. "These bubbles are buried under sediment at the bottom of the bay, and then many years layer - even decades after the
accident - we can still verify those bubbles can re-appear on the surface. "We still get reports from fishermen that report small spots of oil
that keep appearing in the mangrove, and that is what that is." The
economic effects from the oil spill can still be felt
on the fishermen in Guanabara Bay. Alexandre Anderson runs a local association fighting for rights of fishermen on the bay and
he told me buyers will only pay less than half the market value of the fish from Guanabara Bay because of the stigma of the fish "being
contaminated". Da Silva confirmed this to me, and said he fears the fishermen on the Gulf Coast of the US will face the same problem. "I do
not want to be pessimistic but it’s going to be difficult if someone does not help (the fisherman in the Gulf Coast),” da Silva said. "It is
going to be impossible to support their families. Now they are going to have the problem of people
saying, 'we are not buying that fish because it is contaminated.’ "We went through that here. Nobody wanted our
fish, they said, ‘your fish are contaminated because of the oil.’" Of the 6,000 fishermen who used to fish Guanabara
Bay, only about 2,000 are left da Silva said. Most have been forced to find other lines of work.
28
Spills Kill the Environment
Oil spills risk destruction of important ecosystems.
Padgett 2012 (Tim, “The Oil Off Cuba: Washington and Havana Dance at Arms Length Over Spill
Prevention”, 1/27, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2105598,00.html)
On any other occasion that might have raised the ire of the Cubans, who consider Washington their imperialista enemy. But the U.S.
examination of the Scarabeo 9, which Repsol agreed to and Cuba abided, was part of an unusual choreography of cooperation between the two
countries. Their otherwise bitter cold-war feud (they haven't had diplomatic relations since 1961) is best known for a 50-year-long trade
embargo and history's scariest nuclear standoff. Now, Cuba's
commitment to offshore oil exploration — drilling may start
a specter that haunts both nations: an oil spill in the Florida Straits like the BP
calamity that tarred the nearby Gulf of Mexico two years ago and left $40 billion in U.S. damages. The Straits, an equally vital
body of water that's home to some of the world's most precious coral reefs, separates Havana and Key
West, Florida, by a mere 90 miles. As a result, the U.S. has tacitly loosened its embargo against Cuba to give firms like Repsol
this weekend — raises
easier access to the U.S. equipment they need to help avoid or contain possible spills. "Preventing drilling off Cuba better protects our interests
than preparing for [a disaster] does," U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida tells TIME, noting the U.S. would prefer to stop the Cuban drilling — but
can't. "But the two are not mutually exclusive, and that's why we should aim to do both."
Oil spills have lasting effects on mangrove swamps, and mangroves take decades to
recover
Gabriel Elizondo, 7 Jul 2010, Al Jazeera, “Effects of a Brazilian oil spill 10 years on : Little hope for US
Gulf Coast as example of Guanabara Bay reveals a still devastated area a decade after environmental
catastrophe,” Gabriel Elizondo is an Al Jazeera staff correspondent based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/effects-brazilian-oil-spill-10-years
I wanted to see the effects of an oil spill years later, so I came to Guanabara Bay near Rio de Janeiro. It was here 10 years ago that
1.3 million litres of oil leaked from an underwater pipeline smothering in oil birds, sandy beaches, and
much of the mangrove swaps that surround Guanabara Bay. It was a major environmental catastrophe. "The spill
in 2000 on Guanabara Bay was one of the most serious and severe accidents in the environmental
history of Brazil," Breno Herrera, the head of the federal governments environment office that oversees Guanabara Bay, told me recently
during an interview. Before I go any further, it’s important to understand the bay is huge. The perimeter is almost 150km
long and there are dozens of little islands inside the bay. Guanabara Bay is legendary in Rio de Janeiro for its pollution,
unrelated to the oil spill 10 years ago. But what interested me in the oil spill from 2000 are two things. First, I wanted to see how the
mangrove swamps that were covered in oil have recovered, because that ecosystem is not too
dissimilar to the swamplands in Florida and elsewhere now under threat from the BP Gulf of Mexico
spill. And, second, in 2000 at the time of the Guanabara spill people estimated it would take 10 years for the ecosystem to recover. That
was a decade ago, and the obvious question is 'has it recovered?’ I was recently led into a large patch
of mangrove that was hardest hit by the oil, and let me be clear here: What I saw was evidence that
there is no recovery after all these years. The mud is thick, black and lifeless. And it stinks. Dead stumps - what used to be thick
green mangrove swamps - protrude out from the mud as far as your eyes see. It looks like a scene captured by a camera attached to an
unmanned spacecraft that has just landed on a lifeless planet in another galaxy. Nothing
is growing here, and I can’t imagine
anything growing here in a very long time. It’s sad. Effects Evo da Silva, a local fisherman I met, said before the spill he it was
not uncommon to net 100 kilos of fish and crab a day. Today, on a good day, he is happy with five kilos; 10 kilos is a great day. He said after the
spill the fish died off, and have yet to come back to pre-spill levels. "There
are some types of fish that simply do not exists
anymore here in our bay," da Silva told me from Magé, a small town bordering the bay where he lives. "I think they are
extinct after the spill." The problem, I was told, is that once the mangrove were killed by oil, it also
permanently disrupted the life cycle of the fish and crabs that needed the healthy swamplands to feed
and multiply. Put simply, it's a vicious cycle: Oil kills mangrove, which in turn kills fish and crab, which in turn kills livelihoods of the local
fishermen. Until the mangrove can recuperate, the rest of the cycle can't be fixed properly. Problem is,
29
once the mangrove is dead it is hard to bring back to life. "The mangrove is one of the most fragile
ecosystems in the world and unfortunately, when industrial accidents – particularly petroleum – enter
the areas of mangrove, it’s a very slow process for the ecosystem to recuperate,” Herrera, the
environmentalist, told me. The lingering effects of the Guanabara Bay oil spill 10 years on are obvious after
visiting some of the areas hardest hit. But the effects in 2020 in the Gulf Coast could be much worse than anything seen here in
Brazil. The total amount of oil spilled in 2000 in Guanabara Bay was about 8,000 barrels and even by
the most conservative estimates that is only about 25 per cent of the oil being leaked into the Gulf
Coast everyday. And as far as the full recovery of the mangroves in Guanabara Bay, that might not happen anytime
soon. "It is difficult to make a forecast concrete about these things, but without doubt it goes beyond 10 years,” Herrera told me in regards to the
recuperation. "It is counted
in decades, not years." Herrera didn’t want to make any predictions about what will happen in the
Gulf Coast down the road, but he did say he thinks the BP spill is the worst environmental disaster the planet has
ever seen. When I ask da Silva - the fisherman - if he has any advice for the people in the Gulf Coast of America coping with the BP spill, he
says simply: "They are going to have to be patient, because they will have the same problems we still have here. "But I think they are going to
have it even worse than we do." Spoken from a man who has already lived it. And still is 10 years later.
30
Kills the Economy 2AC
U.S Fiscally unprepared for Cuban Oil Spill
Melissa Bert and Blake Clayton 2012. Melissa Bert is a military fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the
Council on Foreign Relations. Blake Clayton is fellow for energy and national security at the Council on
Foreign Relations March, 2012. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-riskcuban-oil-spill/p27515
Shortfalls in U.S. federal regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further
problem. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against
damages stemming from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater
Horizon, BP was liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United
States. Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would fall
to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90 limits the OSLTF
from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs, subject to a few exceptions,
and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than $150 million.
Oil Spill Would Destroy U.S Tourism Industry
Melissa Bert and Blake Clayton 2012. Melissa Bert is a military fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the
Council on Foreign Relations. Blake Clayton is fellow for energy and national security at the Council on
Foreign Relations March, 2012. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-riskcuban-oil-spill/p27515
Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is
seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that
triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features,
situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off
Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.
31
US Key Global Economy
Us economic downturn will cause worldwide depression
Financial Post 1999 April 3, 1999 Date accessed 7/26/2006
This year, eight economies will be in recession, two in depression. But all should be growing again in the second
half of next year, he predicts. Asia is moving toward the beginnings of recovery and is no longer in crisis, in Mr.
Sinai's view. South Korea has turned around, from depression to modest growth. Japan seems past the worst,
judging by its stock market revival. However, if the U.S. economy falters seriously, so will the fledgling
recoveries, Mr. Sinai warns. Asian growth would be stymied. China might devalue, causing
new problems for the region. Europe could go into recession. Canada's growth, heavily dependent
on exports to the U.S., would disappear. Latin America would fall into depression. All this
could lead to financial market collapse, and perhaps a world depression. 'The odds on this are not
zero,' Mr. Sinai says.
UNITED STATES FALL WOULD COLLAPSE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Francesco Sisci 2002, Asia Times, “THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: Part 3: The fear within”, October 18,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DJ18Ak02.html
The implosion or fall of the US would have been bad news not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world. A
cowering, wounded United States would have precipitated a global economic downturn,
dragging down all emerging markets, China's included, and would have created a huge vacuum of power that no one could fill.
This in turn could have brought about chaos for developed and developing nations, with the only benefit going to the ultimate producers of
energy and fundamentalist faiths such as Wahhabi Islam. Incidentally, both happen to reside in the same place - Saudi Arabia
32
Econ Decline = War 2AC
Collapse of the economy would cause war---strong statistical support
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “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
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 states. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous
shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin,
10981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon,
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).
Seperately, Polllins (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
behavior 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 relations. However, if the expectation 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. Crises could
potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic
decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write, The linkages 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. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89). Economic decline has also
been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 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 create a
‘rally round the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find
supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated.
Gelpi (1997) Miller (1999) and Kisanganie and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are 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 linked to an increase in the
use of force.
33
Relations Adv extensions
34
Drilling Solves Relations
The plan strengthens US-Cuba relations
Benjamin 10 – Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro, Report for the Cuban Research Institute, Florida
International University, PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director
of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer of the
American Political Science Association, 2010, Brookings Institution book, “Cuba’s Energy Future:
Strategic Approaches to Cooperation”
Conclusion and Recommendations
Oil exploration is an inherently risky enterprise; there are always trade-offs between negatives and positives relating to energy security,
environmental integrity, and geostrategic considerations. The consensus arising from the studies and the analyses in this book is that the
creation of mutually beneficial trade and investment opportunities between the United States and Cuba
is long overdue. Throughout most of the twentieth century, Cuban infrastructure and economic
development were direct beneficiaries of commercial relations with the United States. This relationship
was instrumental in providing Cuba with access to advanced technologies and the signs of modernity
that were unparalleled in Latin America and far beyond.¶ Once again, the United States is presented with an
opportunity that might serve as the basis of a new relationship between the United States and Cuba. It
holds out the possibility of enhancing the stability and development of a region that is wrestling with
questions of how and when it too might benefit from engagement with a global economic development
model. The question is whether the United States chooses to be at the center, or to leave Cuba to seek some alternate path toward its
goals.¶ Ironically, Cuban officials have invited American oil companies to participate in developing their
offshore oil and natural gas reserves. American oil, oil equipment, and service companies possess the
capital, technology, and operational know-how to explore, produce, and refine these resources in a safe
and responsible manner. Yet they remain on the sidelines because of our almost five-decades-old
unilateral political and economic embargo. The United States can end this impasse by licensing
American oil companies to participate in the development of Cuba’s energy resources. By seizing the
initiative on Cuba policy, the United States will be strategically positioned to play an important role in the
future of the island, thereby giving Cubans a better chance for a stable, prosperous, and democratic
future. The creation of stable and transparent commercial relations in the energy sector will bolster
state capacity in Cuba while enhancing U.S. geostrategic interests, and can help Cuba’s future leaders
avoid illicit business practices, minimize the influence of narcotrafficking enterprises, and stanch the
outflow of illegal immigrants to the United States.¶ If U.S. companies are allowed to contribute to the development of
Cuba’s hydrocarbon reserves, as well as the development of alternative and renewable energy (solar, wind, and biofuels), it will give the
United States the opportunity to engage Cuba’s future leaders to carry out long-overdue economic
reforms and development that will perhaps pave the way to a more open and representative society
while helping to promote Cuba as a stable partner and leader in the region and beyond.¶ Under no
circumstances is this meant to suggest that the United States should come to dominate energy development policy in Cuba. The United
States certainly has a role to play, but unlike its past relationship with Cuba, its interaction and
cooperation will be predicated on its ability to accept, at a minimum, that Cuba will be the dominant
partner in potential commercial ventures, and an equal partner in future diplomatic and interstate
relations. Without a doubt Cuban government actors are wary of the possibility of being dominated by the “colossus of the North,” but as
Cuba’s energy policymakers face the daunting reality of their nation’s energy future, it is abundantly clear that they possess the
willingness and the capacity to assiduously pursue sound policy objectives and initiatives that begin to
address the island’s immediate and long-term challenges. In the end, this course of action will have
direct and tangible benefits for the people of Cuba, it neighbors, and beyond.
35
Relations Solve Russia
US Cuba relations crowd out Russia
Blank 09 (Stephen, Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of
the U.S. Army War College, “Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood,”
pdf)
The only way in which Russian policy truly threatens the US and Latin America is its military and intelligence
support for Chavez and similar leaders. This support is passed on to insurgents while strengthening
Chavez and his allies. Adequate responses to such threats are inherently economic and political, and only military as a last resort. ¶
Washington can do much more to facilitate security in Latin America: regenerating its own economy;
simultaneously opening up trade markets and eliminating barriers to Latin American exports; enhancing multilateralism and interoperability
among defense forces as requested by Latin American militaries; and beginning
the normalization of Cuba.¶ Havana is no
longer the threat it was, Venezuela has claimed that dubious honor. Rehabilitating Cuba, given that Castro’s days
are clearly numbered, would take the air out of Chavez’s balloon; it is quite clear that Havana would
probably welcome a path towards better relations with the US, especially the economic benefits they would inevitably
bring. A policy with a more symbolically important impact upon Latin America is currently difficult to
imagine.¶ Nonetheless, there should be no illusion that the security problems that plague this region are easily overcome, quite the
opposite. But that is all the more reason why the US cannot ignore the area and let it drift to Moscow, Tehran, and Beijin
for want of a better alternative. That outcome would only confirm once again that in world politics, there is no
such thing as benign neglect. Instead neglect is malign and engenders negative results for the negligent state along with those
neglected. The policies of the Bush administration allowed Russia to gain a foothold in Latin American
politics, a result of Washington’s negligence; under President Obama, the US should reverse those outcomes and
demonstrate what liberal democracy in action can truly accomplish.
36
Cuba-Russia Relations Cause War
Increased Cuba-Russia relations causes war
Richter 08 (Paul, Staff Writer for New York Times, “Moscow-Havana ties worry U.S.” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/01/world/fgusrussia1)
But at a time when Russia has intervened forcefully in Georgia and is extending the global reach of its
rebuilt military, some senior officials fear it may not be only bluster.¶ Russia "has strategic ties to
Cuba again, or at least, that's where they're going," a senior U.S. official said recently, speaking, like others, on condition of
anonymity because of the sensitive implications of the assessments.¶ The officials said they doubted the Russians would risk stationing nuclear
bombers on Cuba. But some
believe that Moscow might seek to restore its once-energetic intelligence
cooperation with Havana, and to resume limited military cooperation, possibly including refueling stops for aircraft
and warships.¶ In the current environment, such contacts would make U.S. officials uneasy, serving as a reminder
of a military relationship between Havana and Moscow that stretched from the Cuban Revolution in 1959 until a
weakened, post-Soviet Russia finally closed a massive electronic intelligence complex in Lourdes near Havana in 2001.¶ One senior military
officer said a
return of Russian ships or planes could force additional U.S. deployments in the region. But
is very Cold War retro," said a
government official. "The topic could be reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis, and that is a chapter that
people don't want to revisit."¶ The Russian Defense Ministry dismissed a report in the newspaper Izvestia in July that quoted an
the Bush administration and Pentagon declined to comment publicly on the implications. ¶ "It
unidentified Russian official as saying the government intended to begin basing Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack and Tupolev Tu-95 Bear nuclear
bombers in Cuba.¶ However, the report was taken seriously enough in Washington that Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the new Air Force chief
of staff, said
during his Senate confirmation hearing at the time that sending the bombers would cross a
"red line in the sand."
Russia expansion causes proxy conflicts
Walle 12 (Walter, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Russia Turns to the South for Military and Economic
Alliances,” http://www.coha.org/russia-turns-to-the-south-for-military-and-economic-alliances/)
Quite clearly, Russia’s interest in Latin America is escalating. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, argued in his article,
“The New Stage of Development of Russian-Latin American Relations,” that there is great attractiveness in establishing bilateral relations,
especially when three of the top twenty emerging economies -Mexico, Brazil and Argentina- are in Latin America.[23] Lavrov has also stated
that the Russian Federation has an interest in joining the Inter-American Development Bank, perhaps a move to better accommodate Russian
interests in the region, while at the same time neutralizing American influence.¶ Demonstrably, Russia
has been developing
cooperative relationships with prominent organizational bodies of the region, such as the OAS (Organization of
American States), and has ratified visa-free travel agreements with countries like Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and
Argentina. In his article, Lavrov argues that Russia’s intention behind quests for partnerships is the establishment of non-ideologized
relationships with Latin American countries, relationships that could be of mutual benefit to all parties involved.¶ However, the
Russian
stance on Latin America ultimately may be cause for apprehension. The establishment of bilateral,
cordial relations between Russia and Latin American countries could evolve to a proxy, neo-Cold War
scenario. If the situation in the regions worsens, some countries would be funded and supported by
the U.S., while others, including several members of Latin America’s “New Left”, would become the
major beneficiaries of Moscow. An analogy of such practice is the Georgia – Russia crisis that surfaced in August of
2008. During this brief war, the U.S. sent military aid to Georgia[24] on warships to territory Russia considers its “backyard” (i.e. the Caucasus
and the Black Sea), infuriating Moscow. A month after the conflict erupted, ostensibly in retaliation, Russia sent two Tu-160 bombers to
conduct military exercises with Washington’s least favorite nation in Latin America: Venezuela[25]. More importantly, in November of 2008
Moscow conducted war games with Caracas, in which a small Russian fleet was sent to the Caribbean to participate in joint
naval maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy.[26] This was a powerful symbolic act: as it was the first time that
Russian warships had visited the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis.¶ In the wake of the postGeorgia conflict, such joint military maneuvers between Russia and Venezuela were revitalized, and
helped to build up the tensions between Washington and Moscow, sending strong signals of a Cold
War revival. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the declarations of independence by the breakaway regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, Venezuela[27] and Nicaragua[28] were alone among Latin American countries in recognizing the independence of the new republics.
37
Russia Impact Calc
Magnitude—US/Russia war is the only extinction risk.
Bostrom 2002—Nick Bostrom, Oxford philosophy faculty, Journal of Evolution and Technology, “Existential Risks Analyzing Human
Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards” March, google
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An
all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that
might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among
those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would
occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and
the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or
deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note
however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential
risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might
however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that
nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will
encounter in the 21st century.
38
Solvency- U.S. Key
A rapid U.S. response to any oil spill would be crucial.
Melissa Bert and Blake Clayton 2012. Melissa Bert is a military fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Blake Clayton is fellow for energy and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations March, 2012. Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515
Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other technologies in the Straits
of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well blowout or other unusual
activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol about the characteristics of Cuban
crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the oil would spread in the case of a well
blowout. An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without
changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be
barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S.
offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital
technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief
drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to
Florida and the Southeast.
US expertise in Cuban drilling operations is necessary to prevent oil spills.
Helman 2011 (Christopher – Forbes, “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For Oil Exploration”, 12/12,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oil-exploration/)
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just 70 miles south of
Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be joined by rigs from PetroVietnam, Malaysia’s Petronas
and Venezuela’s PDVSA. But you won’t
see any U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the U.S. maintains its
economic embargo against the Castro regime.This wrong-headed policy represents a dangerous threat
to the environment and a huge missed opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do
nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from being
done by the most experienced companies with the highest-quality equipment. Norway’s Statoil is a proven operator with a
long history in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore. A group of U.S. lawmakers in
September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called that bluff. At least
the Obama administration is doing something to ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an excellent article from Bloomberg
today, Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast Guard, two from the Dept. of
Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and watch some drills. But, according to the article, there will be real limits to what the
inspectors can inspect. They won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling fluids that are to be used.
Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no enforcement authority. Although the offshore
industry’s best service companies and parts manufacturers are right here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and
scrounge for spare parts from the rest of the world. But here’s something that completely blows my mind. The administration, again, according
to the Bloomberg article, has granted some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban waters. The
government won’t say how many companies have that license or who they are, but there’s at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix
Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans to stage a subsea containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout. Of
course it’s smart and safe for the U.S. government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the
message to the
industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S. operators the license to drill for oil in Cuba, but we want to
make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems. And the message to Cuba: we’re not going to let you use our
engineers, just our janitors. Knowing that a top-notch American clean-up crew is on standby in case of a blowout is not a big incentive for
Cuba to keep its own regulators on top of things. Think about Cuba in relation to U.S. oil adventures in the rest of
the world. Even if Cuba really were a tyrannical threat to U.S. interests, there’s myriad countries
where U.S. oil companies have done business that are no more democratic than Cuba. They include
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Libya, Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan. The Castros’ days as rulers of Cuba are
numbered. The embargo stick hasn’t brought regime change, and has only forced Cuba into the arms of
autocrats like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Better to use the carrot of capitalism to gradually bring Cuba into the U.S.
sphere of influence. The oil industry is a great place to start.
39
AT: Appeasement
The aff is a minor change when compared with current U.S. policy in Cuba.
Bert and Clayton 2012 (Captain Melissa –2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S. Coast Guard, and Blake –
Fellow for Energy and National Security, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill”, March,
<http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515>
Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S.
response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far
more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore
gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated
submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to
work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow
response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental
damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and
encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved relations
with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or
letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a
potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter
broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual
concern. The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the
Straits of Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the
hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with
information on Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the
specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban
economy or military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger
emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the
United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and
preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without
taking these precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
40
AT: Politics
The plan doesn’t require congressional action.
Melissa Bert and Blake Clayton 2012. Melissa Bert is a military fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the
Council on Foreign Relations. Blake Clayton is fellow for energy and national security at the Council on
Foreign Relations March, 2012. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-riskcuban-oil-spill/p27515
President Barack Obama should issue an export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill
response in Cuban waters, effective immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional
authorization. The license should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban
territory, such as capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton,
should be included in the authorization.
Rubio likes the plan.
Dawn Gable, Reporter for Havana Times, 2012 (February 13 2012, “Where Sen. Rubio and Cuba’s Raul
Castro Agree,” http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=62028)
Rubio, who appears to be vying for a vice-presidential nomination, was introduced to the CPAC
audience as, first and foremost, an upholder of family values who is committed to putting his family
first. This emphasis on family values can only be seen as an attempt by his PR team to erase the
memory of Rubio’s false claim that his parents fled the Castro dictatorship (a painful insult to all those
who did) when in fact they had left Cuba well before the revolution. The US Senator agrees with the
Cuban President that a nation should exploit the energy resources endowed upon it. He notes: “The
United States doesn’t have an energy policy; it has energy politics…we are an energy rich nation…why
would we tie our own hands behind our backs?…conservatism which is grounded in common
sense…says, if you are an energy rich nation you need to use the energy that God has blessed your
nation with.” One can only assume that he was attempting a swipe at Obama’s nixing of the Keystone
pipeline, but then one has to wonder if he thinks Alberta Canada is part of the United States? Either
way, he is clearly in favor of Cuba’s deep water oil exploration. He also concurs with Obama’s opening
of the entire Gulf of Mexico to deep water oil exploration…well, except for the oil-rich Florida coast
where state laws prohibit drilling.
He’s key to immigration reform.
Reuters 2013 June 13“Cuban-Americans Rubio, Menendez battle to be key voice on immigration
reform”
<http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/cuban-americans-rubio-menendez-battle-to-be-key-voiceon-immigration-reform/>
As the Senate debates the most far reaching immigration bill in a generation, all eyes are on CubanAmerican Senator Marco Rubio, wondering if he might walk away from it. There are concerns that the
rising political star from Florida, crucial to attracting Republican support for the legislation, may
decide it doesn’t do enough to bolster security on the U.S.-Mexico border – a priority for conservatives.
41
Drilling Inevitable
Drilling is inevitable
Bryan Walsh 2011 Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011
senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment former Tokyo bureau chief for
TIME, and reported from Hong Kong on health, the environment and the arts
<http://science.time.com/author/bryanrwalsh/#ixzz2YhKEZl3t>
To be sure, deepwater drilling isn't going away. The easy finds onshore — in the U.S. and throughout
the rest of the world — have mostly been claimed or exhausted, and today nearly all of that territory is
controlled by state-owned companies like Saudi Arabia's Aramco or Russia's Gazprom. As big as major
oil players like BP seem to be — the corporation had revenues of $239 billion in 2009 — they're small in
comparison with the state companies, which are now responsible for more than 75% of global crude
production. If international oil companies are going to keep growing — and avoid the fate of historic
firms like Amoco that have been swallowed up by competitors — they need to tap into offshore
resources found in deep or even ultra-deep water. There's no doubting the ability of oil companies to
drill ever deeper — the technology on rigs like the Deepwater Horizon is comparable to that of NASA.
The question the Gulf spill has raised is whether it can be done safely — and what policies need to be
put in place to make that happen. "If dramatic steps aren't taken, at some point in the coming years,
another failure will occur," says Graham. What's more, those in the oil industry, unsurprisingly, are not
convinced. They argue that it is hardly believable that one major spill from a well drilled by one
company means that the entire industry has a problem that demands systematic change. And if any
company was going to have a disaster, it was BP, which has a history of safety problems. In 2005 a
massive explosion rocked BP's Texas City refinery, causing an inferno that killed 15 people and wounded
more than 170, and in 2009 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP a record $87.4
million for more than 700 violations at Texas City. Critics say former CEO John Browne, who resigned in
2007, placed cost-cutting above safety, subcontracting out work that other oil companies like Exxon
keep in house. "Sixty years and 40,000-plus wells drilled in the Gulf suggests the industry knows what it's
doing," says John Hofmeister, a former executive at Shell and the author of the book Why We Hate the
Oil Companies. "This was an incident that took place on one rig that I think was badly managed."
42
NEG
43
Econ Strong Now
Economy is getting stronger now.
Christopher S. Rugaber and Martin Crutsinger, “U.S. economic picture continues to brighten, points
to strong second half”, Mercury News, 06/25/2013, accessed 6/28/13
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-25/politics/40180234_1_u-s-home-prices-consumerconfidence-double-digit-price-gains
The U.S. housing recovery is strengthening. Factories are fielding more orders. And Americans'
confidence in the economy has reached its highest point in 5½ years. That brightening picture, captured in four
reports Tuesday, suggests that the economy could accelerate in the second half of the year. It underscores the
message last week from the Federal Reserve, which plans to slow its bond-buying program this year and end it next year if the economy
continues to strengthen. The Fed's bond purchases have helped keep long-term interest rates low.
The economy is recovering faster than expected in the status quo.
Don Lee 2013 3/14 U.S. economy improving faster than expected, data show
<http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/business/la-fi-improving-economy-20130315>
The report this week from the Commerce Department came just a few days after employment figures
showed faster improvement than most economists had projected, in large part because of the strong
rebound of the market for housing. A measure of first-time unemployment claims fell to a five-year low
last week. The Great Recession of 2007-08, the steepest downturn since the 1930s, has been followed
by a slow and bumpy recovery. Economists have been divided on whether growth eventually would
accelerate. The more optimistic among them have forecast that the economy would begin to accelerate
once consumers and companies worked through the damage left behind by the housing bubble and
debt crisis that triggered the recession. That process of "de-leveraging" has now largely run its course,
and the new evidence may suggest faster growth in the coming months. "What's changed in the
economy is that the key cyclical drivers of economic growth are kicking in," said Wells Fargo Securities
economist Mark Vitner, noting the gains in the automobile and housing markets. "We are further along
the recovery process than many people realize." Other economists remained cautious, fearing that
reductions in spending by the federal government, which began to take effect this month, will slow the
economy and job growth in the spring and summer. The key question, said Kathy Bostjancic, an
economist at the Conference Board, "is whether the momentum from the housing market" can "offset
the negative drag from budget cuts." But so far, consumer spending, which accounts for about 70% of
U.S. economic activity, has proved very resilient. The 1.1% jump in retail sales last month from January
was the most in five months and double analysts' average expectations. Although higher pump prices
for gasoline accounted for a part of that increase, sales also surged at car dealerships, homeimprovement stores and Internet retailers. "The fact that consumer spending hasn't slowed yet is
definitely good news," said Ben Herzon, an economist at the forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers,
one of several forecasting firms that have raised their projections for economic growth this quarter.
Economists pointed to a variety of factors for the robust spending in February, including a possible surge
in income tax refunds and larger-than-known support from the underground cash economy, which
tends to flourish during hard economic times. Moreover, pent-up demand, super-low interest rates and
some easing of credit by lenders have helped drive up sales of housing and autos, which are important
for manufacturing and service businesses.
44
Relations Improving Now
Raul Castro is seeking better relations with the US.
Dmitri Trenin 2013, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, 2013 (July 9 2013, “Aeroflop,”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/09/aeroflop_russia_snowden)
The Latin Americans have been more mercurial. Ecuador, which had been expected to deliver travel
documents to Snowden so that he could pass through Sheremetyevo, has failed to do so. Bolivia was
furious over the treatment of its presidential plane in Europe's skies, especially since it
was notsmuggling Snowden out of Moscow. Cuba has been keeping a very low profile throughout, at a
time when Raúl Castro is seeking improved relations with the United States in order to help revive the
Cuban economy. Of the Latin leftists, that leaves only Venezuela and Nicaragua as potential safe havens.
It is now crucial for Moscow that either Caracas or Managua accept Snowden, and do so soon.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro must have heard that directly from Putin in Moscow 10 days ago.
The Russian leader certainly has no interest in keeping the American at Sheremetyevo, as Obama is
scheduled to visit Russia in early September.
Cuba wants to normalize relations with the US
CBSNEWS 2011 (September 26 2011, “Cuba: We want normalized U.S. relations,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20111955.html
Cuba wants to re-establish relations with the United States with a focus on humanitarian and other
issues, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Monday. Rodriguez also called on President Barack
Obama to release five Cubans serving U.S. espionage sentences, telling the opening of the new U.N.
General Assembly that the continued imprisonment of the five men convicted of espionage in 2001 is
"inhumane." The Cuban government refers to the five men as heroes who were gathering information
about terrorist groups in the United States to protect their homeland. The foreign minister said the two
countries had many points of understanding in common. "The Cuban government reiterates its
willingness and interest to move toward the normalization of relations with the United States,"
Rodriguez said. "Today I reiterate the proposal of beginning a dialogue aimed at solving bilateral
problems, including humanitarian issues, as well as the offer of negotiating several cooperation
agreements to combat drug-trafficking, terrorism, human smuggling, prevent natural disasters and
protect the environment."
45
Relations Advantage Neg
46
Cuba Relations Alt Causes
Political views prevent relations
Hanson and Lee 13 (Stephanie and Brianna – Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”, 1/31,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)
What is the main obstacle in U.S.-Cuban relations? A fundamental incompatibility of political views
stands in the way of improving U.S.-Cuban relations, experts say. While experts say the United States
wants regime change, "the most important objective of the Cuban government is to remain in power
at all costs," says Felix Martin, an assistant professor at Florida International University's Cuban Research Institute. Fidel Castro has
been an inspiration for Latin American leftists such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Bolivian President Evo
Morales, who have challenged U.S. policy in the region.
Human Rights, Guantanamo, and Cuban exiles
Hanson and Lee 13 (Stephanie and Brianna – Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”, 1/31,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)
What are the issues preventing normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations? Experts say these issues include:
Human rights violations. In March 2003, the Cuban government arrested seventy-five dissidents and
journalists, sentencing them to prison terms of up to twenty-eight years on charges of conspiring with the United States to
overthrow the state. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a Havana-based nongovernmental group, reports
that the government has in recent years resorted to other tactics besides prison --such as firings from state jobs and
intimidation on the street-- to silence opposition figures. A 2005 UN Human Rights Commission vote condemned Cuba's human rights record,
but the country was elected to the new UN Human Rights Council in 2006. Guantanamo
Bay. Cuba indicated after 9/11 that it would not
object if the United States brought prisoners to Guantanamo Bay. However, experts such as Sweig say Cuban officials have since
seized on the U.S. prison camp--where hundreds of terror suspects have been detained--as a "symbol of solidarity"
with the rest of the world against the United States. Although Obama ordered Guantanamo to be closed by January 22, 2010,
the facility remains open as of January 2013, and many analysts say it is likely to stay in operation for an extended period. Cuban
exile community. The Cuban-American community in southern Florida traditionally has heavily influenced
U.S. policy with Cuba. Both political parties fear alienating a strong voting bloc in an important swing
state in presidential elections.
47
No Solvency
The plan is nowehere close to sufficient to solve
CCS 9 (Center for Cuban Studies, “The Latest In U.S. and Cuba Relations “, 5/25,
http://www.cubaupdate.org/cuba-update/us-cuba/117-the-latest-in-us-and-cuba-relations)
Shortly before the Organization of American States began its summit on the island of Trinidad this past April, the media reported that the
Obama administration had undertaken a significant policy shift in regards to relations with Cuba. It is
extremely important, however, to recognize that these changes do not mark an end to the nearly fifty
year long trade embargo, nor do they signify and end to the travel restrictions that prevent most U.S.
citizens from traveling to Cuba legally. What this change essentially does is repeal the most extreme measures that tightened the embargo
under the administration of George W. Bush, which limited the amount of remittances that Cubans living in the United States could send to the island, and
restricted family visits to once every three years. While
this change in policy is certainly a welcome step in the right
direction, the truly necessary change would be a move to end the embargo along with travel
restrictions for all U.S. citizens, and a normalization of relations between the two countries. The world community’s desire for
an end to the U.S. imposed trade embargo has been manifested in the form of several successive United Nations resolutions, each of them overwhelmingly in favor
of the U.S. changing its policy toward Cuba. Opinion within the United States has shifted as well. Recently, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll revealed that two
thirds of U.S. citizens favor ending the travel ban, and that three quarters favor normalized relations between Cuba and the United States. Many members of
Congress have also changed their positions. On March 31, 2009, a bi-partisan group of senators introduced a bill, which, if passed, will end the travel ban, allowing
for all U.S. citizens to visit the island. Indiana senator Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a sponsor of the bill, has
stated that “the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people.’” U.S. Representative Barbara Lee
(D-California), who recently met with both Raúl and Fidel Castro while travelling to Cuba with the Congressional Black Caucus, noted that “we have to remember
that every country in Latin America has normal relations with Cuba; we’re the country which is isolated. Despite
these positive recent
developments, however, there is still resistance to changing Cuba policy within the U.S. government. The opposition from right
wing Cuban-American members of congress is predictable, but it is also important to remember that now Vice President Joe Biden voted for the Helms-Burton Act
in 1996, and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that she imposes lifting the embargo. Hopefully recent developments will help these officials to
reverse their previous positions.
The plan only removes a small part of the embargo
Hanson 13 (Daniel – economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, “It's Time For The U.S.
To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba”, 1/16, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/itstime-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/)
While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position
toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official
position is outdated, hypocritical, and counterproductive. The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy
administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime.
The current incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act – aims at producing free
markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and
international legal penalties.
48
Russia Defense
No escalation – disagreements remain limited
Weitz 11 (Richard, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review senior editor
9/27/2011, “Global Insights: Putin not a Game-Changer for U.S.-Russia Ties,”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66579517/Global-Insights-Putin-not-a-Game-Changer-for-U-S-Russia-Ties)
Fifth, there will inevitably be areas of conflict between Russia and the United States regardless of who is in the Kremlin.
Putin and his entourage can never be happy with having NATO be Europe's most powerful security institution, since Moscow is not a member
and cannot become one. Similarly, the Russians will always object to NATO's missile defense efforts since they can
neither match them nor join them in any meaningful way. In the case of Iran, Russian officials genuinely perceive less of a threat from Tehran
than do most Americans, and Russia has more to lose from a cessation of economic ties with Iran -- as well as from an Iranian-Western
reconciliation. On the other hand, these
conflicts can be managed, since they will likely remain limited and
compartmentalized. Russia and the West do not have fundamentally conflicting vital interests of the
kind countries would go to war over. And as the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a great pacifier
under such conditions. Another novel development is that Russia is much more integrated into the international
economy and global society than the Soviet Union was, and Putin's popularity depends heavily on his
economic track record. Beyond that, there are objective criteria, such as the smaller size of the Russian population
and economy as well as the difficulty of controlling modern means of social communication, that will
constrain whoever is in charge of Russia.
No nuclear strike
Graham 7 (Thomas Graham, senior advisor on Russia in the US National Security Council staff 20022007, 2007, "Russia in Global Affairs” The Dialectics of Strength and Weakness
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1129.html)
An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that “Russia has at different times been demonized or divinized by Western
opinion less because of her real role in Europe than because of the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations, generated within European
society by its own domestic problems.” Such is the case today. To be sure, mounting Western
concerns about Russia are a
consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are also a reflection of declining
confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia
come at a time when Russia is arguably less threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has
been at any time since the end of the Second World War. Russia does not champion a totalitarian
ideology intent on our destruction, its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth
depends on constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal – while still capable of
annihilating the United States – is under more reliable control than it has been in the past fifteen years and the threat of
a strategic strike approaches zero probability. Political gridlock in key Western countries, however, precludes the creativity,
risk-taking, and subtlety needed to advance our interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia while laying the basis for more
constructive long-term relations with Russia.
49
Environment Adv Answers
50
No Spills 1NC
Fears of oil spills are overblown. Cuba is following international drilling standards.
Sadowksi 12 (Richard – Managing Editor of Production of the Journal of International Business and
Law Vol. X, J.D Candidate at Hofstra University, “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention
within the Framework of the United States’ Embargo”, 2012,
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp)
Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of the proximity to the
United States and the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are overblown. Cuba has at least as much
incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices as does the United States, and reports indicate that Cuba is
taking safety seriously. 64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, “[t]he
Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely
drill,” and that “they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated
many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning and requirements.” 65 Thus, while the
economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being uti - lized, foreign sources have provided supplemental
alternatives. 66
Cuban drilling operations have met U.S. standards.
WSJ 2012 (Wall Street Journal, “Cuba - Repsol's Cuba drilling rig complies with safety standards”, 1/10,
http://www.bpcplc.com/media-centre/non-company-press-releases/cuba-repsol%27s-cuba-drilling-rigcomplies-with-safety-standards.aspx)
U.S. officials said Monday a rig operated by Spain's Repsol YPF that is expected to drill offshore Cuba in the
coming months complies with international and U.S. safety standards. 'U.S. personnel found the vessel to
generally comply with existing international and U.S. standards by which Repsol has pledged to abide,' the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement said in the press release. The agency, however, noted that the vessel review 'does not confer any form
of certification or endorsement under U.S. or international law' and that the U.S. has no legal or regulatory authority over the rig. The vessel,
named Scarabeo 9, was inspected off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago and it will begin drilling a deep-water oil well later this year about 100
kms off the Florida Keys. Repsol,
which does business in the U.S., had agreed to let U.S. federal regulators
inspect the rig before it enters Cuban waters. The rig's review was aimed at minimizing the possibility of a
major oil spill, which would hurt U.S. economic and environmental interests, the regulatory agency said. While aboard the Scarabeo 9,
U.S. officials reviewed vessel construction, drilling equipment, and safety systems--including lifesaving and
firefighting equipment, emergency generators, dynamic positioning systems, machinery spaces, and the blowout preventer, according to
agency. In anticipation of increased drilling activities in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, the
U.S. is in discussions with the
Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica and Mexico on a broad range of issues, including drilling safety, ocean modeling, and oil spill
preparedness and response, in order to reduce the impact of a major pollution incident, the agency said.
51
Drilling operations are at or above international standards.
Geman 2012 (Ben, “Interior: Cuba-bound drilling rig ‘generally’ meets US standards”, 1/9,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/203161-interior-cuba-bound-drilling-rig-generally-meets-usstandards)
The deepwater drilling rig that Spanish oil giant Repsol will use for planned oil exploration off Cuba’s coast
is getting a clean bill of health from U.S. officials. The United States has no regulatory authority over the drilling, but an
Interior Department and Coast Guard team was invited to inspect the Scarabeo 9 rig by Repsol, a check-up that
comes as planned drilling off Cuba’s coast draws criticism from several U.S. lawmakers. “The review compared the vessel with
applicable international safety and security standards as well as U.S. standards for drilling units
operating in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. personnel found the vessel to generally comply with existing
international and U.S. standards by which Repsol has pledged to abide,” the U.S. agencies said in a joint statement Monday upon
completion of the review. The U.S. team reviewed drilling equipment, safety systems such as firefighting equipment and the unit’s blowout
preventer and other aspects of the rig. A number of U.S. lawmakers critical of the Cuban government have criticized Repsol’s planned project,
noting it will bring revenues to the Cuban regime and that a spill could threaten nearby U.S. shores. More on that here, here and here. “The
review is consistent with U.S. efforts to minimize the possibility of a major oil spill, which would hurt
U.S. economic and environmental interests,” Interior and the Coast Guard said of the inspection, which occurred off the coast of
Trinidad and Tobago.
52
Environment Defense
Environmental collapse won’t cause extinction
Gregg Easterbrook (a senior fellow at The New Republic) July 2003 “We're All Gonna Die!”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure
up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might
converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation.
Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the
biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more
prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a
possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as
miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.
No extinction – reject this environmental alarmism
Amy Kaleita (assistant professor of agricultural and biosystems engineering at Iowa State University) and Gregory Forbes
(research analyst at the Pacific Research Institute) 2007 “Hysteria’s History”
http://www.undergroundnotes.com/graphics2/Hysteria_History.pdf
about the irreparable, catastrophic damage that humans are doing to the natural
environment have been around for a long time. These hysterics often have some basis in reality, but are blown up to illogical
and ridiculous proportions. Part of the reason they’re so appealing is that they have the ring of plausibility along with the intrigue
of a horror flick. In many cases, the alarmists identify a legitimate issue, take the possible consequences to an extreme,
Apocalyptic stories
and advocate action on the basis of these extreme projections. In 1972, the editor of the journal Nature pointed out the problem with the
typical alarmist approach: “[Alarmists’] most common error is to
suppose that the worst will always happen.”82 But
of course, if the worst always happened, the human race would have died out long ago. When alarmism has a
basis in reality, the challenge becomes to take appropriate action based on that reality, not on the hysteria. The aftermath of Silent Spring
offers examples of both sorts of policy reactions: a reasoned response to a legitimate problem and a knee-jerk response to the hysteria. On the
positive side, Silent Spring brought an end to the general belief that all synthetic chemicals in use for purposes ranging from insect control to
household cleaning were uniformly wonderful, and it ushered in an age of increased caution on the appropriate use of chemicals. In the second
chapter of her famous book, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I do contend that… we have
allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself.” In this
passage, Carson seemed to advocate reasoned response to rigorous scientific investigation, and in fact this did become the modern approach
to environmental chemical licensure and monitoring. An hour-long CBS documentary on pesticides was aired during the height of the furor over
Silent Spring. In the documentary, Dr. Page Nicholson, a water-pollution expert with the Public Health Service, wasn’t able to answer how long
pesticides persist in water once they enter it, or the extent to which pesticides contaminate groundwater supplies. Today, this sort of
information is gathered through routine testing of chemicals for use in the environment. 20 V: Lessons from the Apocalypse However, there
was, as we have seen, a more sinister and tragic response to the hysteria generated by Silent Spring. Certain developing countries, under
significant pressure from the United States, abandoned the use of DDT. This decision resulted in millions of deaths from malaria and other
insect-borne diseases. In the absence of pressure to abandon the use of DDT, these lives would have been spared. It would certainly have been
possible to design policies requiring caution and safe practices in the use of supplemental chemicals in the environment, without pronouncing a
death sentence on millions of people. A major challenge in developing appropriate responses to legitimate problems is that alarmism catches
people’s attention and draws them in. Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves, as policy makers attempt to
appease their constituency and the media. It polarizes the debaters into groups of “believers” and “skeptics,” so that reasoned, fact-based
compromise is difficult to achieve. Neither of these aspects of alarmism is healthy for the development of appropriate policy. Further,
alarmist responses to valid problems risk foreclosing potentially useful responses based on ingenuity
and progress. There are many examples from the energy sector where, in the presence of demands for economy, efficiency, or less
pollution, the marketplace has responded by developing better alternatives. That is not to say that we should blissfully squander our energy
resources; on the contrary, we should be careful to utilize them wisely. But energy-resource hysteria should not lead us to circumvent scientific
advancement by cherry-picking and favoring one particular replacement technology at the expense of other promising technologies.
Environmental alarmism should be taken for what it is—a natural tendency of some portion of the public to
latch onto the worst, and most unlikely, potential outcome. Alarmism should not be used as the
basis for policy. Where a real problem exists, solutions should be based on reality, not hysteria.
53
Species extinction is vastly overestimated
Fangliang He (State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol and School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University,
Guangzhou 510275, China) and Stephen P. Hubbell (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of California, Los Angeles and Center for Tropical Forest Science, Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institute) May 2011 “Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from
habitat loss” Nature Volume: 473 Pages: 368–371
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment1 predicts that near-term extinction rates could be as high as 1,000 to 10,000 times background rates
(see also ref. 7).
Most predictions of species extinction rates, including those in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
are inferred from applying the SAR to rates of habitat loss8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The wide
discrepancy between the rates of species extinction predicted by this method and the extinction rates
actually recorded, has fuelled a continuing debate about how to explain the discrepancy2, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. The main issue is
that, almost always, more species are left after a given loss of habitat than the number of species predicted to remain, based on the SAR. The
most frequent interpretation is that the excess species are ‘committed to extinction’. The term ‘extinction debt’ was coined to refer to species’
populations that were no longer viable but were facing certain extinction due to habitat destruction that had already occurred3, 6, 17. The
consensus on the most likely reason for the extinction debt is that there is a time lag for populations to go extinct after severe losses in
extinction rates estimated from the SAR are all overestimates. We define
extinction rate as the fractional loss of species over a defined period accompanied by a given loss of habitat. These overestimates are
due to the false assumption that the sampling problem for extinction is simply the reverse of the
sampling problem for the SAR. The area that must be added to find the first individual of a species is in general much smaller
population size6, 21. Here we show that
than the area that must be removed to eliminate the last individual of a species (Fig. 1). Therefore, on average, it takes a much greater loss of
area to cause the extinction of a species than it takes to add the species on first encounter, except in the degenerate case of a species having a
single individual. We show mathematically that this is a necessary result of fundamental sampling differences between the SAR and the
Only in a very special and biologically unrealistic case, when all species are
randomly and independently distributed in space, is it possible to derive the EAR from the SAR.
endemics–area relationship (EAR).
Although this special case almost never occurs in nature, we examine this simple case first to clarify the nature of the problem. Then we relax
these assumptions and consider the general case of aggregated species distributions.The problem has gone unnoticed for so long because the
traditional method for estimating extinction uses the power-law SAR, S = cAz, which has no sampling theory
relating it to species distributions (Supplementary Information A). To develop a sampling theory, we must consider the spatial distribution of
species explicitly (Supplementary Information B and C). We derive the SAR and EAR from nearest-neighbour distances under two situations,
random dispersion and clumped dispersion. We construct an SAR from the probability of encountering the first nearest neighbour of a species
(a new species is added every time the sampling frame a encounters the first individual of the given species). In contrast, we construct the EAR
from the probability of encountering the last neighbour of a species (a species is added only after all individuals are contained within frame a).
We arrive at the species–area curve for randomly and independently distributed species as (Supplementary Information B): and the endemics–
area curve as: where Ni is the total abundance of species i and S is the total number of species in the region A. Equations (1) and (2), derived
from nearest-neighbour distances, are identical to the classical random placement models22, 23, 24, 25. Let the total area be A and let a subarea a be lost. For randomly and independently distributed species, we can calculate the expected number of species lost with a loss of area a
from the SAR (equation (1)) as Sloss = S − SA − a. This is identical to the EAR calculated directly from equation (2): . This proves that, for the
special case of species distributed randomly in space, extinction rates estimated from the backward random placement SAR and from the
forward random placement EAR are the same, and the SAR and EAR are mirror images (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1). This case is true
because, under random placement, the total area A is equal to the sum of the areas of encountering the first individual and the last individual
of a species. From the probability models of the nearest-neighbour distance, the expected area needed to sample the first individual is a1 =
A/(N + 1), and the expected area for the last individual is aN = NA/(N + 1) (Supplementary Information B). Thus a1 +aN = A. Note that aN > a1 is
always true except when N = 1.his mirror-image relationship only holds for randomly distributed species, however. Almost all species in nature
are clumped, not randomly distributed26. For aggregated species, one can show that a1 +aN < A with aN ≥ a1 remaining true (Supplementary
Information C and Supplementary Fig. 2). This leads to . The more spatially aggregated species distributions are, the stronger the inequality
aN ≥ a1 becomes. These results are completely general and explain the discrepancy between the backward SAR and forward EAR methods as
well as why the backward SAR method systematically overestimates extinction rates. These results apply to sample areas on any spatial scale.
We can assess the magnitude of overestimation by the backward SAR method precisely in cases where we know the species composition and
spatial location of each individual of each species or spatial range of each species. To illustrate this, we use spatially explicit data from eight
large stem-mapped plots from a global forest dynamics network. We also perform the analysis on biogeographical spatial scales for passerine
species in the continental USA (see Methods). The results show that the classic power-law SAR model, S = cAz, and its corresponding EAR model
(Supplementary Information A), are not mirror-image curves. In equation (3), Sloss is the number of species lost (endemic) to destroyed subarea a. Because of the difference in sampling procedure of encountering species and losing species, the slopes z of the power-law model S = cAz
and EAR (3) are not the same. The fit of the power-law SAR and EAR to species–area and endemics–area data respectively lead to two very
different slopes (the SAR zSAR versus the EAR zEAR) (Table 1). In some cases, zSAR can be more than double zEAR. This result is independent of
the spatial scale of the data, as is evident for the passerine case shown in Table 1.
54
No impact to biodiversity.
Donald Dodds (President of North Pacific Research, an environmental think tank) 2007 “THE MYTH OF
BIODIVERSITY” Online
Biodiversity is a corner stone of the environmental movement. But there is no proof that biodiversity is
important to the environment. Something without basis in scientific fact is called a Myth. Lets examine
biodiversity through out the history of the earth. The earth has been a around for about 4 billion years.
Life did not develop until about 500 million years later. Thus for the first 500 million years bio diversity
was zero. The planet somehow survived this lack of biodiversity. For the next 3 billion years, the only
life on the planet was microbial and not diverse. Thus, the first unexplainable fact is that the earth
existed for 3.5 billion years, 87.5% of its existence, without biodiversity. Somewhere around 500
million years ago life began to diversify and multiple celled species appeared. Because these species
were partially composed of sold material they left better geologic records, and the number of species
and genera could be cataloged and counted. The number of genera on the planet is a indication of the
biodiversity of the planet. Figure 1 is a plot of the number of genera on the planet over the last 550
million years. The little black line outside of the left edge of the graph is 10 million years. Notice the left
end of this graph. Biodiversity has never been higher than it is today. Notice next that at least ten
times biodiversity fell rapidly; none of these extreme reductions in biodiversity were caused by
humans. Around 250 million years ago the number of genera was reduce 85 percent from about
1200 to around 200, by any definition a significant reduction in biodiversity. Now notice that after
this extinction a steep and rapid rise of biodiversity. In fact, if you look closely at the curve, you will find
that every mass-extinction was followed by a massive increase in biodiversity. Why was that? Do you
suppose it had anything to do with the number environmental niches available for exploitation? If you
do, you are right. Extinctions are necessary for creation. Each time a mass extinction occurs the world
is filled with new and better-adapted species. That is the way evolution works, its called survival of the
fittest. Those species that could not adapted to the changing world conditions simply disappeared and
better species evolved. How efficient is that? Those that could adapt to change continued to thrive. For
example, the cockroach and the shark have been around well over 300 million years. There is a pair to
draw to, two successful species that any creator would be proud to produce. To date these creatures
have successful survived six extinctions, without the aid of humans or the EPA. Now notice that only
once in the last 500 million years did life ever exceed 1500 genera, and that was in the middle of the
Cretaceous Period around 100 million years ago, when the dinosaurs exploded on the planet.
Obviously, biodiversity has a bad side. The direct result of this explosion in biodiversity was the
extinction of the dinosaurs that followed 45 million years later at the KT boundary. It is interesting to
note, that at the end of the extinction the number of genera had returned to the 1500 level almost
exactly. Presently biodiversity is at an all time high and has again far exceeded the 1500 genera level.
Are we over due for another extinction? A closer look at the KT extinction 65 million years ago reveals at
least three things. First the 1500 genera that remained had passed the test of environmental
compatibility and remained on the planet. This was not an accident. Second, these extinctions freed
niches for occupation by better-adapted species. The remaining genera now faced an environment
with hundreds of thousands of vacant niches. Third, it only took about 15 million years to refill all of
those niches and completely replaced the dinosaurs, with new and better species. In this context, a
better species is by definition one that is more successful in dealing with a changing environment. Many
of those genera that survived the KT extinction were early mammals, a more sophisticated class of life
that had developed new and better ways of facing the environment. These genera were now free to
expand and diversify without the presences of the life dominating dinosaurs. Thus, as a direct result of
this mass extinction humans are around to discuss the consequences of change. If the EPA had
prevented the dinosaur extinction, neither the human race, nor the EPA would have existed. The
55
unfortunate truth is that the all-powerful human species does not yet have the intelligence or the
knowledge to regulate evolution. It is even questionable that they have the skills to prevent their own
extinction. Change is a vital part of the environment. A successful species is one that can adapt to the
changing environment, and the most successful species is one that can do that for the longest
duration. This brings us back to the cockroach and the shark. This of course dethrones egotistical
homosapien-sapiens as god’s finest creation, and raises the cockroach to that exalted position. A fact
that is difficult for the vain to accept. If humans are to replace the cockroach, we need to use our most
important adaptation (our brain) to prevent our own extinction. Humans like the Kola bear have become
over specialized, we require a complex energy consuming social system to exist. If one thing is constant
in the universe, it is change. The planet has change significantly over the last 4 billion years and it will
continue to change over the next 4 billion years. The current human scheme for survival, stopping
change, is a not only wrong, but futile because stopping change is impossible. Geologic history has
repeatedly shown that species that become overspecialized are ripe for extinction. A classic example of
overspecialization is the Kola bears, which can only eat the leaves from a single eucalyptus tree. But
because they are soft and furry, look like a teddy bear and have big brown eyes, humans are artificially
keeping them alive. Humans do not have the stomach or the brain for controlling evolution. Evolution is
a simple process or it wouldn’t function. Evolution works because it follows the simple law: what
works—works, what doesn’t work—goes away. There is no legislation, no regulations, no arbitration, no
lawyers, scientists or politicians. Mother Nature has no preference, no prejudices, no emotions and no
ulterior motives. Humans have all of those traits. Humans are working against nature when they try
to prevent extinctions and freeze biodiversity. Examine the curve in figure one, at no time since the
origin of life has biodiversity been constant. If this principal has worked for 550 million years on this
planet, and science is supposed to find truth in nature, by what twisted reasoning can fixing biodiversity
be considered science? Let alone good for the environment. Environmentalists are now killing species
that they arbitrarily term invasive, which are in reality simply better adapted to the current
environment. Consider the Barred Owl, a superior species is being killed in the name of biodiversity
because the Barred Owl is trying to replace a less environmentally adapted species the Spotted Owl. This
is more harmful to the ecosystem because it impedes the normal flow of evolution based on the idea
that biodiversity must remain constant. Human scientists have decided to take evolution out of the
hands of Mother Nature and give it to the EPA. Now there is a good example of brilliance. We all know
what is wrong with lawyers and politicians, but scientists are supposed to be trustworthy.
Unfortunately, they are all to often, only people who think they know more than anybody else. Abraham
Lincoln said, “Those who know not, and know not that the know not, are fools shun them.” Civilization
has fallen into the hands of fools. What is suggested by geologic history is that the world has more
biodiversity than it ever had and that it maybe overdue for another major extinction. Unfortunately,
today many scientists have too narrow a view. They are highly specialized. They have no time for
geologic history. This appears to be a problem of inadequate education not ignorance. What is
abundantly clear is that artificially enforcing rigid biodiversity works against the laws of nature, and
will cause irreparable damage to the evolution of life on this planet and maybe beyond. The world and
the human species may be better served if we stop trying to prevent change, and begin trying to
understand change and positioning the human species to that it survives the inevitable change of
evolution. If history is to be believed, the planet has 3 times more biodiversity than it had 65 million
years ago. Trying to sustain that level is futile and may be dangerous. The next major extinction,
change in biodiversity, is as inevitable as climate change. We cannot stop either from occurring, but we
can position the human species to survive those changes.
56
Biodiversity loss doesn’t collapse ecosystems- your studies are based on bad models.
Leslie Mertz et al (Biologist and veteran science writer) 2003 “Does greater species diversity lead to
greater stability in ecosystems”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124307/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1
As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity
controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a
connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, &#x0022;We conclude that there is no
simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems.&#x0022; Those words still
hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the
literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper
&#x0022;Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity,&#x0022; which appeared in the journal
BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and
stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems
common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a relationship between diversity and
ecosystem stability, they added, &#x0022;At present, too few experiments have been conducted to
draw convincing generalizations.&#x0022;
Random losses in diversity won’t cause collapse
Angela Caines. (Plant Biologist at the University of Maryland.) "Biodiversity and Species exteinction."
2002. http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci124/lec37.html
Redundancy": Most species are superfluous as only a few are critical to the survival of the ecosystem.
Species are like passengers on the plane, even with only a few, the plane can still fly Evidence Crop
production increases with diversity, e.g., greater production of corn if other plants are intercropped
than increasing the number of corn plants per acre Increased ecosystem resilience to stress with
increase species diversity Full productivity can be reached by a few select species in terms of
biomass but most ecosystems have far more species than necessary, thus random loss will not cause
system collapse Levels of diversity Rates of speciation [See also examples of recent speciation] Rapid
speciation occurs in tropical and arid (especially desert) regions; less so in temperate regions Rate of
speciation low in aquatic habitat yet individual species tend to survive for much longer periods of
time; rates much higher in areas of environmental stress (desert) Individual species survive for long
periods of geological time in tropical regions where more species per unit area can exist and where even
marginally successful species can survive a library filled with numerous books, even those with
numerous error
57
Biodiversity loss doesn’t cause extinction.
Sagoff 1997 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar @ Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs @ U. Maryland,
William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF
GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and
Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N)
Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human
skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why
we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that
"cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of
beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary,
other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being
of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345
The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct , provided only
"
that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of
species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or
ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over
time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap
in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other
biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they
perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general
will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened
organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as
people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to
thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose
interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered
species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem
processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any
ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every
In view of the constant
reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of
ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow,
it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer number
and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be
part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353
concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to
In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has
been increasing dramatically , not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the
hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of
species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time
that "library.")
largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 nonnative insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard,
and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic
species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic
species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human
migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over"
at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish
immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as
ecosystems together, extinction seems not
to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in
water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity
as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species
composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is
likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to
make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity
so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding
foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document
says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants.
n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though
they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for
rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually
all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to
the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that
farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How
many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they
might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural
world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all
that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume,
however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting
the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare,
protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures.
They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most
valuable things are quite useless.
58
Economy Defense
Econ resilient
Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International) December 2009 “The Secrets of Stability,”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425/page/2]
One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial
system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age
of globalization—about the virtues of free markets, trade, and technology—were being called into question. Faith in the American model had
collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was
predicted we were doomed to
a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely
shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated
cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic n this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The
conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we
face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression."
Others predicted that these economic shocks would
lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S.
director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a
wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone.
Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be
One year later, how much has the world
really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks
the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization.
have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high
overall,
things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political
collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow
unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But
money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this
doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the
shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg
Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?"This revival did not happen because markets
managed to
stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined
not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the economy—through
central banks and national treasuries—they buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the
process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain
felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny role in national
economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government
guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies
also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own
prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy
started cranking again—the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe
there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the
same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian
crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current global
economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by
three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.
59
Economic institutions ensure bounceback even if there is a total meltdown
Glenn Somerville. "Paulson: Economy resilient but Fed move helpful." Reuters. 22 Jan. 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080122/bs_nm/usa_economy_paulson_dc
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Tuesday he was confident the U.S. and global economies
were resilient but welcomed an emergency rate cut by the Federal Reserve as a helpful move.
ADVERTISEMENT The U.S. central bank cut benchmark U.S. interest rates by a steep three-quarters of a
percentage point while Paulson while still answering questions after addressing a Chamber of
Commerce breakfast meeting. Paulson had earlier acknowledged the U.S. economy has slowed
"materially" in recent weeks but, despite a meltdown in global stock prices, insisted that the global
economy had "underlying resiliency" that would let it weather the storm. The U.S. Treasury chief
initially looked surprised when a Chamber of Commerce official said the Fed had just cut rates in a
relatively rare move between meetings of its policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee, but
praised the action. "This is very constructive and I think it shows this country and the rest of the world
that our central bank is nimble and can move quickly in response to market conditions," Paulson
said. The U.S. Treasury chief, who headed Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs before taking over Treasury
in 2006, said the $145-billion short-term stimulus package that President George W. Bush was asking
Congress to work on was needed to minimize the impact of a U.S. economic slowdown. "We need to do
something now, because short-term risks are clearly to the downside, and the potential benefits of quick
action to support our economy have become clear," Paulson said. But early signs were that Bush's call
for bipartisan action -- and a relatively positive Congressional response to it -- were not calming financial
markets but might actually be fanning fears that the economy was at greater risk of toppling into
recession than officially acknowledged. Stock markets around the world sank sharply on Monday, when
U.S. markets were closed for the holiday in observance of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King's
birthday. Paulson tried to reassure that there was reason to feel confident in the U.S. economy's longterm prospects, notwithstanding severe problems in the housing sector and other credit-market strains.
"The U.S. economy is resilient and diverse," he said. "It's been remarkably robust and it will be
again." He added: "The unemployment rate remains low and job creation continues, albeit at a modest
pace. The structure of our economy is sound and our long term economic fundamentals are
healthy."
60
Technology ensures adaptation that prevents total collapse
The Economist, “The turning point - The global economy” September 22, 2007 p. ln
Yet the global economy has taken some big blows during the golden age. In the last decade the rich
world has weathered the Asian financial crisis, Russia's debt default, the dotcom boom
and bust, terrorist attacks on America, sharp increases in oil prices and the uncertainty
that came with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Still, economic volatility has not picked up. It is true
that the abrupt curtailment of energy supplies to a world that was highly dependent on oil was a unique
and traumatic event. But economies were more hidebound then: job markets were less flexible and
producers more stymied by regulation. The painful results cannot wholly be put down to energy
dependency. The more likely explanation is that economies have become far better at absorbing
shocks, because they are more flexible. There are many structural shifts that might have contributed to
this, from globalisation to the decline of manufacturing in the rich world. The academic literature keeps
returning to three: improvements in managing stocks of goods, the financial innovation that expanded
credit markets, and wiser monetary policy. For such a tiny part of GDP, the content of warehouses has
had a surprisingly big effect on its volatility. When industries cut or add stocks according to demand,
that adjustment magnifies the effect of the initial change in sales. Stock levels were once much larger
relative to the size of the economy, so a small slip in demand could easily blow up into a recession. But
thanks to improvements in technology, firms now have timelier and better information about
buyers. Speedier market intelligence and production in smaller batches allows firms to match
supply to changing conditions. This makes huge stocks unnecessary and minimises the
lurches in inventories that were once so destabilising. The entire inventory of some lean-running
companies now consists of whatever FedEx or UPS is shipping on their account. Mr Cecchetti and his
colleagues calculate that, on average, more than half the improvement in the stability of economic
growth in the countries they studied is accounted for by diminished inventory cycles. That
something so workaday as supply-chain management could have so marked an effect might seem a dull
conclusion. But dullness is a virtue, because technological improvement is irreversible. This means the
greater stability it provides is likely to be permanent.
Too diverse to collapse
Christian Science Monitor 2007, “US economy chugs ahead despite auto and housing slumps”,
December 11, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p01s01-usec.html
"The employment numbers show the economy is sturdy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Moody's Economy.com. "The problems in housing and autos have not infected the economy." The
economy's resilience has been a theme of several years' standing - one that predates the 9/11
attacks. The US output of goods and services has survived the damage of hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, a run-up in oil prices, and the bursting of the high-tech balloon in early 2001.One
reason for its capacity to take hits is its growing diversity. Indeed, last month's new jobs came
in health and financial services, travel, government hiring, and professional services - all helping to offset
a struggling manufacturing sector. Even in manufacturing, the picture is not as bleak as it could be, in
part because vigorous economies abroad are buying American-made goods. "It takes a lot to get the
economy down," says Ethan Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers in New York. "It does have
some natural resilience in the face of shocks."
61
Econ collapse doesn’t cause war – prefer our studies
Samuel Bazzi (Department of Economics at University of California San Diego) and Christopher Blattman (assistant
professor of political science and economics at Yale University) November 2011 “Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence of?) Evidence
from Commodity Prices” http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConflict.pdf?9d7bd4
VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability and conflict The state is not a prize?—Warlord politics and
the state prize logic lie at the center of the most influential models of conflict, state development, and political transitions in economics and
we see no evidence for this idea in economic shocks, even when looking at
the friendliest cases: fragile and unconstrained states dominated by extractive commodity
revenues. Indeed, we see the opposite correlation: if anything, higher rents from
commodity prices weakly 22 lower the risk and length of conflict. Perhaps shocks are the wrong test.
political science. Yet
Stocks of resources could matter more than price shocks (especially if shocks are transitory). But combined with emerging evidence that war
onset is no more likely even with rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we regard the state prize logic of
war with skepticism.17 Our main political economy models may need a new engine. Naturally, an absence
of evidence cannot be taken for evidence of absence. Many of our conflict onset and ending results include sizeable positive and negative
effects.18 Even so, commodity price shocks are highly influential in income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation in
instability. It is difficult to find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly exogenous independent variable than price volatility.
Moreover, other time-varying variables, like rainfall and foreign aid, exhibit robust correlations with conflict in spite of suffering similar
empirical drawbacks and generally smaller sample sizes (Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we take the absence of evidence
seriously. Do resource revenues drive state capacity?—State prize models assume that rising revenues raise the value of the capturing the
state, but have ignored or downplayed the effect of revenues on self-defense. We saw that a growing empirical political science literature takes
just such a revenue-centered approach, illustrating that resource boom times permit both payoffs and repression, and that stocks of lootable or
extractive resources can bring political order and stability. This countervailing effect is most likely with transitory shocks, as current revenues
are affected while long term value is not. Our findings are partly consistent with this state capacity effect. For example, conflict intensity is most
sensitive to changes in the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural crops that affect household incomes more directly. The
relationship only holds for conflict intensity, however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large, consistent or robust decline in conflict or
coup risk when prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that the state prize and state capacity effects are either small or tend to cancel one
another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?—Finally, the inverse relationship between prices and war intensity is consistent with
opportunity cost accounts, but not exclusively so. As we noted above, the relationship between intensity and extractive commodity prices is
more consistent with the state capacity view. Moreover, we shouldn’t mistake an inverse relation between individual aggression and incomes
as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism. The same correlation is consistent with psychological theories of stress and aggression
(Berkowitz 1993) and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and anomie (Merton 1938; Gurr 1971). Microempirical work will
be needed to distinguish between these mechanisms. Other reasons for a null result.—Ultimately, however, the fact that commodity
price
shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict onsets, but some effect on ongoing conflict,
suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to income or temporary shocks than
generally believed. One possibility is that successfully mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs,
and coordination challenges. Another possibility is that the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of
If a nation is so fragile that a change in prices could lead to war,
then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The same argument has been
one type or another are ubiquitous.
made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B. A general problem
these findings should heighten our concern with publication bias in
the conflict literature. Our results run against a number of published results on commodity
shocks and conflict, mainly because of select samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to
model assumptions, and, most importantly, alternative measures of instability. Across the social
of publication bias? More generally,
and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005)
demonstrates that a published finding is less likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships;
there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more teams are involved in the chase of statistical
significance. The cross-national study of conflict is an extreme case of all these. Most worryingly, almost
no paper looks at
alternative dependent variables or publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre and Sambanis
(2006) have shown that the majority of published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on timeinvariant regressors and not the timevarying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned there is a “file drawer problem” (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision
rule: scholars that discover robust results that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees)
worry about problems with the data or empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces a robust result,
the consequences are dire: a lower threshold of
evidence for initially significant results than ambiguous ones.20
it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the aggregate,
62
Off Case Links
63
China DA Links
Cooperative oil drilling crowds out China influence
Benjamin-Alvadaro 6 (Jonathan, Report for the Cuban Research Institute, Florida International University, PhD, Professor of Political
Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer
of the American Political Science Association, “The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special,”
http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf)
Given that there are no formal diplomatic of economic relations between the governments of the United
States and Cuba, the level of interest has grown significantly in the 3 years due primarily to three reasons in the following
interest areas: energy security interests; broader regional strategic; and purely economic interests. First, the energy security interests in the
potential of Cuban oil – although it really would not minimize the immediacy of an American energy crisis – is seen as possible if only partial
remedy to energy supply concerns. Second, as
Cuba, in part because of the increasing number of oil partnerships
furthers its diplomatic and economic ties to with countries like Venezuela, China, Brazil and members of the
European Union it may prove to provide Cuba for a sufficient buffer against U.S. opposition as it solidifies it
economic and diplomatic role in the region. This is important inasmuch as there is a de facto trend in the Americas that
clearly disavows and attempts to minimize the influence of the United States in the region, and with the growing
demands on the world economy by China, it stands to reason that Cuba may assume an increasing stature that
almost potentially lessens the presence of American influence in Cuban and hence regional affairs. Finally,
and as demonstrated by the presence of American oil interests in the February 2006 U.S.- Cuban Energy Summit in Mexico City, there may
be interest in cooperating in joint venture projects, and by extension assisting in the long-term
development in Cuba’s oil industry. ¶ To accomplish this task the report seeks to lay out some national security policy
considerations applying strategic thought to what I will term “Post-Oil” Cuba – a Cuba that has a small but vibrant and growing oil and gas
production capacity with extensive relations with a number of partners, and an increasingly positive outlook toward addressing energy and
economic development questions that have plagued the Castro regime since the Cuban Revolution.3¶ The primary consideration is to
determine the present state of Cuban energy and what possibilities exist that would be available to American foreign policy decision makers
and business interests as the relations with Cuba evolve over the coming years.4 This
is important because any realistic
appraisal of how Cuba is to take advantage of its oil bonanza involves the United States. Previous research
in this area has clearly laid out the scope and objectives of Cuban energy development schemes in the period since the demise of Cuba’s
favorable trade arrangements with the former Soviet Union. Recently, and as
a result of the oil discovery and Cuba’s energy
arrangement with the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela there is renewed interest in Havana’s energy
policies. Most of that analysis has been focused on concrete possibilities where there can be cooperation in the energy field between these
two neighbors. Specifically, the work has looked at areas for the convergence of energy interests as they apply to
the near- and long-term energy development scenarios facing both countries. Myers Jaffe and Soligo have addressed this
possibility by looking at the potential to increase diversification and dispersion of energy resources. This is
an important consideration when one takes into consideration that well over one-third of all oil refining capacity resides on or near the Houston
shipping channel. The potential negative impact on America’s refining capacity following Hurricane Rita5 made a significant impression on oil
industry analysts for the necessity of diversifying the location of these vital national resources. The potential of viewing Cuba as a “staging area”
for American oil storage and refining is plausible because of the proximity of the island. The also becomes more attractive because of the
growing climatic concerns over the uncertain security of oil resources in the Gulf region as clearly demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
in 2005. While it is true that Venezuela has initiated an investment of $1 billion dollars to bring the Cienfuegos refinery online, there
are
still many other possibilities open and available to American companies, as well as a growing number
of foreign firms.6 Additionally, Venezuela remains the fourth largest importer of oil to the United States and one can surmise that the
existing trade arrangements between the U.S. and Venezuela will remain intact, the evolution of the Bolivarian revolution under Chavez and a
growing Chinese presence in the region notwithstanding. Additionally, pursuing
such a path would allow United States
policymakers to take advantage of what Cuba has to offer in the following areas: domestic technical
capabilities; continuing human capital development; strategic positioning in the Caribbean, and an improved
diplomatic stature. Cuba, by any measure, possesses a largely untapped technical capacity owing to
advanced training and education in the core mathematic and scientific areas. This was clearly
demonstrated by its attempt to develop a nuclear energy capability in the 1980s and 1990s whereby
thousands of Cubans pursued highly technical career paths leaving Cuba with among the highest
ratios of scientists and engineers to the general population in all of the Americas. Moreover, the foundation of
64
Cuba’s vaunted public education system remains intact and increased investment under various scenarios suggests that Cuba
will
continue to produce a welleducated workforce that will be critical to its future economic vitality. This
raises an important consideration that being the role that Cuba will play in the region in the 21st century. It suffices to say that Cuba
remains the strategically important state by virtue of its geographical location alone, in efforts against
drug and human trafficking and related national and regional security matters. The extent to which a stable
Cuban government has cooperated with the U.S. in drug interdiction efforts in the past suggests that the
results from improved diplomatic relations between neighbors would have the effect of improving national
security concerns related to terrorist activity, illicit weapons transfers and the like. Ultimately, a
successful normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba in these areas may well enhance and stabilize
regional relations that could possibly lessen (or at a minimum, balancing) fears of a Chinese incursion in
hemispheric affairs. To lessen those fears it may be useful to review the present structure of joint-venture projects in the energy sector
in Cuba to ascertain the feasibility and possible success of such an undertaking become available to American firms. Moreover, it is interesting
to note that U.S. firms in the agriculture sector have successfully negotiated and consummated sales to Cuba totaling more than $1 billion
dollars over the past four years under conditions that are less than optimal circumstances but have well-served the commercial interests of all
parties involved.
Caribbean nations are key – China is shifting its focus there
Sanchez and Tu 12 (Alex – Research Fellow at Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and Lynn – Research
Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “China vs. Taiwan: Battle for Influence in the Caribbean”,
3/13, http://www.coha.org/china-vs-taiwan-battle-for-influence-in-the-caribbean/
Beijing vs. Taipei Certainly a critical aspect regarding the extent of Chinese interests in the Caribbean , as
previously has been reflected upon, is Beijing’s interest for Caribbean islands to adopt mainland China’s negative
stance on Taiwan. In the past few years, China has taken an aggressive approach in attempting to dissuade
Taipei’s ability to invest in this region. Since eleven out of twenty-three of Taiwan’s surviving diplomatic
relationships can be found within the Greater Caribbean,[20] it is of distinct importance for China to
ensure that it maintains robust ties with Latin American and Caribbean countries for political reasons, while
also managing to limit Taipei’s involvement in the region. Without including the Central American states, the Caribbean nations
that currently recognize Taiwan are the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, as well as Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines. Currently, the longstanding diplomatic competition between the two Chinas seems to be cooling down, due to incumbent
Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou being re-elected.[21] It seems clear that President Ma wants to promote a peaceful path towards cross-strait
relations development, and hence the subtle tug-of-war over diplomatic recognition seems, at least for the time being, to be coming to an end.
65
Venezuela Relations DA Links
Drilling eliminates the need for Venezuela
Reuters 12 (“Cuba Offshore Drilling: Another Well Declared A Failure”, 8/6,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/cuba-offshore-drilling-failure_n_1746576.html)
Cuba's hopes for energy independence suffered another blow on Monday when its state oil company said
the island's latest offshore oil well was not successful. Cubapetroleo said the well drilled by Malaysia's state-owned
Petronas in partnership with Russia's Gazprom Neft found oil but in a geological formation so tightly compacted that oil and gas could not flow
through it in "significant quantities." "It cannot be qualified as a commercial discovery," the company said in an announcement in the
Communist Party newspaper Granma. It was the third failed well in three attempts in Cuba's part of the Gulf of Mexico, where the communist
country has said it may have 20 billion barrels of oil. The
government led by President Raul Castro needs the oil to free it
from dependence on socialist ally Venezuela, which under an oil-for-services deal sends Cuba about 115,000 barrels of oil
daily. With Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez battling cancer and facing re-election in October, the future of his oil
largess for Cuba is uncertain.
Plan causes total independence from Venezuela
CDA 11 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. policy
poses needless risks to our national interest”, 2011,
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf)
Oil in commercially viable amounts would change Cuba’s geo- political equation. As Jorge Piñon testified
before Congress, “If Cuba’s undiscovered reserves are proven, it would take between three and five years
for their development, and production volumes would have to reach a level of over 200,000 barrels
per day to have the same economic benefit as that derived today from Venezuela’s oil subsidies.” 33 Were this
threshold met, Cuba would no longer be dependent on Venezuela to provide it with subsidized
shipments of oil. It would be energy independent. Lisa Margonelli takes note of the fears about Venezuela and China
operating in the region and establishing spheres of influence near the U.S. In light of these fears, she says “We won’t be acting on
our own interests if we tighten the screws and pursue a policy that drives out everyone except
Venezuela and China.” 34
66
Politics Links
The plan results in intense fights in congress.
Jennifer A. Dlouhy 2011 “Congress mixed on Cuba's oil drilling in gulf”
<http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Congress-mixed-on-Cuba-s-oil-drilling-in-gulf-2368526.php>
The U.S. relationship with Cuba has long been a touchy subject in Congress and now more than ever
because of concerns about deep-water drilling set to begin just north of the island nation this fall.
Some lawmakers are staunch supporters of the trade embargo against Cuba and want to penalize any
international oil companies that do business with the country. Other lawmakers see commercial
opportunities in Cuba's zeal to produce oil and gas along its gulf coast. They want to relax the embargo
and give U.S. oil companies access to Cuba's potentially lucrative offshore resources and its emerging
petroleum industry.
Links to politics.
Bert and Clayton 2012 (Captain Melissa –2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S. Coast Guard, and Blake –
Fellow for Energy and National Security, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill”, March,
<http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515>
Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S.
response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far
more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore
gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated
submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to
work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow
response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental
damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and
encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved
relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to
assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to
prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially
alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of
mutual concern. The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in
the Straits of Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the
hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with
information on Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the
specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban
economy or military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger
emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the
United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and
preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without
taking these precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
67
XOs Link to Politics
Even if the plan is executive action Obama still loses capital.
Nicholas and Hook 2010 (Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, Staff Writers, June 30, 2010, “Obama the
Velcro president”, LA Times,
http://goo.gl/BnEJC)
Reporting from Washington — If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack
Obama is made of Velcro. Through two
Obama has become
terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years,
ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile
and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama
remains the colossus of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his
to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and
do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's not sticking to
Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a
financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough
jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared
with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people
would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very
important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity
largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration.
Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members
of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants.
Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro
veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He
told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and
plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about
what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the
moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans
began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see
Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated
unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of
the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he
took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two
economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be
about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7%
when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7
million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul
Begala, a Democratic pundit. Insulating the president from bad news has proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with
the Obama administration is about one
man. Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No
more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss. But
Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy
Secretary Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to
end. So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually everything in
the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
68
Appeasement Links
The plan is appeasement. It will send a global signal and reinforce a dying regime.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 2011 (Office of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
chairman and U.S. Representative) “Ros-Lehtinen Opposes U.S. Meetings with Cuban Regime Officials on
Oil Plans” <http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/story/?1960 >
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, commented on
news that a U.S. delegation is traveling to Cuba to discuss Cuban regime plans to explore and drill for oil.
Statement by Ros-Lehtinen: “By meeting with Cuban regime officials about their plans to drill for oil,
U.S. officials are giving credibility to the regime’s dangerous oil drilling scheme. The U.S. name will
lead other governments to conclude that if the U.S. is in cahoots with the Castro’s on get-rich-quick oil
schemes, then there is no problem if they join in as well, further enriching the communist regime.
“The Cuban tyranny’s scheme to expand its oil sector with the help of international energy giants is
yet another act of desperation by a dying regime, and it directly threatens our national security and
environmental interests. Unfortunately, plenty of companies seem perfectly willing to play along in
order to make an immoral profit. “The U.S. should make it clear that we oppose any and all dealings
which would help Cuba become the oil tycoons of the Caribbean. I urge the Administration to cancel
this delegation and instead strictly enforce current U.S. law discouraging investment in Cuba’s oil sector
by foreign companies.”
69