MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
Mexican Renewable Energy
Negative – CFJPV
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Case Mechanics
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Climate Change 1NC
Mexican Renewables High Now—Largest Solar Park in Latin America
Castellanos 5/3—Edwin Castellanos is an Analyst at the Renewable Energy Mexico Review. [“Mexico will host largest
solar park in Latin America”, 10 May 2013. http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=798]//MM
Baja California will host the largest solar park in Latin America. The 30 megawatt
project construction is expected to finish by the end of this year.¶ The Mexican company Gauss
Energía, will provide 25 million dollars, while Nacional Financiera and the World Bank will provide 75 million dollars in order to
develop the project. Unlike other similar projects this one will not be sustained through subsidies or controlled by the state or
This hundred hectares with 135 thousand panel project will have the
capacity to sustain the consumption of one hundred sixty four thousand people. The
expectations for growth in the solar market may be influenced by the fact that Gauss Energía has ventured into
municipal governments.¶
a large scale project in Baja California.¶ This is the first time a contract has been granted under the small producer scheme for a large
scale project. Gauss will sell energy exclusively to the CFE for the next twenty years at a cost based at 95%-98% of the generation
cost estimated by the state-owned company. The performance that this company can achieve and its success will be a reference point
for other investors who are keen to see a solar industry developing in Mexico.¶ With this in mind, Aura Solar I presents an important
cornerstone for the future erection of the solar industry in Mexico and for the reduction of CO2 emissions. However, it is important
to remember that the tendency in the Mexican energy sector is to increase the dependence on natural gas fueled power plants. Power
generation by natural gas will increase up to over 70%.¶ By
satisfying the energy demand of 64% of La Paz
population, this project will prevent the emission of sixty thousand tons of greenhouse
gases. Presenting a step towards the emission reduction goal set by the Kyoto Protocol (20% by 2030 and 50% by 2050). It will
also aid to achieve the goal set by the Energy Ministry where by 2014, 35% of the country´s energy has to come from clean sources.¶
This project will provide future basis for the Mexican company to develop similar
projects in the region, as it is part of the Aura Solar initiative which aims to develop large scale photovoltaic projects in
order to utilize the widely available solar resource in the country. Though the Mexican market has not yet developed as the US and
the high availability of resources in the northern states of the country will
become a key element to attract investment to the industry.
EU markets,
Climate Change is Alarmism with no scientific basis
Allegre et al. 2012—Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J.
Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the
Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics,
Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate
research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath,
professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of
Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and
former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal
Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. [“No Need to Panic About
Global Warming; There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.” January 27,
2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html]//MM
In September, Nobel
Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election,
from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did
not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The
evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant
publicly resigned
disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over
time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" ¶ In spite of a multidecade
international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization,
large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever.
And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is
a collection of stubborn scientific facts.¶ Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global
warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one
can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The
fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water
vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.¶ The lack of warming for more than a decade—
indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests
that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can
cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their
drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens
in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.¶ The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and
odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so
much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2
concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since
plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than
they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management
contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the
increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. ¶ Although the
number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say
that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are
afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to
worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the
politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over
the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas
removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
No anthropogenic warming—New data, alt causes to warming
Rose 2012—David Rose is a writer for the Daily Mail. The Met Office is the UK’s national weather services. [“Forget global
warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again); Met Office
releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years”, 29 January 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html]//MM
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient
challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed
for the past 15 years.¶ The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice
age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the
17th Century.¶ Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare
by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures
leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that,
after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is
now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter
winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.¶ Solar output goes
through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.¶ We are now at
what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar
storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot
numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th
Century.¶ Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000
ended in 1997.¶ Meanwhile,
miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. ¶ According to a
paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following
decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist
John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.¶ However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could
be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little
Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. ¶ Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the
consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.
Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter
Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’¶ These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.¶
‘World
temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s
National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists
that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their
help.’¶ He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on
the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in globalwarming.¶ CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met
Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004
and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break
the previous temperature record set in 1998.¶ So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a
Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.¶ ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for
the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.¶ Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several
papers that argue the
Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming
from 2000 until now’.¶ ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the
divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that
the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said. ¶ He believes that as
the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be
cooling. ‘The
real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile,
one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia
Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a
‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.¶ ‘The responsible thing to do would be to
accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the
influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many
scientists ‘are not surprised’.¶ She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than
CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water
temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.¶ ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms
of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The
Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .¶ Pal
Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept,
because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.¶ The
same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th
Century.¶ ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to
determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural
variability.’¶ Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’
effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.¶ ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the
Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear
whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
Data concludes no warming—former NASA scientists
Watts 1/29—Anthony Watts is a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air. [“Team of Ex-NASA
Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2”, 29 January 2013. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/teamof-ex-nasa-scientists-concludes-no-imminent-threat-from-man-made-co2/]//MM
A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the
man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence
exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.¶ Beginning in February 2012, the group of
scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists
representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review
of a number of climate studies.¶ Employing a disciplined approach of problem
identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life
threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth’s
atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.¶ TRCS team is comprised of renowned
space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry,
astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members
are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA’s
increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.¶ H. Leighton Steward,
chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding
science of what is causing global
climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.¶ There is no
convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The
the TRCS posting, which can be found at www.therightclimatestuff.com:¶ The
standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.¶
Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by nonvalidated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS
team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.¶ There is no immediate
threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to
suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what
climate change alarmists claim.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Renewable Growth Now
Mexico’s wind market is specifically booming
Aparicio 1/30—Selene Aparicio was editor of the Mexico Renewable Energy Review. [“Mexico Wind Power starts off on the
right foot”, 30 January 2013. http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=706]//MM
Over 300 people gathered today at the Centro Banamex in Mexico City to witness the
inauguration of Mexico WindPower 2013, the prime wind energy conference and
exhibition in the country.¶ The inauguration ceremony was hosted by Leopoldo Rodríguez Olivé the President of the
Mexican Wind Power Association (AMDEE), Steve Sawyer the Secretary General of the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), Dr.
Edmund Duckwitz the German Ambassador to Mexico, Eduardo Zenteno the Director General of Corporación Renovable, Carlos
Gottfried the Founder and former President of AMDEE and in representation of President Enrique Peña Nieto, Leonardo Beltrán
the Under Secretary of Planning and Energy Transition.¶ Rodríguez
was the first to take the microphone
with an upbeat speech about the reality that is wind power in Mexico. In 2012, wind
power installed capacity in Mexico grew to nearly 1.5 GW and according to Rodríguez,
this sector is expecting an additional 700 MW in 2013, approximately seven new
projects.¶ According to Leopoldo, the growth of wind power in Mexico is not only positive in
terms of Mexico’s climate and sustainability initiatives, but also as a first step to
consolidating a manufacturing industry for the national electric sector. ¶ From a global
perspective, Sawyer announced that since 2004, investment in the renewable energy sector has grown
fourth-fold and in 2011, of the 208 GW of new electric capacity installed, about half consisted of renewable energy
installations.¶ In addition, there has been a shift regarding the geography of the investment and Asia now dominates with regard to
new wind power installations while the key emerging markets are Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and India. ¶ According to Sawyer,
projections from the year 1999 placed global wind power capacity at 229 GW in 2012 and while many skeptics thought this figure
ridiculous, today we stand at 237 GW of installed wind power capacity: 8 GW more than the initial projects. Through this, the world
can see, that a dramatic growth in renewable energy installations is possible. ¶ In terms of the high
costs of renewable energy technologies, Sawyer affirmed that ‘renewables, in fact, are not more expensive’ since a report published
by Bloomberg Energy Finance stated that while the general perception is that wind is four times more costly than coal, in reality
equal in price.¶ With all this in mind, it is clear that Mexico has a very
windy future ahead.
wind and coal are basically
That’s also true of solar power
Aparicio and Castellanos 3/1—Selene Aparicio was editor of the Mexico Renewable Energy Review. Edwin
Castellanos is an Analyst at the Renewable Energy Mexico Review. [“Mexico takes a step towards solar power”, 1 March 2013.
http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=774]//MM
the price of solar power modules dropped approximately 30% from 2011, a
clear sign that incorporating solar energy within the national energy mix is increasingly
more accessible.¶ As one of the countries sitting on the Sun Belt, Mexico’s solar power resource is unique in the world and
During 2012,
experts estimate that by installing solar power modules on a stretch of only 25 km2, enough energy could be generated to meet the
Mexico has a very healthy economic environment
and for this reason, it is the perfect time to take advantage of the renewable energy
momentum and jump on board with the growth of the solar power industry. According the Energy Ministry’s National Energy
need of Mexico’s 114 million inhabitants.¶ Currently,
Strategy 2013-2027, 6 GW of solar energy could be developed by 2020 with the support of President Peña Nieto’s administration.¶
‘El Futuro Solar Mexico’ (The Solar Future Mexico) conference, organized by SolarPlaza took place on February 28th at the Hilton
Hotel in Mexico City. With over 100 attendees, this event served as the platform to connect industry stakeholders who were
interested in optimizing their knowledge on the potential of the market.¶ The event featured conferences hosted by key stakeholders
in the industry such as Edgar López, Renewable Energy Director of the CRE; Carlos Eduardo Ortíz, founding partner of Greenergy;
Miguel Medina, General Director of Solartec, among other key actors in the solar industry in Mexico. In the event, Alvaro Lentz said
that “Mexico needs to stop looking down to the floor and look up to the sky” relating the opportunity of growth of the Mexican solar
industry as an alternative to buried fossil resources. In another conference, John Padilla indicated that the “obvious opportunities in
solar energy for the Mexican market are off-grid and domestic applications for the moment.” Clearly,
the industry is
waiting for the awakening of the solar market.¶ In addition, different ways of promoting
the use of renewable energy were mentioned by the representative of the Energy
Minister. The Energy Bank consists of a program for energy storage for a year when
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
plants are overproducing energy; in the case that the energy that is not used, the CFE will pay 85% of
its value being an important risk reducer for the investors of the sector. Also, the
methodology called “estampilla postal” determines transmission costs depending on the
intensity, giving incentives to higher tension projects. Mexico’s challenges are mainly due to the lack of
clear goals and planning.¶ Mexico’s solar power sector is expecting tremendous growth in the
coming years and great proof of this is the fact that the FIDE (Fideicomiso para el Ahorro de Energía
Eléctrica) created a program to provide financial support for the installation of solar panels
on households. According to Carlos Flores, the Executive Director of Conermex, “It is estimated that in 2013,
two thousand households will be powered by solar energy which in turn will reduce
electric energy consumption by 90%.” This is definitely a great start.
Tons of investment in the squo
Case ’12
(Brendan Case, Bloomberg, “ICA CEO Sees Mexico Infrastructure Spending Rising by 56%”,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/ica-ceo-sees-mexico-infrastructure-spending-rising-by-56-.html, September 17,
2012)
Annual infrastructure spending in Mexico could climb as much as 56 percent to $70
billion in the coming years as the country plows more money into roads, ports, water
projects, and oil and gas , said Alonso Quintana, chief executive officer of Empresas
ICA SAB. (ICA*) Economic growth and financial stability could help Mexico boost infrastructure investment by as much as
two percentage points of gross domestic product, from the current level of $45 billion to $50 billion a year, Quintana said today in
an interview after participating in a Bloomberg CEO Roundtable in Mexico City. “We’ve been in the range of about 4.5 to 5 percent of
GDP these past years, it’s been quite good actually,” Quintana said. “I
think we can go to $70 billion a year of
investment in infrastructure.” Expectations of heightened spending on construction have
fueled a 43 percent gain in ICA’s stock price this year through Sept. 14, the sixth-largest gain in the IPC index of 35 Mexican stocks.
ICA, the nation’s largest construction company, has benefited from speculation that President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto, who takes
office Dec. 1, will boost investment in infrastructure projects . ICA rose 0.1 percent to 24.30
pesos at the close in Mexico City. Strategic Alternatives The company, based in Mexico City, is still exploring strategic alternatives
for its homebuilding unit including the sale of a majority stake, Quintana, 39, also said. “There could be something in the near future
in terms of a possible transaction,” he said. “Our priority is return to shareholders and profitability. It doesn’t really matter who
controls the asset.” ICA is still on track to complete the La Yesca dam project in western Mexico for the Federal Electricity
Commission, the state-owned utility, Quintana said. “We
are on schedule and we’ve got almost the full
reservoir,” he said. The company expects to start tests on the turbines in less than two
months, Quintana said.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Climate Change
Renewable energy doesn’t solve – c02’s not key
Carter ‘11
[Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Susan Crockford,
evolutionary biologist with a specialty in skeletal taxonomy , paleozoology and vertebrate evolution, Joseph D’Aleo, 30 years of
experience in professional meteorology, former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, Indur Goklany,
independent scholar, author, and co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, Sherwood Idso, President of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct
Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of
Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from
Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, Anthony Lupo, Department Chair and
Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Willie Soon, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division
of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Mitch Taylor (Canada) [“Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report,”
September, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Published by The
Heartland Institute]
In a paper that appeared in the 15 October 2010 issue of Science, Lacis et al. (2010) claim
atmospheric CO2 is the
―principal control knob governing earth‘s temperature.‖ Using models that employ only physical
principles, they profess to have proven that carbon dioxide—not water vapor—should hold the title of ―principal controller of earth‘s
temperature‖ because water vapor, being a condensable greenhouse gas at current temperatures, is a ―fast responder‖ to
temperature changes induced by variations in both solar radiation intensity and non-condensable greenhouse gas concentrations,
the most significant of which is CO2. Therefore, by meekly ―following in the footsteps‖ of CO2 (decreasing in concentration when
the atmosphere‘s CO2 content drops and air temperatures cool), water vapor‘s potential role as an instigator of climate change is
essentially preempted. All
else being equal, their conclusion might be correct . However, ―all else
being equal‖ is rarely the case in the real world, and in the case in point CO2 affects Earth‘s
climate in several more ways than through its thermal radiative properties. CO2
promotes plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world‘s oceans, and this vast
assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth‘s climate in several ways, almost all of them
tending to counteract the heating or cooling effects of CO2‘s thermal radiative forcing as its
concentration either rises or falls, thereby helping to maintain Earth‘s temperature within a range
that is conducive to the continued existence and indeed flourishing of the planet‘s
myriad life forms. For example, Earth‘s plants—ranging from unicellular algae in the sea to grasses, shrubs,
and majestic trees on land—emit copious quantities of gases that are converted to particles in the
atmosphere, forming aerosols that reflect significant amounts of incoming solar radiation back
to space, thereby cooling the planet, or that serve as condensation nuclei for cloud
droplets that create more numerous, more extensive, longer-lasting, and brighter clouds
that also cool the globe. Therefore, depending on whether the air‘s CO2 content is
increasing or decreasing, these phenomena result in changes in global radiative forcing
similar in magnitude, but generally opposite in sign, to the direct thermal forcing
induced by the increases or decreases in the atmosphere‘s CO2 concentration.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Global Climate Cooperation 1NC
Climate change accords fail
Taylor ‘12
Lenore Taylor is a writer for the Sydney Morning Herald. [“World leaders' Rio accord is epic failure, says Greenpeace”, 21 June 2012.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-leaders-rio-accord-is-epic-failure-says-greenpeace-2012062020on4.html]//MM
NEGOTIATORS in Rio de Janeiro have claimed success after finalising a statement to be issued by more than 100 world leaders who
many observers said the ''success'' at the United
Nations conference was possible only after the agreement was watered down so far it
became meaningless.¶ ''Rio has turned into an epic failure. It has failed on equity, failed
on ecology and failed on economy,'' the executive director of Greenpeace International, Kumi Naidoo, said.¶ The
World Wildlife Fund executive director, Jim Leape, said the document was a ''colossal failure of leadership
and vision''.¶ And the Oxfam spokesman Stephen Hale said the world leaders should
''start again''.¶ But the Brazilian External Affairs Minister, Antonio Patriota, said the result was ''very satisfying … because it is
arrive in the Brazilian city over the next few days.¶ But
a result. As of yesterday we were facing considerable difficulties to have a text at all''. ¶ And the US chief negotiator, Todd Stern, said
the agreement was a ''good strong step forward''.¶ Brazilian negotiators conceded that the European Union, often a leading force at
such negotiations, had taken a far weaker role due to its unfolding financial crisis.¶ The
European Commissioner for
Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, said after the deal was struck ''nobody in that room
was happy, that's how weak it was''.¶ The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, arrived in the former Brazilian capital
yesterday, with her schedule including bilateral meetings, including with the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, and a formal
presentation to the conference today, in between contributions from Turkey and the Ivory Coast. ¶ After running late into Monday
It states the world
should negotiate new ''sustainable development goals'' by 2015, but could not agree even
what themes they should cover.¶ It states the world should ''take urgent action on
unsustainable production and consumption'' but says nothing about how that should be
achieved.¶ And the meeting failed to meet the hopes of environmental campaigners, and the
night, the 49-page agreement was finally clinched on Tuesday, ready for agreement by the leaders. ¶
Australian government, that it would at least launch a negotiation for new rules to protect the high seas, outside the boundaries of
individual nations' 200-kilometre territorial zone.¶ That proposal was blocked by Canada, Japan, Russia and Venezuela. Mr Stern
denied the US had contributed to its failure.¶ The ''high seas alliance'' of 25 environmental groups that lobby on the issue said the
result was ''profoundly disappointing''.¶ And a proposal to improve UN environmental decision making was also dramatically
watered down. Instead of the prospect of a new UN environmental decision-making body, the agreement defers to the general
assembly to decide whether the existing structures need an ''upgrade''.¶ Mr
Naidoo said Greenpeace would have
to give up on international negotiations and move to a campaign of civil disobedience to
try to overcome the state parochialism that was stopping any progress in multilateral
talks to address environmental problems.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Global Climate Cooperation Fails
Climate Change Accords are too inflexible
Ming 2012—Diana Ming, Dartmouth Staff, reporting on a lecture entitled “International Cooperation on Climate Change:
The Path Forward”, given by Special Envoy for Climate Change at the State Department Todd Stern. [“‘Voices’ speaker talks climate
change”, 3 August 2012. http://thedartmouth.com/2012/08/03/news/climate]//MM
Climate change negotiations are extremely difficult to implement internationally , Stern said.
Because climate change policy affects individual economies with competing agendas and priorities , many nations are
hesitant to agree on reforms like emission standards, according to Stern.¶ “Climate change is
not a conventional environmental issue,” Stern said. “It implicates virtually every aspect
of a state’s economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth and development. This
is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental one.Ӧ Stern also said that the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change — a multilateral body concerned with climate change — can be an inefficient system for
enacting international policy. The framework includes over 190 countries but because negotiations are governed by consensus rule,
small groups of countries can often block legislation, Stern said.¶ “Clearly this is inherently challenging stuff,” he said.¶ Stern
said
that the U.S. has tried to improve such challenges to climate change policymaking at the
international level.¶ At the 2009 G20 Summit in Copenhagen, President Barack Obama
announced that the U.S. would only consider climate change agreements if they
included China and other emerging countries.¶ “We thought it was crucial that all major
players agree to commit to take real steps,” Stern said. “Every country should be subject
to a sense of general transparency.Ӧ While Stern said that the G20 summit may have been
remembered as a spectacle due to negotiation difficulties rather than concrete progress ,
the U.S. still achieved significant accomplishments at this meeting.¶ “All major countries listed actions and did it with a sense of
transparency,” Stern said. “The Copenhagen Accord ushered in a more bottom-up structure to reform and put countries in control of
their own pledges.Ӧ Attempting
to integrate the concerns of all states in international policy is
logical but ignores the reality that states often have national interests that they consider
more important than global initiatives, Stern said.¶ States are often faced with “compelling constraints” on their
actions — if they are told to prioritize a global goal at the expense of their “core interests,” it is common for nations to drop out of
In order to
combat such competing interests, Stern said that the international community must
focus on encouraging agreements that are “inclusive and flexible.”¶ “Our fundamental
mission has to be to produce results on the ground,” Stern said.
such collaborative efforts.¶ “The likelihood of all relevant countries reaching a consensus is low,” Stern said. ¶
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Cooperation 1NC
SQUO solves or the plan doesn’t—trend towards increased RE investment in
SQUO
1AC author Wood 10
Duncan Wood has a PhD in Political Studies @ Queen’s, Professor @ ITAM in Mexico City [Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, “Energy, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewables Energies”, May 2010.
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf]//MM
In April of 2009, however, Presidents Obama and Calderon, of the United States and Mexico respectively,
signed the U.S.‐Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change. The
two leaders agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy, combating climate change and
the value of collaborating to reach these goals. Some observers in the US may have been surprised by this development
because the energy issue of which most foreign observers immediately think with regards to Mexico is, of course, oil. The continuing
problems of PEMEX and declining production from its mature fields have been one of the most important issues coming out of the
Mexico has in recent
years emerged as a leading country in the region, and more broadly in the developing
world, in the areas of clean energy and emissions controls. As President Felipe Calderon has attempted
country in recent years.¶ However, although it is most often seen as a classic hydrocarbon nation,
to present himself to the world as a leader in climate change initiatives (most recently in Copenhagen inDecember 2009) with the
idea for a Fondo Verde (Green Fund), many Mexicans expressed surprise that their country could be seen as a leader given the
overwhelming national political and economic importance given to oil. But Calderon was building on a reputation established in
successive international meetings, most notably in Bali in 2007 when Mexico was ranked 4th out of all nations for its commitment to
mitigating climate change, by the policy group Germanwatch, in their Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI)1. This reputation
had been won by a variety of initiatives from the local to the national level, from both the public and the private sectors. Though
Mexico has since slipped down the rankings to 11th place, it still maintains a favorable image in terms of its commitment to
mitigating climate change, and ranks third out of all newly industrializing countries. ¶ In order to meet the expectations that
Mexico now has to
invest heavily in both energy efficiency projects and in the development of a renewable
energy sector in the country that takes advantage of Mexico’s considerable resources. Large scale investment by
the state, by the private sector both national and foreign, reforms to the legal framework
surrounding renewable energy, and a change in the mentality of Mexican political and
economic elites is needed in order to make this happen, but there is good reason to be optimistic. The
President Calderon has worked so hard to build up concerning climate change mitigation strategies,
potential is certainly there in Mexico, and there is considerable interest from foreign investors and governments. ¶ This study
examines one of the most important and potentially lucrative dimensions of the growth of the renewable energy sector in Mexico,
bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States. The 2009 bilateral
framework should be seen in the context of an emerging trend in Mexico towards
renewable energy, and as recognition of the need for the United States to take advantage of this if it is to meet its own
namely
carbon emissions reduction goals. The long border shared by the two countries, so often seen as a point of conflict due to the thorny
issues of migration, drugs and security, holds the potential to benefit both states through the trade in renewable energy from wind,
geothermal, biomass and solar sources. But
the promise of collaboration in the sector goes far beyond
the border. The US has been engaged with Mexico in RE issues for over 15 years now on
multiple levels, and this has brought tangible results that have had a significant impact on both Mexico and on bilateral
relations.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Cooperation
Coop high now
Castellanos 5/3—Edwin Castellanos is an Analyst at the Renewable Energy Mexico Review. [“USA and Mexico’s
cooperation in green energy”, 3 May 2013. http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=794]//MM
This week U.S. president Barack Obama visited Mexico on the 2nd and 3rd of May to
meet with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto to discuss the most important topics
in the collaboration between countries. In this summit, the most important and controversial
points were addressed, including economic cooperation, education competitiveness, energy strategy and
innovation. Obama also mentioned the importance of controlling drug and gun trafficking and its implications for both countries. Cooperation is needed to overcome
these challenges. “We understand that the root cause of much of the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including in the
United States,” said Obama. “We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” he added. Yet, the agreement to work
there exists a certain level of optimism towards the
unlocking of potential between the U.S. and Mexico in order to bring more
opportunities for both parties while taking advantage of the role of each country. The
bilateral agreements on international trade have brought about an important
partnership between both players and the goal that has been set is to work together to achieve even more.¶ In terms of renewable energy,
the U.S. president pledged to secure an energy future including the need to develop
clean energy to fight against climate change. The responsible use of natural resources that each country possess is a must, he said, in
together is key to achieve progress in these areas.¶ Yet,
order to secure the sustainable development of any country and population. Climate change has impacted various ecosystems, climate patterns, and represents a challenge that
humans will have to eventually face. By promoting investment to reduce carbon emissions through clean and renewable energy, natural resources will be preserved and climate
change can be significantly slowed.¶ The United States, being one of the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world has made historic commitments to promote the use
Together, let’s
keep building new clean energy partnerships by harnessing wind and solar and the good
jobs that come with them. Let’s keep investing in green buildings and smart grid
technologies so we’re making our planet cleaner and safer for future generations,” said
Obama.¶ The meeting between Obama and Peña Nieto ended with very positive
propositions from both sides, encouraging the commitment of both countries to cooperate in the most important issues that both countries face and
of renewable energy. Similarly, Mexico is a leader in cutting carbon emission and encourages other developed countries to follow these actions. “
ensuring the welfare of future generations.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
LNG Prices 1NC
Low LNG prices are fueling manufacturing revival now – the plan reverses
the trend
Markey ‘12
(Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Ranking Member, House Natural Resources
Committee http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/sizing-up-the-role-of-natural.php~~%232246213 sept 2012)
The boom in American natural gas production is causing a seismic shift in the entire
American economy. Developed wisely, these resources have the potential to bolster America’s
manufacturing competitiveness, eliminate oil imports from the Persian Gulf, and radically reduce
emissions of global warming pollution.¶ Just four years ago, coal generated half of our electricity. Now it’s down to 35 percent.
Why? Because electric utility executives have decided to replace dirty old coal-fired power plants with cleaner, cheaper, and more
efficient natural gas, which has grown from 21 percent to 30 percent of U.S. electricity generation in that time. Coal is also being
edged out of the electricity market by wind, which has grown from virtually none of our power to 4 percent today. Solar is doubling
every year.¶ And when it comes to heating homes during the winter, natural gas wins in landslide. Last winter, families spent an
estimated $2,238 to heat their homes, compared to $629 to heat with natural gas. That’s why 1.4 million households in the
Northeast have switched away from heating oil in the last 8 years. Most of them are choosing natural gas.¶ Yet, the Republican Party
is oblivious to the free market revolution taking place. They are focused on making it easier for the coal industry to pollute while
voting to extend more taxpayer subsidies for big oil, nuclear and coal.¶ When you add up hydro, wind, solar, other renewables, and
throw in natural gas and other gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity. But just like Governor Romney has given up on 47 percent
of Americans, House Republicans are giving up on 44 percent of our electricity sector.¶ In truth, the
switch to natural gas
is happening for one simple reason: it’s cheaper.¶ Natural gas prices have decreased by 66
percent since 2008. Coal’s gotten 17 percent more expensive during that time. It is cheaper to produce new electricity
from natural gas than from coal. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s competition.¶ Low price natural gas is driving an
American manufacturing renaissance. The competitiveness of American steel, fertilizer, and
petrochemical industries that use huge amounts of natural gas for fuel and feedstock has surged. Many of
the 500,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs created since 2010 are a direct result of low natural
gas prices. Pricewaterhouse Coopers estimates we’ll create another 1 million jobs by 2025 as a result of abundant, low-cost
natural gas.¶ Exporting natural gas will do one thing: raise prices. In fact, that is just what the
oil and gas industry wants. By shipping American made natural gas to Japan and Korea, they can
fetch prices 6 times higher than ours. In Europe, prices are 3 times higher.¶ Ultimately, some
natural gas producers may hope to create a global natural gas market that maximizes
their profits. But if that happens, natural gas consumers will be exposed to higher prices
and greater market volatility -- in much the same way that the global oil market routinely rips off consumers at the pump.¶
Eighteen applications have been submitted to the Department of Energy seeking to export 40 percent of our current natural gas
consumption. Exporting less than half that amount could
send domestic natural gas prices
skyrocketing by more than 50 percent, according to the Department. If all 18 or more are approved, and if electric
utility demand and home heating demand continue on their current course, we could again see a huge price spike in natural gas.¶
This would be painful for American consumers and catastrophic for the fertilizer
manufacturers, the chemical and plastics producers, and the steelmakers that rely on
low-priced natural gas. It would make it harder to convert our heavy- and medium-duty trucks and buses onto natural
gas, which has the potential to reduce our oil imports by 2.4 million barrels per day.¶ But don’t take it from me, billionaire Texas
oilman T. Boone Pickens had this to say about exporting natural gas: “If
we do it, we’re truly going to go down
as America’s dumbest generation. It’s bad public policy to export natural gas.”¶ I agree. That
is why I believe we need a time out on approving additional LNG export terminals so that we can
think through the consequences of expanded LNG exports for our own domestic prices and economic growth. We’ve
had 5 votes on the House floor in the past year and half on exporting American energy resources. Republicans have voted in favor of
exporting every time.¶ The
current natural gas drilling bonanza is radically reshaping our
energy portfolio. We must ensure that this American resource is used to bring our
troops home and protect the wallets of consumers, and not used to simply further enrich
big oil and gas companies.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Key to advanced manufacturing
Lind ‘12
(Michael Lind is policy director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America Foundation.
Joshua Freedman is a program associate in New America’s Economic Growth Program. “Value Added: America’s Manufacturing
Future,” pg online @
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lind,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20%20NAF%20-%20Value%20Added%20America%27s%20Manufacturing%20Future.pdf)
Manufacturing, R&D and the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Perhaps
the greatest contribution of
manufacturing to the U.S. economy as a whole involves the disproportionate role of the
manufacturing sector in R&D. The expansion in the global market for high-value-added
services has allowed the U.S. to play to its strengths by expanding its trade surplus in
services, many of them linked to manufacturing, including R&D, engineering, software production and
finance. Of these services, by far the most important is R&D. The United States has long led the world in R&D. In
1981, U.S. gross domestic expenditure on R&D was more than three times as large as that of any other country in the world. And the
U.S. still leads: in 2009, the most recent year for which there is available data, the United States spent more than 400 billion dollars.
European countries spent just under 300 billion dollars combined, while China spent about 150 billion dollars.14 In the United
States, private sector manufacturing is the largest source of R&D. The private sector itself accounts for 71 percent of total R&D in the
United States, and although U.S. manufacturing accounts for only 11.7 percent of GDP in 2012, the manufacturing sector accounts
for 70 percent of all R&D
spending by the private sector in the U.S.15 And R&D and innovation
are inextricably connected: a National Science Foundation survey found that 22 percent of manufacturers had
introduced product innovations and the same percentage introduced process innovations in the period 2006-2008, while only 8
percent of nonmanufacturers reported innovations of either kind.16 Even as the manufacturing industry in the United States
underwent major changes and suffered severe job losses during the last decade, R&D spending continued to follow a general upward
growth path. A
disproportionate share of workers involved in R&D are employed directly or
indirectly by manufacturing companies; for example, the US manufacturing sector employs
more than a third of U.S. engineers.17 This means that manufacturing provides much of the
demand for the U.S. innovation ecosystem, supporting large numbers of scientists and
engineers who might not find employment if R&D were offshored along with production.
Why America Needs the Industrial Commons Manufacturing creates an industrial commons, which spurs growth in multiple sectors
of the economy through linked industries. An
“industrial commons” is a base of shared physical
facilities and intangible knowledge shared by a number of firms. The term “commons” comes from
communallyshared pastures or fields in premodern Britain. The industrial commons in particular in the
manufacturing sector includes not only large companies but also small and medium
sized enterprises (SMEs), which employ 41 percent of the American manufacturing
workforce and account for 86 percent of all manufacturing establishments in the U.S.
Suppliers of materials, component parts, tools, and more are all interconnected; most of the
time, Harvard Business School professors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih point out, these linkages are geographic because of the ease of
interaction and knowledge transfer between firms.18 Examples of industrial commons surrounding manufacturing are evident in
the United States, including the I-85 corridor from Alabama to Virginia and upstate New York.19 Modern
economic
scholarship emphasizes the importance of geographic agglomeration effects and colocation synergies. 20 Manufacturers and researchers alike have long noted the symbiotic
relationship that occurs when manufacturing and R&D are located near each other: the
manufacturer benefits from the innovation, and the researchers are better positioned to
understand where innovation can be found and to test new ideas. While some forms of knowledge
can be easily recorded and transferred, much “know-how” in industry is tacit knowledge. This valuable tacit
knowledge base can be damaged or destroyed by the erosion of geographic linkages,
which in turn shrinks the pool of scientists and engineers in the national innovation
ecosystem. If an advanced manufacturing core is not retained, then the economy stands to lose not only the manufacturing
industry itself but also the geographic synergies of the industrial commons, including R&D. Some have warned that this is already
the case: a
growing share of R&D by U.S. multinational corporations is taking place outside
of the United States.21 In particular, a number of large U.S. manufacturers have opened up or expanded R&D facilities in
China over the last few years.22 Next Generation Manufacturing A dynamic manufacturing sector
in the U.S. is as important as ever. But thanks to advanced manufacturing technology and technology-enabled
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
integration of manufacturing and services, the very nature of manufacturing is changing, often in radical ways. What will the next
generation of manufacturing look like? In 1942, the economist Joseph Schumpeter declared that “the process of creative destruction
is the essential fact about capitalism.” By creative destruction, Schumpeter did not mean the rise and fall of firms competing in a
technologically-static marketplace. He referred to a “process of industrial mutation— if I may use that biological term—that
incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating the new one.”
He noted that “these revolutions are not strictly incessant; they occurred in discrete rushes that are separated from each other by
spaces of comparative quiet. The process as a whole works incessantly, however, in the sense that there is always either revolution or
absorption of the results of revolution.”23 As Schumpeter and others have observed, technological innovation tends to be clustered
in bursts or waves, each dominated by one or a few transformative technologies that are sometimes called “general purpose
technologies.” Among the most world-transforming general purpose technologies of recent centuries have been the steam engine,
electricity, the internal combustion engine, and information technology.24 As epochal as these earlier technology-driven innovations
in manufacturing processes and business models proved to be, they are rapidly being superseded by new technologydriven changes
as part of the never-ending process of Schumpeterian industrial mutation. The
latest wave of innovation in
industrial technology has been termed “advanced manufacturing.” The National Science and
Technology Council of the Executive Office of the President defines advanced manufacturing as “a family of activities that (a) depend
on the use and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or (b) make use of
cutting edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by the physical
and biological sciences, for example,
nanotechnology, chemistry, and biology. It involves both new ways to manufacture
existing products and the manufacture of new products emerging from new advanced
technologies.”25 Already computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) programs, combined with
computer numerical control (CNC), allow precision manufacturing from complex designs, eliminating many wasteful trials and steps
in finishing. CNC is now ubiquitous in the manufacturing sector and much of the employment growth occurring in the sector
requires CNC skills or training. Information technology has allowed for enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other forms of
enterprise software to connect parts of the production process (both between and within a firm), track systems, and limit waste
when dealing with limited resources. Other areas
in which advanced manufacturing will play a role in
Supercomputing. America’s global
leadership in technology depends in part on whether the U.S. can compete with Europe
and Asia in the race to develop “exascale computing,” a massive augmentation of computer calculating
creating new products and sectors and changing current ones are:
power that has the potential to revolutionize predictive sci ences from meteorology to economics. According to the Advanced
Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC), “If
the U.S. chooses to be a follower rather than a
leader in exascale computing, we must be willing to cede leadership” in industries
including aerospace, automobiles, energy, health care, novel material development, and
information technology.26 Robotics: The long-delayed promise of robotics is coming
closer to fulfillment. Google and other firms and research consortiums are testing robotic cars, and Nevada recently
amended its laws to permit autonomous automobiles.27 Amazon is experimenting with the use of robots in its warehouses.28
Nanotechnology may permit manufacturing at extremely small scales including the
molecular and atomic levels.29 Nanotechnology is also a key research component in the semiconductor indusmanutry,
as government funding is sponsoring projects to create a “new switch” capable of supplanting current semiconductor technology.30
Photonics or optoelectronics, based on the conversion of information carried by electrons to photons and back, has potential
applications in sectors as diverse as telecommunications, data storage, lighting and consumer electronics.
Biomanufacturing is the use of biological processes or living organisms to create
inorganic structures, as well as food, drugs and fuel. Researchers at MIT have genetically modified a virus
that generates cobalt oxide nanowires for silicon chips.31 Innovative materials include artificial “metamaterials” with novel
properties. Carbon nanotubes, for example, have a strength-to-weight ratio that no other material can match.32 Advanced
manufacturing using these and other cuttingedge technologies is not only creating new products and new methods of production but
is also transforming familiar products like automobiles. The rapid growth in electronic and software content in automobiles, in
forms like GPS-based guidance systems, information and entertainment technology, anti-lock brakes and engine control systems,
will continue. According to Ford, around 30 percent of the value of one of its automobiles is comprised by intellectual property,
electronics and software. In the German automobile market, electronic content as a share of production costs is expected to rise
from 20-30 percent in 2007 to 50 percent by 2020.33
Collapse of advanced manufacturing causes nuclear war
Paone 9
(Chuck, 66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force, 8-10-09, “Technology convergence could prevent war, futurist says,”
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500)
The convergence of "exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "superintelligence" so formid able that it could avert war, according to one of the world's leading futurists. Dr.
James Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based think tank, is author of the book "The Extreme
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and other government agencies.
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
He is consistently listed among the
world's leading speakers and has presented to diverse audiences around the globe. He will address the Air Force Command and
Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium, which will be held Sept. 28 through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in
Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak
preview of his symposium presentation and answered various questions about the future of technology and warfare in early August. "
superiority of convergent technologies will prevent war,"
The
Doctor Canton said, claiming
their power would present an overwhelming deterrent to potential
adversaries . While saying that the U.S. will build these super systems faster and better than other nations, he acknowledged that a new
arms race is already under way. "It will be a new MAD for the 21st century," he said, referring to the Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured
Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike would trigger an equally deadly response. It's commonly held that this knowledge has essentially
rational nation states,
considering this imminent technology explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation
warfare in the near future. Plus there's the "socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental macroeconomics
prevented any rational state from launching a nuclear attack. Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes
on the planet favor peace, security, capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will
work together in using these smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As a futurist,
Doctor
Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of expertise -- and the one in which he's personally most
interested -- is advanced and emerging technology. "I see that as the key catalyst of strategic
change on the planet, and it will be for the next 100 years," he said. He focuses on six specific
technology areas: "nano, bio, IT, neuro, quantum and robotics;" those he
expects to converge in so powerful a way. Within the information technology arena, Doctor Canton said systems must
create "meaningful data," which can be validated and acted upon. "Knowledge engineering for the analyst and the
warfighter is a critical competency that we need to get our arms around," he said. "Having an
avalanche of data is not going to be helpful." Having the right data is. "There's no way for the human operator to look at an infinite number of data
streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How do we augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software
presentation and better visual frameworks, to create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision options for the human operator,
faster than the human being can?" He said he believes the answers can often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I would look outside of
the military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about the financial industry?" Doctor Canton said he
more sophisticated artificial intelligence applications will transform business,
warfare and life in general. Many of these are already embedded in systems or products, he says, even if people don't know it.
believes that
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. LNG Prices
Increasing LNG exports drives up prices and constrains manufacturing
Muro ‘11
(Mark Muro Policy Director, Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program "Export Natural Gas? Not So
Fast" http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/98188/export-natural-gas-not-so-fast~~%23)
Along these lines, I would place the overall well-being of higher-order U.S. industrial production at the top of my priority list, and
consider the benefits of cheap natural gas to the growth and health of the U.S. economy. To be sure, having companies like Cheniere
Energy liquefy and export natural gas to cash in on the spread between low U.S. prices and much higher European and Asian ones
would allow U.S. producers to reap a bonanza and help cut into the U.S. trade deficit. ¶ However, large-scale
exports of
natural gas could also tighten domestic supply and raise prices. For example, a consultant’s report
estimates that Chenier’s big Sabine Pass (LA) export project will raise U.S. natural gas prices by up to 11.6 percent when shipments
of more than 2 billion cubic feet of gas a day begin in 2015. ¶ Higher
prices for consumers, then, represent one
drag on the nation’s recovery associated with exporting. Relatedly, higher costs to
U.S. industrial producers have that potential as well. Today, nearly 45 percent of U.S. natural gas
consumption flows to industrial concerns that use it to produce chemicals, fertilizers, metal, plastics, paper,
refinery products, glass, and food products. Cheap natural gas is a critical input to numerous
important production and export industries in America. ¶ To pick just one example, the American
Chemistry Society recently noted the potential for sizable job and output benefits in the
chemical industry associated with the shale gas revolution. All of which suggests that cheap
natural gas represents a point of competitive advantage for desirable higher-value
industries, U.S. exports, and good-paying jobs. ¶ My tentative conclusion: It would be premature for
DOE to conclude the United States now has so much gas that it can afford to export it
overseas without risking domestic price dislocations. At least for now, gas should be husbanded
as a low-cost input to industrial production, as well as held as a high-potential, cleaner substitute fuel for use
in the electric power sector to displace coal in generating plants and in the transportation sector to displace oil. In short, gas
should be exported not in its raw form but only as a low-cost input to higher-value
production and job creation by American companies. ¶ Such are the sort of considerations that must
possible economic
increasingly inform the energy decisions of a nation that needs to--all at once--reduce carbon emissions and more actively attend to
the emergence of a higher-value production economy.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
BECC Fails 1NC
BECC can’t solve all new developments needed to mitigate and adapt to
warming
Vergara et al, 13 Walter Vergara is chief of sustainable energy and climate change at the IDB, Claudio Alatorre is an
independent consultant, with expertise on the analysis of the energy transition, as well as on the design and implementation of
enabling policy and institutional frameworks, and Leandro Alves is Head of the Energy Division of the Infrastructure and
Environment Department of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), responsible for Energy, Oil and Gas, Extractive
Industries, and Biofuels for the Latin America and the Caribbean region (“Rethinking Our Energy Future: A White Paper on
Renewable Energy for the 3GFLAC Regional Forum” InterAmerican Development Bank June 2013
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=37836720) // czhang
¶ ¶ Introduction¶ In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), economic output is projected to grow by about 3% annually ¶ into the
foreseeable future, supported by population growth and improvements in quality of life. This ¶ will require the region to nearly
double its installed power capacity to about 600 GW by 2030, at a cost ¶ of close to 430 billion dollars.7¶ This represents a challenge
to the region’s energy model but also an ¶ opportunity to redefine and transform it.¶ Current plans in some countries in the region
consider that a substantial share of the new demand could ¶ be met with fossil fuels, with hydropower providing much of the
remainder. However, fossil fuels -the¶ main source of energy worldwide- are driving climate change toward dangerous thresholds.¶
8¶ A
sustainable future (“the future we want”, as posited by the United Nations Conference in Sustainable ¶ Development
-UNCSD) requires an urgent change of path possible only if a major departure from the ¶ business as usual (BaU)
scenario is achieved, capable of preventing global temperature from escalating ¶ much further
than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) this century. ¶ A global climate stabilization goal of this
magnitude would require of no more than 20 gigatons (Gt) of ¶ CO2 to be emitted by
2050 (a significant deviation from the current projection of 45 Gt of CO2) and no ¶ more than 10 Gt of CO2 by
the end of the century. Under current population growth projections, this ¶ implies an
average annual per capita emission of 2 tons by mid-century equivalent to less than 40%
of ¶ current emission levels.¶ 9¶ For the region, fortunately, an alternative energy path is
available that is consistent with these goals.¶ Starting from a relatively clean supply base
¶
(LAC’s installed power capacity is estimated at about ¶ 280 GW, the majority of which, 52%, is already provided through renewable
energy resources, including ¶ hydropower10), non-traditional renewable energy technologies (NRETs) —solar,
wind,
geothermal, ¶ ocean, small-scale hydropower, and advanced bio-energy—together with
improvements in energy ¶ efficiency—are now ready to play a major role alongside
hydropower in meeting LAC countries’ energy ¶ needs.¶ The costs of these technologies
are falling rapidly, and in many cases are competitive with fossil fuels.¶ LAC’s unusually rich
renewable resource base may place the region’s renewable energy (RE) generation ¶ costs at the lower end of the global cost
spectrum, a fact particularly significant given that these
sources ¶ are currently providing electricity that
is less expensive than that generated by fossil fuels in other parts ¶ of the world.11 And
this can be done with additional and substantial economic, social and environmental ¶
benefits (societal) benefits.¶ Globally, the scale of recent developments in renewable energy suggests that a historic
energy ¶ transformation is underway. NRETs —assembled in large power plants as well as widely decentralized
¶ small systems— are rapidly diversifying the energy economies of many nations . Some industrial
nations, ¶ including Germany and Denmark and others such as Mexico, Uruguay, Costa Rica
and China, are well on¶ the way to make renewable energy and energy efficiency the
centerpieces of their energy futures.¶ Countries and regions that take the lead in developing these new energy
sources will have first-mover ¶ advantage in one of the world’s fastest growing economic sectors—reaping the economic growth and ¶
job creation that will flow from it.¶
This discussion today is more relevant than ever as the region
faces macro trends reshaping power ¶ system evolution,¶ 12 including: the need to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions; the impacts of climate ¶ change, calling for a higher
resilience of power systems; an increasing impact of fossil fuel price ¶ volatility; the
advent of new information and communication technologies for grid monitoring and ¶
control (smart grids); the emergence of new clean energy business models for both large
and small-scale ¶ generation; and an increased vehicle fleet electrification.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. BECC Fails
All your ev says the BECC could only effectively do solar energy – that’s
insufficient to solve
Bose 10 (Bimal K. Bose, The Condra Chair of Excellence in power electronics at the University of Tennessee, March 2010,
“Global Warming: Energy, Environmental Pollution and the Impact of Power Electronics”, Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE
4.1// JG)
Nuclear power is claimed to be environmentally clean, and currently, there is demand for increasing nuclear power generation. Since
trees absorb CO2, the tropical rain forests (such as the Amazon rain forest) can be preserved, or widespread forestation can be
promoted to mitigate the global warming problem. Some countries are actively promoting tree plantation as new housing estates are
being developed. Controlling the human and animal population to reduce GHG is not easy. Since human beings exhale CO2 as well
as demand energy for standard of living, population control gives benefit in two dimensions. A
substantial portion of
global energy demand can be met by promoting environmentally clean renewable
energy sources (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and fuel cells), and the current trend in the world is to
explore them vigorously. Fuel cells can be defined as clean if clean energy is used to produce hydrogen fuel. Recent
studies [38] have indicated that hydro, wind, and solar technologies (possibly with adequate
storage ) can provide 100% of the world’s energy , eliminating all fossil fuels .
Internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) can be replaced by electric vehicles (EVs) (with the interim phase of hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs) possibly with biofuels), and
if electricity is generated by clean sources, GHG pollution
will be mitigated. Promoting mass transportation, particularly by railways, as in Japan and Europe, will mitigate
global warming problem. Considerable amount of energy can be saved by improving efficiency in generation,
transmission, distribution, and utilization of electrical energy.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Growth 1NC
US Econ and Competitiveness will remain high—ten reasons
Perlberg 6/22—Steven Perlberg is a reporter for Business Insider covering markets and finance.
[“10 Reasons Why
America Will Continue To Dominate The Global Economy For Years”, 22 June 2013. http://www.businessinsider.com/10-ways-uscompetitive-advantage-2013-6]//MM
investors should be pleased with the way things are going domestically,
according to a new report from Joseph Quinlan, Chief Market Strategist for U.S. Trust.¶
We walk you through U.S. Trust's 10 theses that show "what's right with America."¶ The U.S. economy is the largest and most
productive in the world - The U.S. accounts for one-fifth of global GDP with only 4.5% of the world's
population. America's economy is nearly twice the size of China's in nominal dollars. Plus, the U.S. is one of just a few developed
countries with real GDP higher than it was before the crisis, according to the report.¶ The U.S. leads
the world in manufactured goods - Nominal manufacturing output totaled $1.9 trillion in 2012, a rise of 27% from 2009.
Employment in the sector has increased by 500,000 workers since 2010, according to U.S. Trust.¶
The U.S. is among the largest exporters of goods and services - Exports since the
recession have taken off. In 2012, total exports totaled $2.2 trillion, nearly a 40% rise from 2009 levels, according to the report.¶ Foreign
investors still love the U.S.- U.S. Foreign Direct Investment inflows in the post-crisis years racked
up $736 billion. That's 15% of the global total, according to U.S. Trust. And while people talk about
investment in China, America is still on top by a landslide.¶ America has the top global brands - In 2008, eight out of
10 of the world's top brands were American.¶ The U.S. is the world leader in technology - People still flock to
America to become tech innovators. The U.S. is home to the major social media players
and beats out other countries in spending levels.¶ America has the world's best colleges - American college kids fill their minds
But by in large,
with kegs worth of knowledge at some of the world's best universities. Six out of the top 10 universities in the 2012 Quacquarelli Symonds World Rankings’ were American.¶
The U.S. dollar is king - It's the world's reserve currency. From the U.S. Trust report: "The greenback
accounted for roughly 62% of global central bank reserves as of the fourth quarter of
2012, according to the IMF, a share down slightly from 2008 but relatively constant over the post-crisis years." It crushed the beleaguered
Euro.¶ The U.S. has one of the most competitive economies - In the latest competitiveness survey from the World
Economic Forum, the U.S. slipped to seventh place, down two spots, according to the report. Still, U.S. Trust guesses America will head
north on the list in the future.¶ America is in the middle of an energy Renaissance - Much to the
chagrin of some environmentalists, U.S. domestic oil production is in revival mode. It exceeded imports for the first time in 16 years, according to the report. Thanks to
"fracking" that unlocked shale in North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas,
notes.
the U.S. has seen a major surge in production, the report
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Growth
Econ High Now—Manufacturing gains, high growth
Reuters 8/1—[“US July manufacturing growth hits 4-month high: Markit.” 1 August 2013.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-01/news/40962913_1_u-s-manufacturing-purchasing-markit-neworders]//MM
US manufacturing grew in July at its quickest pace in four months as output and
new orders increased and firms took on more workers, an industry report showed on Thursday.¶ Financial data firm
Markit said its final U.S. Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index for July rose to 53.7, the
highest since March. That beat both a preliminary July estimate of 53.2 and June's 51.9 reading. A reading above 50 indicates
expansion.¶ Output also hit a four-month high, rising to 54.8 from 53.5 in June, and new orders from
domestic and overseas clients rose.¶ That helped support a modest rebound in hiring, with
NEW YORK:
the survey's employment sub-index rising to 53.0 after slipping to 49.9 in June, its weakest in three and a half years.¶ "Nevertheless, the rate of manufacturing growth remains
weaker than at the start of the year," said Markit chief economist Chris Williamson. "In particular, employment is generally rising at a disappointingly weak pace."¶ He added
the rise in new export orders may reflect pay back from declines seen over the prior
two months.¶ That could give the Federal Reserve pause when it considers how soon to start winding down its massive stimulus program. The central bank's policysetting committee gave no hints on Wednesday of an imminent pull-back in bond purchases and said low inflation was a concern.¶ Government data on
Wednesday showed the U.S. economy grew at a 1.7 percent rate in the second quarter,
comfortably beating the 1 percent pace forecast in a recent Reuters poll. Most
economists expect growth to accelerate in the second half.
that
Growth and Recovery Now
Reuters 8/1—[“Europe’s factories grow, US manufacturing at 2-year high”, 1 August 2013.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/europes-factories-grow-us-manufacturing-at-2-yearhigh/articleshow/21536277.cms]//MM
US manufacturing grew in July at its fastest pace in two years while
European factories snapped a two-year run of declining output, suggesting a prolonged
euro zone recession may be near its end. ¶ Output at British factories also surged last month, according to business surveys released on
Thursday, while an index of China's massive manufacturing sector suggested the slowdown in
the world's No. 2 economy may be stabilizing. ¶ The data should hearten policymakers around the world, particularly those at the
NEW YORK/LONDON:
European Central Bank who have come under pressure to support an economy struggling to escape from the longest recession in the 17-country euro zone's history. ¶ It probably
does not, however, point to an imminent tightening of monetary policy. ECB President Mario Draghi on Thursday stressed that interest rates would remain at current lows or
lower for an "extended time." ¶ On Wednesday,
the U.S. Federal Reserve said that the world's biggest economy
was recovering but still needed support, dashing some expectations that it would start winding down its own stimulus program as soon as September. ¶ "The
general tilt of the Fed and other global central banks is still very accommodative, so I'm not concerned that this data will change that," said Thomas Simons, money market
A sharp rise in
new orders helped propel the Institute for Supply Management's index of national
factory activity to a two-year high of 55.4 in July, beating economists' expectations of 52.0 and June's reading of 50.9. ¶ A
separate index from financial data firm Markit rose to 53.7, a four-month high, from 51.9 in June. ¶ "It's obviously good news. Orders have
bounced back. If this is happening in the context of a global improvement, that's a good
thing," said Pierre Ellis, senior global economist at Decision Economics Inc in New York. ¶
economist at Jefferies & Co in New York, who said the Fed will probably wait until the fourth quarter to slow its monthly bond purchases. ¶
Job creation up
Cox 7/31—Jeff Cox of CNBC. [“Private business job creation revs up, survey shows”, 31 July 2013.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/private-business-job-creation-revs-survey-shows-6C10804451]//MM
Private sector job creation surged in July to 200,000 as small businesses and services
led the way, according to the latest report from ADP and Moody's Analytics.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Don’t trust the job creation index—summer manufacturing retools
Reuters 7/25—[“Jobless claims rise slightly, showing labor market still improving”, 25 July, 2013.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/jobless-claims-rise-slightly-showing-labor-market-still-improving-6C10744802]//MM
The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits rose slightly last week in a
sign the U.S. labor market continues to improve at a moderate pace. ¶ Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased by
7,000 to a seasonally adjusted 343,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.¶ Meanwhile, a gauge of planned U.S. business
spending rose more than expected in June and new orders for long-lasting manufactured goods surged, offering tentative signs of a
pickup in economic activity.¶ Readings
for jobless claims can be volatile in July because many
factories close to retool during the period, and it is difficult for the government to adjust
the data for seasonal swings because the shutdown schedule varies from year to year.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
-- Chinese Growth Low
Chinese economic contraction now
Lewis 7/26—Leo Lewis is a writer for British newspaper The Times. [“Thousands of Factories to close as China trims the fat.”
July 26, 2013. The Times. Lexis]//MM
China has ordered the closure of thousands of factories as capacity outstrips demand,
price wars gnaw at corporate profits and the Communist Party tumbles into the warm
embrace of central planning.¶ The order strikes at 19 industries where production capacity has been over-built and
many factories are inefficient and outdated but still capable of pushing margins to danger levels.¶ The order came as one
closely watched gauge of manufacturing activity showed the roar of Chinese factories
dimming to an 11-month low in July.¶ The cement, steel, paper and glass industries each appeared on the list of those
targeted: so did leather tanning, clothes dye manufacture and production of the ubiquitous food additive monosodium glutamate.¶
The constituents of the list come as little surprise, and the reasons for the overcapacity are well known: the state-directed economy
has blunted market forces and allowed companies to maintain output even when margins hit zero. ¶ Problems in the Chinese steel
sector, for example, have been plain for some time. Last year, one of the country's larger steel groups announced that it would
The
Government ordered 1,400 companies to close inefficient plants by September and cut
all excess capacity by the end of the year. More than 500 cement producers were told to cut about 93 million
diversify into pig farming, calculating that it could make more profit selling a kilo of pork than the same volume of steel. ¶
tonnes of excess capacity Although the edict, issued late on Thursday, was not the first of its kind in recent years, it was issued
against a background of severe ructions in the Chinese economy and fears that the country will pay a high price for the lending orgy
unleashed by the banks in 2009.¶
China growth is low—government controlled, low growth forever, slays
China influence
Menza 6/29—Justin Menza is a writer for CNBC News. [“Why China’s Economy May Be Heading for a Crash.” 29 June
2013. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100849458]//MM
China's central bank sent global markets reeling when it attempted tighten credit and
rein in the country's shadow banking system. But the consequences of China's credit
binge may just be getting started, and experts say there could be more pain to come for the world's second-largest
economy.¶ "We've been seeing tightening since the end of last year," said Leland Miller, China Beige Book International president.
"This
is not a spur of the moment decision by the central bank."¶ Leland said the higher
interbank lending rates are an indicator of a tension in the system. "The credit transition
mechanism is broken and until that's fixed, there will be no happy endings in China," he said. ¶ The People's Bank of China in a
statement said the performance of the economy and financial system "are sound" and that there was no shortage of liquidity in the
But the economy must still come to grips with the credit binge and the overinvestment undertaken in an attempt to avert an economic slowdown at the outset of
the global financial crisis. ¶ Bill Smead, CEO & CIO of Smead Capital Management says investors are as resilient as the
market.¶
Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail - the knight who refused to stop fighting no matter how badly injured he was.¶ "They
launched $2.5 trillion worth of stimulus in 2008-11," explained Bill Smead, CEO and CIO of Smead Capital Management and a longterm China bear. "Most of that went to special purpose vehicles to build rail, bridges, airports, condo buildings, you name it." ¶ Many
of those projects were built with the sole purpose of showing strong economic growth and not to generate economic rent, Smead
said. ¶ Gordon Chang, author of "The Coming Collapse of China," said China
may only be growing 2 or 3 percent
and if you strip out all the construction going into ghost cities and "high-speed rail lines
to nowhere," the economy may not be growing at all.¶ He looks at electricity usage as a better indicator of
growth than the official Chinese statistics.¶ "China claimed 7.7 percent growth for the first quarter ," he
told CNBC this month. "But when you look at electricity, by far the most reliable economic
indicator of Chinese economic activity, that grew 2.9 percent in Q1. When you consider
that the growth of GDP is historically 85 percent of the growth of electricity, you're
talking 2.5 percent (growth)."¶ And many of those loans used to finance the construction of those ghost cities and idle
train lines may never get repaid. Instead, banks continue to roll over these loans—many made to state-owned companies. ¶ If the
banks were to stop rolling over those bad debts, it could create a capital hole in the banking system and force the government into a
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
costly recapitalization of the banks.¶ Two things could mitigate the damage, say investing pros—high reserve ratio requirements and
China's massive foreign exchange reserves.¶ David Riedel of Riedel Research Group, told CNBC that while investors need to "worry
about the health of the banking sector," the Chinese government's 20 percent reserve requirement for the banks and $3 trillion of
foreign exchange reserves are "two strong pillars of support."¶ But using the foreign exchange reserves to recapitalize the banks
could have nasty unintended consequences. Smead said they'd have to convert their U.S. Treasury holdings to yuan and "explosively
increase the money supply."¶ That could torpedo the currency and stoke inflation, Smead said, creating a major crisis. ¶ China Bears¶
For some international investors, China uncertainty has been reason to avoid the country's equities altogether. Rajiv Jain, manager
of the Virtus Foreign Opportunities Fund, told attendees at the Morningstar investment conference earlier in the month that he was
"very concerned about the risk coming from China's shadow banking system." ¶ In his first-quarter investment commentary, Jain
wrote, "In
our view this level of (China) credit growth is unsustainable. There is bound to
be a significant contraction in credit and, with it, GDP." He added that the risks are
systemic.¶ That has him thinking defensively about China and investing in companies that do most of their business
domestically, Indian banks for instance, and downplaying commodities-related companies that rely on demand from China.¶ "If a
debt-induced economic downturn takes hold in China, it inevitably will have a negative
effect on commodity prices as marginal demand slackens or even falls," Jain wrote.
"Lower commodity prices would lead to lower income and reduced investment in
exporting countries."¶ Those countries include Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Canada and Australia. ¶ China Opportunities?¶
Not everyone shares this pessimism. "We're still of the view that China muddles through," said Todd Henry, emerging markets
equity portfolio specialist at T.Rowe Price. "They'll
post decent growth, but the trajectory of growth will
be lower" as credit growth slows.
Slow growth—Bubble is burst, Chinese financial collapse/Alt cause to
economic collapse
Washington Post 6/20 [“China’s economy is freezing up. How freaked out should we be?” June 20, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/20/chinas-economy-is-freezing-up-how-freaked-out-should-webe/]//MM
Thursday was a very bad day for China’s economy, the world’s second-largest and a
crucial pillar of the global economy, with credit markets freezing up in an unnerving parallel to the first days of the
U.S. financial collapse. The question of how bad depends on whom you talk to, how much faith you have in Chinese leaders and,
unfortunately, several factors that are largely unknowable. But we do know two things .
First, Chinese leaders appear
to be causing this problem deliberately, likely to try to avert a much worse problem.
And, second, if this continues and even it works, it could see China’s economy finally
cool after years of breakneck growth, with serious repercussions for the rest of us.¶ Things got so bad that the
Bank of China has been fighting rumors all day that it defaulted on its loans; if true, this would risk bank runs and more defaults, not
unlike the first days of the U.S. financial collapse. There’s no indication that the rumors are true, and no one is running on China’s
banks. But the fact that the trouble has even gotten to this point is a sign of how potentially serious this could be. ¶ Here’s what has
happened:
China’s credit market has been in a bubble for years, with too much lending and
borrowing, similar to what happened in the United States during the financial crisis. All that lending helps grow
the economy until, one day, the bubble bursts, and it all comes crashing down, as happened the United
States. China’s economic growth has been slowing, making a similar a crisis more likely.
Chinese leaders seem to be trying to prevent a disaster by basically popping the bubble,
a kind of controlled mini-collapse meant to avoid The Big One.¶ In a real, uncontrolled credit crisis
like the U.S. financial meltdown, credit suddenly freezes up, particularly between banks, meaning that the daily loans banks were
relying on to do business are suddenly no longer affordable. Banks with too many unsafe loans suddenly owe more money than they
can get their hands on, sometimes leading them to default or even collapse. And that means that it suddenly becomes much tougher
for everyone else – companies that want to build new factories, families that went to buy a home – to borrow money. That’s an
uncontrolled credit crisis, and a number of China-watchers have been worried that China, in its pursuit of constant breakneck
growth, could be headed for one.¶ China’s central bank, which is likely to tamp down all that unsafe lending and over-borrowing
before it leads to a crash, appears to have forced an artificial credit crisis. (It tested a more modest version just two weeks ago.) It
looks like the People’s Bank of China has already tightened credit considerably, making it suddenly very difficult for banks to borrow
money. Something called the seven-day bond repurchase rate, which indicates “liquidity” or the ease of borrowing money, shot way
up to triple what it was two weeks ago.¶ This pair of charts, from the economics site Zero Hedge, shows the eerie parallels between
today’s freeze-up in the Chinese interbank lending market and what happened in the United States when Lehman Brothers
collapsed, setting off a global crisis that we’re still recovering from:¶ That second chart shows something called the TED spread, a
key indicator of credit risk and how easy it is for U.S. banks to lend to one another.¶ Money markets in China have also skyrocketed
to what the Financial Times’ David Keohane called “silly levels.” This chart, via Keohane and Reuters’ Jamie McGeever, shows the
money market rates way, way, way beyond any high of the last five years:¶ Here’s where things get a little confusing. Bloomberg
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
News reported Thursday evening Beijing time that, as panic moved through the Chinese financial system, the country’s central bank
stepped in and offered $8.2 billion in “relief” to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which just happens to be both stateowned and the largest bank in the world. What does this mean? Maybe that Chinese leaders got cold feet and are trying to walk back
the self-imposed crunch, maybe that China’s largest bank managed to negotiate some preferential treatment, maybe that leaders are
worried their most important bank might actually be less healthy than they thought and want to protect it from default. Or maybe
this is just part of the process of easing down the markets. But then the Chinese Web portal Sina announced that the reports were
false (thanks to Bill Bishop for this link), adding some unnecessary confusion and uncertainty to an already volatile situation.¶ So
what happens next? There are four categories of outcome. The first is that Chinese leaders back off on the credit
crunch and nothing happens, in which case they’ll probably just try the strategy again later. The second is that they press on and it
works miraculously, cleaning out the financial system without causing too much pain. The third is that this spirals out of control,
The
fourth, and probably most likely, is that this works but is painful, averting catastrophe
but slowing the Chinese economy after 20 years of miraculous growth.¶ China-watchers,
who tend to vary widely in their assessments of the country’s economic health, seem to
be converging on that fourth scenario, of a painful but necessary slowdown. Nomura, a
Japanese investment bank, recently issued a note (via the Financial Times) addressing fears that China could face a
maybe because Beijing underestimated the risk or acted too late, potentially sending the global economy lurching once more.
financial collapse. Their less-than-comforting caveat: “This is a tricky issue, as the definition of ‘financial crisis’ can differ among
investors.” The bank predict that China will not slip into a full-on crisis, citing Beijing’s control over the financial system and
warned: “Nonetheless, we expect a painful
deleveraging process in the next few months. Some defaults will likely occur in the
manufacturing industry and in non-bank financial institutions.Ӧ If that happens,
China’s growth would slow even more. HSBC just cut their prediction for Chinese GDP growth rate from 8.4
percent in 2014 to 7.4 percent, still high but a major drop that could plunge farther. This would be difficult for
China, which has built its economy – and political stability – on keeping high economic
growth. Recall that the U.S. financial collapse was disastrous for America’s already unhealthy economic sectors: city budgets,
real estate, news media. Something similar could happen in China, which is also facing a massive property bubble. All of this
could also be dire for the rest of the world, which is heavily linked to China’s economy
and is still struggling to recover from the U.S. and European crises. Japan could be
particularly vulnerable.¶ But believe it or not, if all of this occurs, it might actually be good news. It could well avert a
unwillingness to let it go under. But the Japanese bank
much more serious, uncontrolled Chinese financial collapse. The nation’s central bank has been successful in controlling market
shocks like this, throwing around lots of money when it needs to. Officials seem to know what they’re doing; an experienced Chinawatcher I talked to called it “one step back, two steps forward.”¶ Still, we’ve got to step back before we can step forward, and the time
between steps could be tough on a global economy that doesn’t need any more strain.
China has hit a wall
Friedman 7/23—George Friedman is the Founder and Chairman of Stratfor. [“The End Of The Chinese Economic
Miracle.” 7/23/13. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/07/23/the-end-of-the-chinese-economic-miracle/]//MM
Major shifts underway in the Chinese economy that Stratfor has forecast and discussed for years have now
drawn the attention of the mainstream media. Many have asked when China would find itself in an economic crisis, to which we
have answered that China has been there for awhile — something not widely recognized outside China, and particularly not in the
A crisis can exist before it is recognized. The admission that a crisis exists is a
critical moment, because this is when most others start to change their behavior in
reaction to the crisis. The question we had been asking was when the Chinese economic crisis would finally become an
accepted fact, thus changing the global dynamic.¶ Last week, the crisis was announced with a flourish. First,
United States.
The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman penned a piece titled “Hitting China’s Wall.” He wrote,
“The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We’re not talking about some
minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country’s whole
way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible
growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its
Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be.Ӧ Later in the week, Ben
Levisohn authored a column in Barron’s called “Smoke Signals from China.” He wrote, “In the classic disaster flick ‘The Towering
Inferno’ partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same
“Unlike three months ago, when investors
were placing big bets that China’s policymakers would pump cash into the economy to
mistake with China?” He goes on to answer his question, saying,
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the
world’s second largest economy is its new normal.”¶ Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs — where in November
2001 Jim O’Neil coined the term BRICs and forecast that China might surpass the United States economically by 2028 — cut its
forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.¶ The New York Times, Barron’s and Goldman Sachs are all both a seismograph of the
when all three announce within a
few weeks that China’s economic condition ranges from disappointing to verging on a
crash, it transforms the way people think of China. Now the conversation is moving
from forecasts of how quickly China will overtake the United States to considerations of
what the consequences of a Chinese crash would be.¶ Doubting China¶ Suddenly finding Stratfor amid the
conventional wisdom and the creators of the conventional wisdom. Therefore,
conventional wisdom regarding China does feel odd, I must admit. Having first noted the underlying contradictions in China’s
economic growth years ago, when most viewed China as the miracle Japan wasn’t, and having been scorned for not understanding
the shift in global power underway, it is gratifying to now have a lot of company. Over the past couple of years, the ranks of the China
doubters had grown. But the
past few months have seen a sea change. We have gone from China
the omnipotent, the belief that there was nothing the Chinese couldn’t work out, to the
realization that China no longer works.¶ It has not been working for some time. One of the things masking
China’s weakening has been Chinese statistics, which Krugman referred to as “even more fictional than most.” China is a vast
country in territory and population. Gathering information on how it is doing would be a daunting task, even were China inclined to
do so. Instead, China understands that in the West, there is an assumption that government statistics bear at least a limited
relationship to truth. Beijing accordingly uses its numbers to shape perceptions inside and outside China of how it is doing. The
Chinese release their annual gross domestic product numbers in the third week of January (and only revise them the following year).
They can’t possibly know how they did that fast, and they don’t. But they do know what they want the world to believe about their
China in fact has had an
extraordinary period of growth. The last 30 years have been remarkable, marred only by
the fact that the Chinese started at such a low point due to the policies of the Maoist
period. Growth at first was relatively easy; it was hard for China to do worse. But make no mistake: China surged. Still, basing
growth, and the world has believed them — hence, the fantastic tales of economic growth.¶
economic performance on consumption, Krugman notes that China is barely larger economically than Japan. Given the
compounding effects of China’s guesses at GDP, we would guess it remains behind Japan, but how can you tell? We can say without
a doubt that China’s economy has grown dramatically in the past 30 years but that
it is no longer growing nearly as
quickly as it once did.¶ China’s growth surge was built on a very unglamorous fact: Chinese wages were far below Western
wages, and therefore the Chinese were able to produce a certain class of products at lower cost than possible in the West. The
Chinese built businesses around this, and Western companies built factories in China to take advantage of the differential. Since
Chinese workers were unable to purchase many of the products they produced given their wages ,
China built its growth
on exports.¶ For this to continue, China had to maintain its wage differential indefinitely .
But China had another essential policy: Beijing was terrified of unemployment and the social
consequences that flow from it. This was a rational fear, but one that contradicted China’s main strength, its wage
advantage. Because the Chinese feared unemployment, Chinese policy, manifested in bank lending policies, stressed preventing
unemployment by keeping businesses going even when they were inefficient. China also used bank lending to build massive
infrastructure and commercial and residential property. Over time, this policy created huge inefficiencies in the Chinese economy.
Without recessions, inefficiencies develop. Growing the economy is possible, but not growing profitability. Eventually, the economy
As businesses become inefficient,
production costs rise. And that leads to inflation. As money is lent to keep inefficient
businesses going, inflation increases even more markedly. The increase in inefficiency is compounded
will be dragged down by its inefficiency.¶ Inflation vs. Unemployment¶
by the growth of the money supply prompted by aggressive lending to keep the economy going. As this persisted over many years,
the inefficiencies built into the Chinese economy have become staggering.¶
The second thing to bear in mind is
the overwhelming poverty of China, where 900 million people have an annual per capita income around the same
level as Guatemala, Georgia, Indonesia or Mongolia ($3,000-$3,500 a year), while around 500 million of those have an annual per
capita income around the same level as India, Nicaragua, Ghana, Uzbekistan or Nigeria ($1,500-$1,700). China’s overall per capita
GDP is around the same level as the Dominican Republic, Serbia, Thailand or Jamaica. Stimulating an economy where more than a
Economic stimulus makes sense when products can be
sold to the public. But the vast majority of Chinese cannot afford the products produced
in China, and therefore, stimulus will not increase consumption of those products. As
important, stimulating demand so that inefficient factories can sell products is not only
inflationary, it is suicidal. The task is to increase consumption, not to subsidize inefficiency.¶ The Chinese are thus in a
billion people live in deep poverty is impossible.
trap. If they continue aggressive lending to failing businesses, they get inflation. That increases costs and makes the Chinese less
competitive in exports, which are also falling due to the recession in Europe and weakness in the United States. Allowing businesses
to fail brings unemployment, a massive social and political problem. The Chinese have zigzagged from cracking down on lending by
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
regulating informal lending and raising interbank rates to loosening restrictions on lending by removing the floor on the benchmark
lending rate and by increasing lending to small- and medium-sized businesses. Both policies are problematic.¶ The Chinese have
maintained a strategy of depending on exports without taking into account the operation of the business cycle in the West, which
means that periodic and substantial contractions of demand will occur. China’s industrial plant is geared to Western demand. When
Western demand contracted, the result was the mess you see now.¶ The Chinese economy could perhaps be growing at 7.4 percent,
but I doubt the number is anywhere near that. Some estimates place growth at closer to 5 percent. Regardless of growth, the ability
to maintain profit margins is rarely considered. Producing and selling at or even below cost will boost GDP numbers but undermines
the financial system. This happened to Japan in the early 1990s. And it is happening in China now.¶
The Chinese can
prevent the kind of crash that struck East Asia in 1997. Their currency isn’t convertible, so there can’t be a
run on it. They continue to have a command economy; they are still communist, after all. But they cannot avoid the consequences of
their economic reality, and the longer they put off the day of reckoning, the harder it will become to recover from it. They have
already postponed the reckoning far longer than they should have. They would postpone it further if they could by continuing to
support failing businesses with loans. They can do that for a very long time — provided they are prepared to emulate the Soviet
The Chinese don’t want that, but what they do want is a miraculous
resolution to their problem. There are no solutions that don’t involve agony, so they put
off the day of reckoning and slowly decline. ¶ China’s Transformation¶ The Chinese are not going
to completely collapse economically any more than the Japanese or South Koreans did. What will happen is that
China will behave differently than before. With no choices that don’t frighten them, the Chinese will focus on
containing the social and political fallout, both by trying to target benefits to politically
sensitive groups and by using their excellent security apparatus to suppress and deter
unrest. The Chinese economic performance will degrade, but crisis will be avoided and political interests
model’s demise.
protected. Since much of China never benefited from the boom, there is a massive force that has felt marginalized and victimized by
coastal elites. That is not a bad foundation for the Communist Party to rely on. ¶ The key is understanding that if China cannot solve
its problems without unacceptable political consequences, it will try to stretch out the decline. Japan had a lost decade only in the
minds of Western investors, who implicitly value aggregate GDP growth over other measures of success such as per capita GDP
China could very well face an extended period of intense inwardness
and low economic performance. The past 30 years is a tough act to follow.
growth or full employment.
Chinese might is no more. Long live the Heisei Era!
Friedman 7/23—George Friedman is the Founder and Chairman of Stratfor. [“The End Of The Chinese Economic
Miracle.” 7/23/13. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/07/23/the-end-of-the-chinese-economic-miracle/]//MM
The obvious economic impact on the rest of the world will fall on the producers of industrial commodities such as iron ore.
extravagant expectations for Chinese growth will not be met ,
The
and therefore expectations for
commodity prices won’t be met. Since the Chinese economic failure has been underway for quite awhile, the degradation in prices
has already happened. Australia in particular has been badly hit by the Chinese situation, just as it was by the Japanese situation a
generation ago.¶ The
Chinese are, of course, keeping a great deal of money in U.S. government
instruments and other markets. Contrary to fears, that money will not be withdrawn. The
Chinese problem isn’t a lack of capital, and repatriating that money would simply increase inflation. Had the Chinese been able to
put that money to good use, it would have never been invested in the United States in the first place. The outflow of money from
China was a symptom of the disease: Lacking the structure to invest in China, the government and private funds went overseas. In so
doing, Beijing sought to limit destabilization in China, while private Chinese funds looked for a haven against the storm that was
already blowing.¶ Rather
than the feared repatriation of funds, the United States will continue
to be the target of major Chinese cash inflows. In a world where Europe is still reeling, only the United States
is both secure and large enough to contain Chinese appetites for safety. Just as Japanese investment in the 1990s represented capital
flight rather than a healthy investment appetite, so the behavior we have seen from Chinese investors in recent years is capital flight:
This money has underpinned American markets;
it is not going away, and in fact more is on the way.¶ The major shift in the international
order will be the decline of China’s role in the region. China’s ability to project military
power in Asia has been substantially overestimated. Its geography limits its ability to project power in
money searching for secure havens regardless of return.
Eurasia, an endeavor that would require logistics far beyond China’s capacity. Its naval capacity is still limited compared with the
The idea that it will compensate for internal economic problems by genuine
(as opposed to rhetorical) military action is therefore unlikely. China has a genuine
internal security problem that will suck the military, which remains a domestic security
force, into actions of little value. In our view, the most important shift will be the reemergence of Japan as the dominant economic and political power in East Asia in a slow
United States.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
China will continue to be a major power, and it will continue to
matter a great deal economically. Being troubled is not the same as ceasing to exist.
China will always exist. It will, however, no longer be the low-wage, high-growth center
of the world. Like Japan before it, it will play a different role. ¶ In the global system, there
are always low-wage, high-growth countries because the advanced industrial powers’
consumers want to absorb goods at low wages. Becoming a supplier of those goods is a major opportunity for,
and disruptor to, those countries. No one country can replace China, but China will be replaced.
The next step in this process is identifying China’s successors.
process neither will really want.¶
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Topicality
You will need to flesh out the 1NC with a violation and some impacts. None
of this material is new, just packaged in a different way – like we talked
about in lab, this aff arguably has to do a lot of stuff that isn’t “economic
engagement” to solve. This part of the file is thus arranged to allow you to
concede a 2AC “we meet” argument in order to complicate the affirmative’s
ability to solve.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Energy 1NC
A. Interpretation: Energy is non-economic engagement
Australian Government, 11
(“The White Paper and Australia’s Strategic Relationship with China”, 9/28
http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/public-submissions/nd.doc
Australia risks losing a healthy relationship with Asia due to overdependence on trade relations and shortcomings of soft power. As
trade and economic ties continue to grow between Australia and China, non-economic
bilateral relations must
be improved in order for general engagement to remain stable. To keep pace with the Asian Century,
Australia must strive to find greater common ground with China outside of trade and commerce. The White Paper should take into
consideration issues of non-economic relations in order to fully address Australia’s long term relationship with China.¶
Some
possible considerations for the White Paper to take into account in
building a strategy for improving non-economic engagement with China:¶
Increased frequency of diplomatic visits and high-level visits; building a policy for minimum
frequency and level of such diplomatic engagement¶ Increasing volume and breadth of non-diplomatic
high-level exchanges such as academic conferences, exchange trips between sister agencies, and two-way
exchanges between schools by dramatically increasing government funding or subsidization of such engagement ¶
Encouraging bilateral cooperation and partnerships between non-economically driven
organisations such as public sector agencies and think tanks for the purpose of fostering mutual
investments between China and Australia where more than trade or profit is in question¶ Encouraging cultural literacy
in the Australian population through people-to-people exchange, tourism, and language
training; in particular encouraging Mandarin study for non-heritage students from an early age¶ Increasing
funding for China-Australia partnerships on development in science, math,
energy, environment and technology ; mitigating the risk and impact of China’s capabilities surpassing
those of Australia in the near future¶ Cultivating soft power through aid funding and development
projects
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Assistance 1NC
A. Interpretation: Economic engagement is just trade, investment and
technology transfer – it excludes aid and development assistance
Hall, 11 - Senior Fellow in International Relations, Australian National University (Ian “The engagement of India”, Paper submitted
at workshop for the Australia India Institute,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30197993/1_Hall.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIR6FSIMDFXPEERSA&Expire
s=1371520591&Signature=%2FQOoAjmvG%2BCjEcrw3Ys8FyKydp8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline
This book explores the various modes of engagement employed in the Indian case, their uses, and their limits. It follows the
growing consensus in the literature that defines “engagement” as any strategy that
employs “positive inducements” to influence the behavior of states.8 It acknowledges that various
different engagement strategies can be utilized. In particular, as Miroslav Nincic argues, we can distinguish between “exchange”
strategies and “catalytic” ones. In the first, positive inducements are offered to try to “leverage” particular quid pro quos from the
target state.9 In the second, inducements are offered merely to catalyze something bigger, perhaps even involving the wholesale
transformation of a target society.10 In this kind of engagement, many different incentives might be laid out for many different
constituencies, from educational opportunities for emerging leaders, to trade concessions for the economic elite. The objects of
engagement can include changing specific policies of the target state or transforming the wider political, economic, or social order of
a target society. Both of these objectives could be pursued with coercive strategies employing either compellence or deterrence—or
indeed with a mixture of both engagement and coercion.11 But much recent research has argued that the evidence for the efficacy of
both compellence and deterrence in changing target state policies is inconclusive.12 Both military and economic sanctions have been
shown to have mixed results and many scholars argue that coercion rarely works.13 By contrast, there is some considerable evidence
that engagement strategies can elicit both discrete quid pro quos from states and wider political and social change within them.14
Moreover, it is clear that engagement is both more commonly utilized than often recognized by scholars of international relations,
and more politically acceptable to politicians and publics in engaging and target states than coercion, except perhaps in cases where
the target state of engagement is especially controversial.15
Engagement strategies take different
forms depending on their objectives . They can emphasize diplomacy, aiming at
the improvement of formal, state-to-state contacts, and be led by professional diplomats, special envoys, or
politicians. Alternatively, they can emphasize military ties, utilizing military-to-military
dialogues, exchanges, and training to build trust, convey strategic intentions, or simply to foster greater openness
in the target state’s defense establishment.16 They can be primarily economic in approach,
using trade, investment, and technology transfer to engender change in the
target society, and perhaps to generate greater economic interdependence, constraining a target state’s foreign policy choices.17
Finally, they can seek to create channels for people-to-people contact through statedriven public diplomacy, business forums and research networks, aid and
development assistance , and so on.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC
If they meet, they don’t solve. Technical assistance and public-private
sectors are necessary to reduce greenhouse gases
COCEF 12 - La Comisión de Cooperación Ecológica Fronteriza
(“Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico Border Region,”
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pdf)//BB
This white paper describes the current deficit in the U.S.-Mexico border region in terms ¶ of renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and transportation projects focused on the ¶ reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG).
In the presentation, the argument is made that ¶ the primary reason this project deficit exists is due to: ¶ 1.
limited resources for project development, ¶ 2. lack of capacity building, at the most fundamental level, in
the public and publicprivate sectors, and ¶ 3. lack of technical assistance program to
address this deficit ¶ Specifically targeting a technical assistance program for renewable
energy, energy ¶ efficiency, and transportation projects to achieve GHG reductions would be
invaluable ¶ in promoting an environment for effective climate action in border
communities. A ¶ proposed technical assistance program could help public sector entities
build the bases ¶ on which they can develop both mitigation and adaptation
greenhouse gas projects. ¶ Mitigation projects are the priority of the program since they are
intended to directly ¶ reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation projects are important as well, and it is ¶
recommended they be developed as “capacity building” initiatives to assist ¶ municipalities better manage the current realities of
climate change. Ultimately, these ¶ project
types do need technical assistance funds , and the
funds will need a highly ¶ capacitated and experienced program manager .
Technical assistance and private sector development are necessary to solve
Wood 10 – PhD in Political Studies @ Queen’s, Professor @ ITAM in Mexico City
(Duncan, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf)//BB
Although Mexico's growing problems in oil production currently dominate discussions
within the country's energy community at present, the enormous potential of its renewable energy
sector deserves much closer attention and enthusiasm. The 2008 advances in
defining the legal framework for renewable energy, and in providing financing
mechanisms, though still insufficient , represent important steps forward on the path
to a more comprehensive development of the sector. The Calderon administration's interest in climate
change mitigation strategies and in renewable energy have helped to propel the sector forward since 2006, and by 2012 Mexico
will have an installed capacity of almost 5 GW by 2012, up from 2 GW in 2008.¶ The explosive growth in renewable energy at the
global, regional and national levels seen in recent years is likely to be only the beginning of a prolonged surge in the
development of green energy capacity. Thanks in part to
sustained interest by various United States'
government agencies in Mexican RE potential, Mexico has built up an impressive renewable
energy portfolio in recent years, and will make further advances in both capacity and technology in the future.
Mexico is ideally placed to export this energy to the United States thanks to
geography, its free trade agreement with the US, and growing demand in a number of
US states for clean energy.¶ The remaining obstacles to growth in the RE sector are
numerous, but they are far from insurmountable. With continued technical assistance from
the US and other foreign governments, and with burgeoning interest from the private sector ,
Mexico's federal and state governments are well-placed to develop innovative ways to
overcome current barriers. The rewards for their efforts will be increased levels of
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
green energy, new jobs that are sustainable in the long term, and much needed
income from energy exports.
BECC is only technical assistance over energy
COCEF 12 - La Comisión de Cooperación Ecológica Fronteriza
(“Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico Border Region,”
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pdf)//BB
SECTION 4: BECC – THE BORDER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER 25¶ Since 1995, the BECC
[Border
Environmental Cooperation Commission] has demonstrated a very strong capacity to
manage technical ¶ assistance programs for capacity building and project
development. They have ¶ administered millions of dollars in technical
assistance funds for hundreds of projects ¶ across the border region. Two of the most
noteworthy technical assistance programs ¶ that BECC has been entrusted with by the U.S. EPA are: Border 2012 Program
(2005) ¶ and the Project Develop Assistance Program (1997). ¶ Border 2012 ¶ In 2005, EPA requested that BECC assist in
administering the Border 2012 program. ¶ Since 2006 when the first program funds were provided for environmental projects,
the ¶ BECC has distributed over $10 M in funds and managed over 183 projects, of which 95 ¶ are complete and 71 in progress. ¶
BECC provides logistical support for the work groups, assists in identifying priority areas ¶ for
grant funding, reviews requests for proposals, assists in project selection and project ¶
management, and ensures quality of deliverables and compliance with work plans. ¶
BECC’s participation in the program has been instrumental in solidifying bi-national ¶
collaboration in the development of projects, which have provided tangible results and
¶ basic
scientific information on environmental and human health conditions along the ¶ border. ¶ Project Development
Assistance Program (PDAP) ¶ As mentioned in Section 3, the BECC has distributed approximately $34.5 million ¶ through the
PDAP into 203 water, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment ¶ projects. ¶ Of the 203 projects, approximately 72%
(146) have been implemented or are under ¶ development resulting in 85% of PDAP funds ($29.4M) invested in these projects.
This ¶ demonstrates a successful management of the program. Approximately $19.5M in ¶ PDAP funding has led to BECC
certified projects and has leveraged $1.2B in funds from ¶ programs and institutions such as the Border Environmental
Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), ¶ NADB Loans, USDA, CONAGUA and state and municipal programs. This provides a ratio ¶ is
$1dollar of PDAP to about $61 dollars of construction funding for certified projects,¶ further demonstrating the
successful financial management of the technical assistance ¶ program. ¶ In addition, $7M in PDAP
funding has led to the implementation of projects through ¶ other agencies, of which the final construction costs are to be
determined. This would ¶ increase the leveraging effect of PDAP. ¶ SECTION 5: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE – THE MAIN
SOLUTION ¶ A Technical Assistance for the Border Region ¶ The
BECC has worked a considerable
amount on projects in its “core” sectors of water, ¶ wastewater, and solid waste for over 15 years. The
technical assistance programs that ¶ have been utilized by the BECC have been
effective and successful in creating projects ¶ for the NADB to finance and, most importantly,
have contributed to dramatic ¶ improvements in the quality of life in the U.S.-Mexico border
region. However, the next ¶ generation of public sector infrastructure activity will require a
new type of technical ¶ assistance focused on impacting air quality and climate change tied
to energy efficiency, ¶ clean energy and transportation. ¶ A technical assistance program for clean and
efficient energy and transportation project ¶ development and related capacity building could have the following
outcomes: ¶ 1. Border communities would have access to targeted resources in grants and ¶
technical expertise in these sectors. ¶ 2. The BECC’s role would provide for a high degree for
success given its track record ¶ and management of environmental programs. ¶ 3. Border
communities would see their capacity to plan, develop, and manage ¶ clean energy and
transportation projects improve. ¶ 4. Clean energy and transportation infrastructure projects tied to
the public sector ¶ would begin to be implemented more frequently.¶ Border States’ Priority Technical
Assistance Needs ¶ As part of the interview process with the border state government environmental and ¶
energy agencies, they were queried about what they considered priority technical ¶
assistance needs in their state. Their responses track similarly to the priority projects in ¶ that they show a
clear and ample need for technical assistance in the focus sectors.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Technical energy assistance is the aff’s means of solvency
COCEF 12 - La Comisión de Cooperación Ecológica Fronteriza
(“Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico Border Region,”
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pdf)//BB
One of the largest challenges for any local entity responsible for mitigation and ¶ adaptation
is the availability of adequate resources for project development . These ¶ sectors are not
dissimilar to traditional water, wastewater, and solid waste. Project ¶ screening, planning, feasibility
studies, environmental review, and designs are essential ¶ project development
activities, and frequently limited funding inhibits many worthy ¶ projects from
proceeding through development to implementation. ¶ It is advisable to have a source
of technical assistance funding exclusively dedicated to ¶ the clean energy, energy
efficiency, and transportation sectors specifically targeted to ¶ projects in the U.S-Mexico border
region. The lack of a program has only exacerbated ¶ the challenging situation of
border public entities that are interested in developing ¶ these types of projects.
Additionally, border communities and public entities many ¶ times lack the capacity to
develop, implement, and manage innovative energy or ¶ transportation projects. They lack
the basic knowledge of these sectors just as many ¶ communities did in water when the
BECC and NADB began developing water and ¶ wastewater projects in 1995. ¶ Considering the resource
deficit for project development and capacity building in the ¶ border region, progress
on energy and greenhouse gas management is a great ¶ challenge . Border
communities will have difficulties committing to these new sectors ¶ without
financial resources to assist them resulting in fewer projects, fewer GHG ¶
emission reductions, and fewer “green” jobs being developed. What that means for ¶
border communities are – limited resources equal limited opportunities .
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
G2G 1NC
Economic engagement is exclusively government-to-government
Daga, 13 - director of research at Politicas Publicas para la Libertad, in Bolivia, and a visiting senior policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation (Sergio, “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic:
U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela”, National Center for Policy Analysis, 5/15,
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf)
Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus
on government-to-government engagement through 1) international trade agreements
designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast governmentto-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3)
international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by
individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution;
however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government, some
issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC
The plan has to engage the private sector to solve
Carus ‘13
UK journalist, regularly reporting on clean energy policy and finance from California for a global audience
(Felicity, “Mexico offers tantalising prospect of a dawning major market,” http://www.pvtech.org/editors_blog/mexico_offers_tantalising_prospect_of_a_dawning_major_market)//BB
Solar investors in the US and further afield would really love to get their hands on Mexico's solar market: great resource on
cheap desert land located squarely in the southern sun-belt. Some experts estimate that it would only take PV panels spread over
just 25km2 of land in Chihuahua or the Sonoran desert to supply Mexico’s electricity demand.¶ National legislation to reduce
carbon emissions 30% by 2020 and constrained natural gas supplies are pushing companies to renewable choices like never
before. There is only one utility company to deal with, the state-owned Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE).¶ And its nearest
neighbour is a guzzler of imported electricity and already linked through the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.¶
Electricity trade between the United States and Mexico started in 1905, when privately owned utilities located in remote towns
on both sides of the border helped "balance" electricity demand with a couple of low voltage lines, according to the US Energy
Information Agency.¶ Since 2006, Mexico has been a very small net exporter of electricity to the US. But electricity imports will likely boom after
the Department of Energy granted a permit to a subsidiary of Sempra International for a 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that will carry electricity from a Mexican wind farm to the California market.¶
Meanwhile, Baja California is the location for Latin America's largest solar installation to date, a 30MW project to be completed by the end of this year.¶ When US president Barack Obama met Mexican
president Enrique Peña Nieto earlier this month, renewable energy was firmly on the agenda (along with gun control, economic cooperation and illegal drugs).¶ Unlike the US, however, Mexico even has an
energy policy. The freshly minted National Energy Strategy 2013-2027 agreed only in April estimates that 6GW of solar energy could be developed by 2020.¶ Some say that estimate is way too conservative
and forecast that PV will boom under these conditions, perhaps even 150-fold, while shorter term solar growth could go from today's estimated 50MW-70MW capacity to 250MW by 2015.¶ Oh, and did I
the grid has been
overbuilt by 50% to accommodate anticipated growth as the country recoups its losses from the global
mention its growing population of 114 million inhabitants and an annual GDP growth rate last year of 4%? As if that weren't good enough news,
recession.¶ John Skibinski is executive director at Global Renewables Group, which is based in Las Vegas with a subsidiary in
Mexico called Socios Energeticos de Mexico Verde.¶ During a webinar ahead of the Mexican International Renewable Energy
Congress in Mexico City next week, Skibinski said:¶ "Within two and a half years at most, Mexico will explode in solar energy
because its infrastructure is ready for it. Its economic climate is now accelerating, its government climate is favourable towards
solar and wind … there is so much desert land available at low cost. We should see 250MW by 2015 of deployed solar farms in
Mexico easily."¶ He said that energy-intensive industry was facing a price on carbon that could force more interest in
renewables.¶ "What we found from one steel mill was that for every 3MW of natural gas [electricity] production, they need 1MW
of solar to [reduce their] emissions footprint,” said Skibinski.¶ “Even at the corporate level, not just national level, corporations
are saying, hey if I'm going to keep my production on full, I've got to do something about [greenhouse gas] (GHG) reductions. So
a lot of people are going to be turning to solar to keep their production going as well as ramp up.¶ "Mexico is the 11th largest
economy in the world, and it's also the 11th largest carbon polluter in the world. It's the second largest polluter in Latin America,
so it's highly focused on what it should do with solar and wind."¶ Skibinski, who has clearly sweated it out in the field, cautioned
half-hearted solar developers hopeful of striking Mexican gold.¶ "You've got to bring your own support when you come to this
country, there is nobody here that knows solar, there is nobody here that knows wind,” he said.¶ “It's new to the country and it
requires training, development as well as pilot installations. We've done that for the utilities, the banks and the government
we've shown with pilot installations how we can reduce GHG emissions. They are highly interested in new technology – they
don't want solar panels that are 15 years old, 100W panels not going to cut it and they are already looking at 115W."¶ Skibinski
has already seen some developers get burned by the Mexican sun.¶ "I have seen 50 independent power producers apply for
power plant generation – two of them got approved," he said.¶ "The other 48 were on the wrong place on the grid. You've got to
do your homework when you want to put in an installation into Mexico. A utility will deny your application if it doesn't fit their
needs, they are very good at what they do in terms of their grid."¶ Brian Schmidly, the chief executive of Rio Grande Solar, said
he was more cautious about the speed of deployment in Mexico, where his company has development partners.¶ "You're going to
see growth in the PV industry," he said. "I just think it's going to be slow this year and pick up a little bit of steam in 2014, but
you could potentially see 250MW by 2015."¶ Schmidly said that government subsidies for electricity and bespoke
deals
between commercial and industrial consumers and their electricity provider
were major barriers to the development of solar in Mexico. Retail rates for
electricity varied between 10c per kwh and 15c per kwh, way too wide a variation for
investor appetite.¶ "Most consumers negotiate rates with CFE - subsidised electricity rates makes solar difficult to
compete," he said.¶ Recent reversals in price declines for PV panels could also compound the problem and slow PV plant
development in Mexico, he said.¶ "Panel prices [have] moved north for first time in three to four years," he said.¶ "[Panels]
usually represent about 40% of a PV plant's cost. So if that's a trend that we're going to continue to see as a result of the
Japanese and Asian markets turning round a little bit faster than everyone was expecting, then you could see some of the cost
advantages for Mexico coming down and that's a trend that we need to watch."¶ Ernesto Hanhausen, managing director of
Emerging Energy & Environment's CleanTech Fund, said that the push for PV installations might come more from "emergency
needs for power than regulation and willingness of the government".¶ He compared Mexico's grid system to North Korea in that
its electricity system is so centralised. But the Mexican government had been creative in its approach to stimulating private
sector investments such as "banking power" where CFE will take excess electricity and store it, reimbursing the generator up to
85% of retail value.¶ But Hanhausen warned that constrained
natural gas supplies were both a boon
and a challenge for renewables. "In the north-west, there's big demand for natural gas and that's where the
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
largest development of PV could be," he said.¶ He added that construction of a natural gas pipeline from the US could supply
areas with greatest demand for electricity such as in the north, but that progress was slow, whereas renewables could be
deployed more quickly.¶ "In the [next] five years, the best way for Mexico to be able to cope with electrical demand is to really
exploit the possibility of developing renewable energy because that can come into play much faster than the installation of
potential gas pipelines,” said Hanhausen.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Categories / Sole Purpose 1NC
A. Interpretation: The instruments of engagement must be exclusively
economic
Jakstaite, 10 - Doctoral Candidate Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political Sciences and Diplomacy (Lithuania)
(Gerda, “CONTAINMENT AND ENGAGEMENT AS MIDDLE-RANGE THEORIES” BALTIC JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS
VOLUME 3, NUMBER 2 (2010), DOI: 10.2478/v10076-010-0015-7)
The approach to engagement as economic engagement focuses exclusively on
economic instruments of foreign policy with the main national interest being security. Economic
engagement is a policy of the conscious development of economic relations with the
adversary in order to change the target state‟s behaviour and to improve bilateral
relations.94¶ Economic engagement is academically wielded in several respects. It recommends that the state engage the target
country in the international community (with the there existing rules) and modify the target state‟s run foreign policy, thus
preventing the emergence of a potential enemy.95 Thus, this strategy aims to ensure safety in particular, whereas economic benefit
is not a priority objective.¶ Objectives of economic engagement indicate that this form of engagement is designed for relations with
problematic countries – those that pose a potential danger to national security of a state that implements economic engagement.
Professor of the University of California Paul Papayoanou and University of Maryland professor Scott Kastner say that economic
engagement should be used in relations with the emerging powers: countries which accumulate more and more power, and attempt
a new division of power in the international system – i.e., pose a serious challenge for the status quo in the international system (the
latter theorists have focused specifically on China-US relations). These theorists also claim that economic engagement is
recommended in relations with emerging powers whose regimes are not democratic – that is, against such players in the
international system with which it is difficult to agree on foreign policy by other means.96 Meanwhile, other supporters of economic
engagement (for example, professor of the University of California Miles Kahler) are not as categorical and do not exclude the
possibility to realize economic engagement in relations with democratic regimes.97¶ Proponents of economic engagement believe
that the economy may be one factor which leads to closer relations and cooperation (a more peaceful foreign policy and the expected
pledge to cooperate) between hostile countries – closer economic ties will develop the target state‟s dependence on economic
engagement implementing state for which such relations will also be cost-effective (i.e., the mutual dependence).¶ However, there
are some important conditions for the economic factor in engagement to be effective and bring the desired results. P. Papayoanou
and S. Kastner note that economic engagement gives the most positive results when initial economic relations with the target state is
minimal and when the target state‟s political forces are interested in development of international economic relations. Whether
economic relations will encourage the target state to develop more peaceful foreign policy and willingness to cooperate will depend
on the extent to which the target state‟s forces with economic interests are influential in internal political structure. If the target
country‟s dominant political coalition includes the leaders or groups interested in the development of international economic
relations, economic ties between the development would bring the desired results. Academics note that in non-democratic countries
in particular leaders often have an interest to pursue economic cooperation with the powerful economic partners because that would
help them maintain a dominant position in their own country.98¶ Proponents of economic engagement do not provide a detailed
description of the means of this form of engagement, but identify a number of possible variants of engagement: conditional
economic engagement, using the restrictions caused by economic dependency and unconditional economic engagement by
exploiting economic dependency caused by the flow. Conditional economic engagement, sometimes called linkage
or economic carrots engagement, could be described as conflicting with economic sanctions. A state that implements this form of
engagement instead of menacing to use sanctions for not changing policy course promises
for a target state to
provide more economic benefits in return for the desired political change. Thus, in this case
economic ties are developed depending on changes in the target state‟s behaviour.99¶ Unconditional economic
engagement is more moderate form of engagement. Engagement applying state while developing economic relations with an
adversary hopes that the resulting economic dependence over time will change foreign
policy course of the target state and reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. Theorists assume that economic
dependence may act as a restriction of target state‟s foreign policy or as transforming factor that changes target state‟s foreign
policy objectives.100¶ Thus, economic engagement focuses solely on economic measures (although
theorists do not give a more detailed description), on strategically important actors of the international arena and includes other
types of engagement, such as the conditional-unconditional economic engagement.
B. Violation – the plan is an environmental arrangement – that is noneconomic engagement
Rose, 8 - Professor of International Trade and Economic Analysis and Policy in the Haas School of Business at the University of
California, Berkeley, NBER research associate and CEPR research fellow (Andrew, “NON-ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT AND
INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE: THE CASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES” April, http://www.nber.org/papers/w13988.pdf)
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Countries, like people, interact with each other on a number of different dimensions. Some
interactions are strictly economic; for instance, countries engage in international trade of
goods, services, capital, and labor. But many are not economic, at least not in any narrow sense. For
instance, the United States seeks to promote human rights and democracy, deter nuclear
proliferation, stop the spread of narcotics, and so forth. Accordingly America, like other countries, participates
in a number of international institutions to further its foreign policy objectives; it has joined security alliances like NATO, and
international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. In this paper,
interesting and understudied
we concentrate on the
case of international environmental arrangements
ask whether participation
in such non-economic partnerships tends to enhance
international economic relations. The answer, in both theory and practice, is positive.
(IEAs). We
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC
If they meet, they don’t solve – their author concludes the plan would have
to create social, political and cultural changes to solve
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,”
pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on
the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual'
projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C
(O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe
reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the
twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the
developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the
strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on
security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they
have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate
change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is
certain is that there
is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such
climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean
profound social, cultural and political changes.
The plan would also have to give a bunch of technical assistance and
training
Wood ‘10
PhD in Political Studies @ Queen’s, Professor @ ITAM in Mexico City
(Duncan, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf)//BB
Over the last 15 years, contributions by United States government agencies to the
development of renewable energy resources in Mexico have left a significant impact.
Most obviously in the wind and solar sectors, Mexico has benefitted from technical assistance, resource identification and
regulatory guidance. The
work of USAID, DOE, Sandia Laboratories and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratories has helped to promote awareness of renewable
energies and has built up human capital in Mexico.¶ All of this, however, should be seen only
as a prelude to what is coming in the near future. With rising demand for renewable energy in the United States and a
limited capacity to generate it from national sources, Mexico's geographical proximity and its free trade
relationship with the US make it an ideal source for green electricity and biofuels. If it
can build up its renewable energy capacity, Mexico stands to benefit enormously
from this opportunity in the form of employment, investment and the sustainable
development of underdeveloped regions.¶ Based on the evidence presented in this report, to help this
capacity develop further, the United States should concentrate its efforts on a number of key
issues in the renewable energy sector.¶ • Financing :¶ create bilateral mechanisms ,
through both the NADBank and new institutional¶ mechanisms to assist in the development of renewable
energy projects throughout¶ Mexico. Special treatment should be given to projects that are aimed at the export of RE¶ to
the US o seed capital will be particularly important in the biofuels sector as it is currently¶
comparatively stagnated due to lack of funds.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
More ev – training / expertise is key
Carus 13 - UK journalist, regularly reporting on clean energy policy and finance from California for a global audience
(Felicity, “Mexico offers tantalising prospect of a dawning major market,” http://www.pvtech.org/editors_blog/mexico_offers_tantalising_prospect_of_a_dawning_major_market)//BB
Solar investors in the US and further afield would really love to get their hands on Mexico's solar market: great resource on
cheap desert land located squarely in the southern sun-belt. Some experts estimate that it
would only take PV
panels spread over just 25km2 of land in Chihuahua or the Sonoran desert to
supply Mexico’s electricity demand .¶ National legislation to reduce carbon emissions 30% by 2020 and
constrained natural gas supplies are pushing companies to renewable choices like never before. There is only one utility
company to deal with, the state-owned Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE).¶ And its nearest neighbour is a guzzler of
imported electricity and already linked through the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.¶ Electricity
trade
between the United States and Mexico started in 1905, when privately owned utilities located in
remote towns on both sides of the border helped "balance" electricity demand with a couple of low voltage lines, according to the
US Energy Information Agency.¶ Since
2006, Mexico has been a very small net exporter of
electricity to the US. But electricity imports will likely boom after the Department of Energy granted a permit to a subsidiary of Sempra International for a 230-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line that will carry electricity from a Mexican wind farm to the California market.¶ Meanwhile, Baja California is the location for Latin America's largest solar installation to date, a 30MW
project to be completed by the end of this year.¶ When US president Barack Obama met Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto earlier this month, renewable energy was firmly on the agenda (along with
gun control, economic cooperation and illegal drugs).¶ Unlike the US, however, Mexico even has an energy policy. The freshly minted National Energy Strategy 2013-2027 agreed only in April estimates that
6GW of solar energy could be developed by 2020.¶ Some say that estimate is way too conservative and forecast that PV will boom under these conditions, perhaps even 150-fold, while shorter term solar
growth could go from today's estimated 50MW-70MW capacity to 250MW by 2015.¶ Oh, and did I mention its growing population of 114 million inhabitants and an annual GDP growth rate last year of 4%?
the grid has been overbuilt by 50% to accommodate anticipated
growth as the country recoups its losses from the global recession.¶ John Skibinski is executive director at Global Renewables
As if that weren't good enough news,
Group, which is based in Las Vegas with a subsidiary in Mexico called Socios Energeticos de Mexico Verde.¶ During a webinar
ahead of the Mexican International Renewable Energy Congress in Mexico City next week, Skibinski said:¶ "Within two and a
half years at most, Mexico will explode in solar energy because its infrastructure is ready for it. Its economic climate is now
accelerating, its government climate is favourable towards solar and wind … there is so much desert land available at low cost.
We should see 250MW by 2015 of deployed solar farms in Mexico easily."¶ He said that energy-intensive industry was facing a
price on carbon that could force more interest in renewables.¶ "What we found from one steel mill was that for every 3MW of
natural gas [electricity] production, they need 1MW of solar to [reduce their] emissions footprint,” said Skibinski.¶ “Even at the
corporate level, not just national level, corporations are saying, hey if I'm going to keep my production on full, I've got to do
something about [greenhouse gas] (GHG) reductions. So a lot of people are going to be turning to solar to keep their production
going as well as ramp up.¶ "Mexico is the 11th largest economy in the world, and it's also the 11th largest carbon polluter in the
world. It's the second largest polluter in Latin America, so it's highly focused on what it should do with solar and wind."¶
Skibinski, who has clearly sweated it out in the field, cautioned half-hearted solar developers hopeful of striking Mexican gold.¶
"You've got to bring your own support when you come to this country, there
is nobody here that knows
solar, there is nobody here that knows wind,” he said.¶ “It's new to the country and
it requires training , development as well as pilot installations. We've done that for the utilities,
the banks and the government we've shown with pilot installations how we can reduce GHG emissions. They are highly
interested in new technology – they don't want solar panels that are 15 years old, 100W panels not going to cut it and they are
already looking at 115W."¶ Skibinski has already seen some developers get burned by the Mexican sun.¶ "I
have seen 50
independent power producers apply for power plant generation – two of them got
approved," he said.¶ "The other 48 were on the wrong place on the grid. You've got to do your homework when you want to
put in an installation into Mexico. A utility will deny your application if it doesn't fit their needs, they are very good at what they
do in terms of their grid."¶ Brian Schmidly, the chief executive of Rio Grande Solar, said he was more cautious about the speed
of deployment in Mexico, where his company has development partners.¶ "You're going to see growth in the PV industry," he
said. "I just think it's going to be slow this year and pick up a little bit of steam in 2014, but you could potentially see 250MW by
2015."¶ Schmidly said that government subsidies for electricity and bespoke deals between commercial and industrial
consumers and their electricity provider were major barriers to the development of solar in Mexico. Retail rates for electricity
varied between 10c per kwh and 15c per kwh, way too wide a variation for investor appetite.¶ "Most consumers negotiate rates
with CFE - subsidised electricity rates makes solar difficult to compete," he said.¶ Recent reversals in price declines for PV
panels could also compound the problem and slow PV plant development in Mexico, he said.¶ "Panel prices [have] moved north
for first time in three to four years," he said.¶ "[Panels] usually represent about 40% of a PV plant's cost. So if that's a trend that
we're going to continue to see as a result of the Japanese and Asian markets turning round a little bit faster than everyone was
expecting, then you could see some of the cost advantages for Mexico coming down and that's a trend that we need to watch."¶
Ernesto Hanhausen, managing director of Emerging Energy & Environment's CleanTech Fund, said that the push for PV
installations might come more from "emergency needs for power than regulation and willingness of the government".¶ He
compared Mexico's grid system to North Korea in that its electricity system is so centralised. But the Mexican government had
been creative in its approach to stimulating private sector investments such as "banking power" where CFE will take excess
electricity and store it, reimbursing the generator up to 85% of retail value.¶ But Hanhausen warned that constrained natural
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
gas supplies were both a boon and a challenge for renewables. "In the north-west, there's big demand for natural gas and that's
where the largest development of PV could be," he said.¶ He added that construction of a natural
gas pipeline from the US
was slow, whereas
renewables could be deployed more quickly .¶ " In the [next] five years , the best
way for Mexico to be able to cope with electrical demand is to really exploit the possibility
of developing renewable energy because that can come into play much faster than the
installation of potential gas pipelines,” said Hanhausen.
could supply areas with greatest demand for electricity such as in the north, but that progress
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
US Invest in China CP
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
China CP
Text: The United States federal government should provide renewable
energy assistance to China.
US Investment key to Chinese clean tech – better tech, more experience
Chen et al 10 Chen, Qian, Peridas, Qiu, Ho: Natural Resources Defense Council, Friedmann: Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Li, Wei: Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sung, Fowler: Clean Air Task Force,
Seligsohn, Liu, Forbes: World Resources Institute, Zhang: China Tsinghua University, Zhao: Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jason Chen, Jingjing Qian, George Peridas, Yueming Qiu, Bruce Ho, Julio
Friedmann, Xiaochun Li, Ning Wei, S. Ming Sung, Mike Fowler, Deborah Seligsohn, Yue Liu, Sarah Forbes, Dongjie Zhang, Lifeng
Zhao, December 2010, “Identifying Near-Term Opportunities For Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in China,”
http://docs.nrdc.org/international/files/int_10121001a.pdf)
Forging international
partnerships on specific CCS projects in China could help accelerate
learning, develop best practices, and share knowledge and expertise across countries and
companies. The most promising near-term CCS candidates are likely to combine favorable geology with proximity to large,
inexpensive sources of CO2 , particularly pairing EOR/EGR with ammonia plants, as outlined in Chapter 6. International
involvement in Chinese CCS projects would be of most value in three key technical areas of geologic
sequestration: subsurface geologic engineering, long-term monitoring and verification, and
long-distance CO2 transportation infrastructure, where industrialized countries have valuable experiences
to share. Relevant expertise could be provided from research institutions and/or experienced companies, and would be facilitated
through government support. With its extensive CO2 EOR infrastructure and subsurface geologic engineering expertise,the
United States is highly qualified to play a key role in collaborative CCS demonstration
projects in China through its scientific community and corporations. Forming public-private
partnerships to study the suitability and capacity of potential reservoirs for CO2 storage, their response to injection, and the longterm fate of injected CO2 would be extremely valuable. All project participants could gain valuable information on the operating
costs of CCS facilities in different geologic conditions, allowing more accurate assessments of CCS economics.212 The
United
States is also a leader in CO2 transportation technology, and has more than 5,800 km of CO2 pipelines
already in place.213 In contrast, China currently operates only one CO2 pipeline of 6.5 km in length.214 Therefore, China
could benefit from cooperation with U.S. laboratories and pipeline operators in
developing and building a CO2 transportation infrastructure. Finally, the international community
and businesses could also share knowledge and technology for monitoring and verification as well as risk management of CCS
projects—through mutually beneficial ways with intellectual property rights (IP) properly protected—to avoid CO2 releases and
groundwater contamination. Long-term monitoring to ensure environmental efficacy and public safety is vital, and must be part of
any CCS projects in China from the outset.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Solves
US Investment in China accelerates renewable expansion
ChinaFAQs 11
[A joint project of the World Resources Institute and experts from leading American universities, think tanks and government
laboratories, “ChinaFAQs: US-China Renewable Energy Partnership” Dec 13, 2011, http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/chinafaqs-uschina-renewable-energy-partnership]
The potential benefit of collaboration between the United States and China isn’t lost on
wind industry executives in both nations. China has been doubling its wind capacity annually in recent years, and building new wind
farms is a key part of China’s strategy to boost the amount of power it gets from non-fossil fuel sources to 11.4% of the total by 2015.
Wind power will also help China reduce its “carbon intensity” – the amount of carbon produced per unit of gross domestic product –
by a targeted 17% over the same period. “There is serious discussion of and planning for producing 150 to 300 new gigawatts of wind
and solar power in China by 2030,” notes Kline. As a result, “any company that expects to be a serious player in the international
wind power market needs a substantial presence in China,” says Second Wind’s Letteney. For
U.S. companies, China
offers a potentially vast market – and an unusual opportunity to rapidly deploy, test and improve new technologies. For
Chinese firms, partnering presents an opportunity to accelerate expansion by working with
U.S. companies that pioneered ways of converting breezes into kilowatts, and now have decades of
experience
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
China Investment Counterplan
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
China Investment 1NC
Text: The People’s Republic of China should provide renewable energy
assistance to Mexico.
That solves the whole case
IPCS, 13
IPCS (Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies) conducts independent research on conventional and non-conventional security issues
in the region and shares its findings with policy makers and the public. It provides a forum for discussion with the strategic
community on strategic issues and strives to explore alternatives. Moreover, it works towards building capacity among young
scholars for greater refinement of their analyses of South Asian security. (“China And Latin America: Quest For Energy Security –
Analysis”, Eurasia Review, June 17, 2013, http://www.eurasiareview.com/17062013-china-and-latin-america-quest-for-energysecurity-analysis/)//TWR
Xi Jinping toured through Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) countries on 31May-6 June 2013. He visited
Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and Mexico. This marks a new chapter in Chinese foreign policy. Why did President
Xi choose these three specific countries? What were the achievements of the visit? What does this imply for the future trajectory of China-LAC
LAC countries are one of the developing regions of the world
and have immense potential for investments. The three countries Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and Mexico are
relations?¶ Importance of the LAC for China¶
significant in their own way. Trinidad and Tobago is one of the wealthiest countries in the Caribbean, with large reserves of oil and gas they form a
regional petroleum hub; often called as the pearl in the Caribbean. Costa Rica is well known for its renewable energy; more than ninety percent of its
Mexico is the largest
economy in Latin America and has a thriving oil industry. Overall, all these countries
offer an alternative and reliable source of energy to satisfy China’s increasing demands.¶
electricity is generated from renewable sources. It is working towards becoming world’s first carbon free economy.
Achievments of the Visit¶ Besides meeting the leaders of Trinidad and Tobago, the Chinese president also held talks with leaders of Suriname,
Barbados, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, the Bahamas and Jamaica. During the visit he proposed stepping up energy co-operation
Agreements were reached in key areas such as infrastructure
development, energy and minerals, and in new areas of mutual and beneficial cooperation such as agriculture, telecommunications and new energy. Loan of USD 250 million was
between the two countries.
awarded and hundred volunteer medical professionals would be sent to over the next three years. Additionally, Trinidad intends to open an embassy in
Beijing later this year.¶ During his visit to Costa Rica, thirteen major agreements were signed on projects worth nearly USD 2 billion, in the areas of the
upgrade of an oil refinery, a key highway and public transport. Amongst these agreements, the biggest project will be the modernization of an obsolete
oil refinery in the Caribbean port of Limón, which will be replaced with a new refinery capable of processing 65,000 barrels of oil a day. The USD1.5
billion venture will be financed with a USD 900-million credit from the China Development Bank, and the remaining USD 600 million will be put up by
the China National Petroleum Corporation and Costa Rica’s National Refinery (RECOPE). A group of thirty RECOPE officials will travel to Beijing in
coming days to receive training for three months at China’s University of Petroleum. Another big project agreed to is the upgrading of Route 32, a
During the visit to
Mexico, bilateral relations were upgraded to a comprehensive strategic partnership. The
two heads of state agreed to push forward the China-Mexico comprehensive strategic
partnership by working jointly in the following four aspects; by showing mutual
understanding and support on the issue concerning each other’s core interest,
improving practical cooperation in accordance with their development strategies, and
agree to increase mutual investment in key areas such as energy, mining, infrastructure and high
strategic highway that links San José to Limón, a USD 400-million dollar endeavour that will be financed by China.¶
technology, encourage more exchanges between art troupes, promote tourism and strengthen communication among students,
academics, journalists and athletes and improving multilateral coordination based on their common interests and responsibilities on
major international issues.¶ Bilateral
trade between LAC and China in the year 2012 was USD
261.2 billion. Thus visit further enhanced the bilateral ties to a much higher level.¶ The
Future of Bilateral Relations between China and the LAC¶ Energy Security remains the prime agenda of its
foreign policy; the new leadership is trying to project China’s ‘peaceful development’ to
every possible place on the globe. The visit reveals regardless of the size and geographical
distances China is keen on developing relations with these countries to boost its
economic ties to secure its energy resources . Being in the developing stages, the
LAC needs Chinese investments in its infrastructure and construction
which has not come till now by the US¶
The agreements signed
are an indication to the
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
LAC countries that China has been taking them seriously and has responded to their
gesture. Perhaps the strengthening of the China-LAC relations will help the international
community better cope with global challenges and promote a multi polar world and
democracy in the international relations.
Chinese alternative energy development is a zero sum game with the U.S. –
solves Chinese soft power, warming, and CCP stability
McMahon, ‘13
(Tamsin, Diploma in European Journalism from the Hogeschool van Utrecht, B.A. from Ryerson University, reporter for the
National Post, “How China is going to save the world”, MacLean’s, January 27, 2013,
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/27/business/, JKahn)
Last week the U.S. Embassy in Beijing upgraded its official reading of the city’s air quality on Twitter from “hazardous” to merely “very unhealthy.” But
that was scant comfort to the millions of Chinese workers who don masks for their daily commute through thick smog into “Greyjing.” Recent news that
air pollution had reached its highest levels since the American government began monitoring it—roughly 44 times worse than the World Health
Organization’s recommended daily levels—had ground the city’s construction industry to a halt, forced schools to cancel outdoor sports activities and
even sparked several rare, critical editorials in the state-owned press. “What do we want, breathtaking growth or taking a breath amid choking air?”
asked China’s state-run news agency Xinhua. It prompted two Chinese environmental activists to pay for an ad in the New York Times urging new
China’s ongoing struggles with pollution
have been a blight on the country’s international reputation. The world’s image of China is that of an
Communist party chief Xi Jinping to pledge his commitment to the environment.
industrial behemoth fuelled by the dirtiest of energies, coal. On the surface, the reputation is well deserved. No country pumps out as much CO2 as
China (not even the U.S. comes close). But behind the smog, China’s environmental woes have become an unexpected boon to the global renewable
energy industry. Last week’s air quality emergency sent Chinese green energy stocks soaring on the hope that the political fallout will prompt the
Communist party to offer up more public money for the country’s burgeoning environmental protection sector. Investors are counting on it. Even as it
emerging as the world’s biggest
spender on green energy. Globally, green energy investment fell 11 per cent last year, according to a recent
remains the scourge of environmentalists for being the largest emitter on the planet, China is also
Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. Indebted European countries slashed subsidies, India cut its spending by more than 40 per cent and the U.S.
witnessed a string of solar power manufacturer bankruptcies.
China’s investment in renewable energy,
meanwhile, was a bright spot . It rose 20 per cent to nearly $68 billion, or a full quarter of the $269 billion global total.
From having virtually no green energy infrastructure as recently as 2008, China has built 133 gigawatts of renewable energy—mainly wind turbines—
enough to power as many as 53 million homes, or every household in Canada four times over. The International Energy Agency predicted that China
would overtake Europe as the world’s top renewable energy growth market. It’s a market expected to be worth more than $470 billion by 2015,
according to state-owned China Merchants Securities, or almost double what it was in 2009 and equal to about eight per cent of the country’s GDP.
That investment has caught the eye of clean-tech companies in Europe and North America,
who are flocking to China in hopes of selling their technologies after seeing demand
stagnate or collapse in their home markets. “All the key players are going to China these
days,” says Changhua Wu, Greater China director of the Climate Group, a London-based agency that promotes green energy investment. “Everyone
is trying to figure out what the potential for opportunity is, partly because everyone recognizes that China could potentially be the largest market for
clean tech in the world.” As China takes the lead, everyone will benefit from the technology that is developed and exported. China is saving itself, but
might also be saving the world in the process. While the Middle Kingdom’s smog problems have earned plenty of headlines, it has also been quietly
attracting a host of very unlikely supporters, including praise from the Pew Charitable Trust and the World Wildlife Foundation, which gave its “climate
solver” award this year to several Chinese companies that manufacture technology to capture and recycle wasted heat, water and chemical emissions to
power everything from factories to refrigerators. Greenpeace predicted the country would be on track to install 400 gigawatts of wind energy by 2030
and could become the largest solar market in the world. The argument that China is the world’s environmental bad guy “is increasingly difficult, if not
The
country has closed more coal-fired power plants since 2006 than the entire capacity of Australia’s electrical grid, and
exported more than $35-billion worth of renewable energy technology—equal to the total value of shoes
impossible, to make given China’s recent policies,” wrote the authors of an October report for the Climate Institute, an Australian think tank.
exported from China that year. This year, China is rolling out pilot projects that could eventually lead to the world’s largest carbon trading system. “The
broad scheme of things is that China believes it wants to become a resource-conserving, environmentally friendly society and that’s the way they
describe it, in those exact words,” says Arthur Hanson, one of Canada’s leading experts on sustainable development. The former founding director of
Dalhousie University’s School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Hanson is in Beijing this week in his role as international chief adviser to the
Granted, China has little choice but
to invest in renewables as it seeks out more sources of energy to help power its rapidly
developing economy, with GDP growth expected just shy of eight per cent this year and an urban population rising by an
estimated 2.3 per cent a year. Green energy is also seen as a political tool for the Chinese government
that can quell rising environmental protests and appease political dissent . “The
leadership in China is really recognizing that in order to manage and govern the country better you need to
find a universal underlying theme to make sure everyone is with you,” says Wu. “Green growth or sustainable
China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
happens to be the only one .” But beyond the obvious political and economic
advantages of green energy, China is also pinning its hopes on the belief that global demand
for clean technology will enable the country to transform both its domestic economy and its
exports. Until now, China’s green energy sector has largely done what the country does best: import technology developed elsewhere, reproduce it
for less money and then export it back to the West. That’s changing as China pours billions into research and development and
advanced education in hopes that clean tech can help shift China from being merely the low-cost factory
of the world to being a global leader in developing innovative technology . China’s
current five-year plan, which runs through 2015, includes an economic development blueprint that will see more
development
than $1.5 trillion invested in seven industries, all of them related in some way to environmental protection and renewable energy technology. “Some of
my colleagues feel we’ll be receiving an awful lot of technologies that are Chinese born and bred and brought to commercialization in Canada on the
environment,” says Hanson. “It may take five to 10 years, but it won’t be a one-way flow of technology from the developed world to China. It will be in
partnership or even a reverse flow.” China is moving quickly to incorporate electric vehicle technology into what has become the world’s largest
automotive market. Already, Beijing drivers have practically abandoned internal combustion motorcycles for electric ones. “There’s millions of these
things buzzing by and with very little noise and limited pollution,” says Hanson. “I don’t know who is going to be the winner in the electric automobile,
but I think that everyone should be looking over their shoulders at the Chinese.” Like much of the economic development in China, the green energy
industry’s growth has not come without controversy. China’s commitment to sustainable development has garnered its share of skepticism from
environmentalists who argue that its investments have less to do with being an environmental role model and more to do with sustaining a green
energy bubble it helped create. The Worldwatch Institute noted that as many as half of the wind turbines in northeastern China aren’t connected to any
grid, that they are “ghost” projects like the vacant cities and shopping malls that have been built to prop up China’s construction industry. In the desert
outside the city of Jiuquan, for instance, as many as 20 companies are in the midst of constructing what could be the world’s largest wind farm. Yet as
few as a fifth of the 3,500 massive, 60-m windmills that now dot the landscape are hooked up, according to Worldwatch. What’s more, most of the
electricity they might generate is needed on the other side of the country, on the industrialized eastern coast. While China has improved its energy
efficiency, it has sometimes done so with a heavy hand, by simply shutting down small factories, or turning off power to entire communities for days.
Much of China’s solar industry was developed for export and took a huge blow after the U.S. slapped steep protectionist tariffs on Chinese-made solar
panels last year, accusing the country of trying to flood the American market with heavily subsidized components for below cost. The European Union
launched its own Chinese anti-dumping probe in September. (China retaliated with an investigation into European imports of polysilicon, the raw
material used to make solar panels.) Such trade disputes have had devastating effects on China’s solar industry and prompted the government to shift
its focus for solar to its domestic market. In December it announced $2 billion in subsidies for the industry and says it plans to add another 10
gigawatts of solar capacity this year. Its targets for domestic solar growth have quadrupled in the past year, less out of environmental concern and more
out of economic necessity. “Companies that were formerly success stories are literally now facing life or death situations,” says the Climate Group’s Wu.
“Chinese banks invested a lot of money into those companies and suddenly there’s no market anymore. That’s part of the reason why the government
has lately been driving their targets higher and higher in order to create a large enough domestic market.” Stimulating a domestic green energy market
has also pushed China toward what is quickly becoming the world’s largest carbon trading market. China has emerged as the biggest user of the UN’s
carbon credit program, which gives companies credits for clean energy investments they make to their businesses that they can sell on international
carbon exchanges. Chinese companies represent 45 per cent of projects registered under the program and 65 per cent of its total of the emissions
reductions. This year, China is rolling out the first of seven of its own carbon exchange pilot projects across both the industrial heartland in the Pearl
River Delta and China’s rural regions with plans to create a national exchange system by 2016. It’s a move the Chinese government hopes will spur
much-needed private investment in green energy—which until now has subsisted largely on public money—both by encouraging more companies to
invest in green energy to earn credits and by establishing a market price for carbon emissions. China’s financial sector lacks the expertise to drive more
private investment into emerging clean technology on its own, says Wu. “Banks see the sector as really high-risk,” she says. “But if you continue to rely
on command-and-control to [encourage] investment, it costs too much.” The government has already signalled it will allow more consolidation among
Chinese solar panel manufacturers, a sign that it won’t continue to prop up the industry forever. If it works, China’s carbon trading market could
become a model for the rest of the world and will likely be critical to reducing global pollution, if only because it will help set the Chinese price for
carbon emissions. The success or failure of China’s carbon trading system is “one of the most important questions of environmental policy of our time,”
wrote researchers from FORES, a Swedish sustainable development think tank. Yet even with its ambitious investment, China’s green energy policies
have hardly made a dent in the country’s overall energy consumption. China’s goal is to have 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
It’s already 17 per cent of Canada’s primary energy supply. Nearly 70 per cent of China’s energy still comes from coal and the country’s need for cheap
energy is growing. From being a net exporter of coal as recently as 2008, China has become the world’s largest coal importer. Global demand for coal
grew 4.3 per cent in 2011, according to the International Energy Agency. Virtually all of the demand came from China. All this means pollution in China
will continue to get worse before it gets better. Images of masked commuters aren’t likely to be replaced with images of windmills and solar farms
anytime soon. Hanson says the expectation is that it will take China until 2030, another 17 years, to get a handle on its pollution problem. Still, those
stresses will bring more opportunities for green energy companies both in China and abroad, adds Hanson. That’s perhaps not too reassuring if you live
in “Greyjing” today, but for the rest of the world, a breath of fresh air.
Chinese growth prevents lashout, and maintains relations, American
primacy, and the economy
Mead, 9 (Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations,
“Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, 2/4/9, http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-854292e83915f5f8)
The greatest danger
both
to U.S.-China relations and to American power
itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis
might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will
plunge China into a major economic downturn . The Chinese financial system
will implode
as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad.
Millions or even tens of millions of
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net .
The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a
generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include
dangerous unrest --and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for
China's woes. ( Think of Weimar Germany , when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for
Germany's economic travails.) Worse,
their money out of the country,
instability could lead to a vicious cycle , as nervous investors moved
further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater
bitterness . Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the
stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen
if the growth stops.
Impact is nuclear war
Yee and Storey, 02 (Herbert Yee, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Hong Kong Baptist University
and Ian Storey, Lecturer in Defence Studies at Deakin University, The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and Reality. 2002, Pg 5)
the perception of a China threat is the fear of political and economic
collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil war and waves of
refugees pouring into neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would have a
profoundly negative impact on regional stability. Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems,
The fourth factor contributing to
including the increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of natural resources and a deterioration in the natural
environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These problems are putting a strain on the central government's ability to govern
Chinese refugees seeking asylum in
neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed
PRC would no doubt put a severe strain on the limited resources of China's neighbours. A
fragmented China could also result in another nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons falling
into the hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or warlords.2 From this
perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a threat to its neighbours and the
world.
effectively. Political disintegration or a Chinese civil war might result in millions of
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC Solvency Run
Mexico is becoming increasingly open to Chinese investment in renewables.
SRI, 13(“China Likely to Invest in Mexicos Renewable Energy Infrastructure Sectors”, Submit Recruitment, 2013Information,
http://english.windchn.com/wfview000343843.html)//TWR
According to Lawrence Chia, a managing partner at Deloitte, China's
investments in Mexico over the next
few months will be concentrated on the country's renewable energy and infrastructure
sectors.¶ The China Development Bank and the Chinese Import-Export Bank might be
interested in investing in Mexico, along with Chinese engineering companies.¶ While many
Chinese investors would like to gain a foothold in Mexico's energy sector, government
regulations make such moves difficult. A new law on public-private partnerships could open up the
sector to more foreign investment, however.¶ Chinese companies are also likely to invest in Mexico's
manufacturing sector, with the ultimate aim of securing market share in the US. In this respect, Chinese investors find
Mexico more attractive than Brazil due to its proximity to the US.
Latin American renewables growth will be driven by Chinese investment
Ernest and Young, 12
(“Renewable energy country attractiveness indices” November 2012, http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/CAI_issue35_Nov-2012/$FILE/CAI_issue-35_Nov-2012_DE0372.pdf)//TWR
Comparatively higher levels of economic growth in South America ¶ through much of the
past decade, and a swift recovery from the ¶ economic crisis, have led to greater attention
being placed on the ¶ continent as an attractive target for investment. Forecasts suggest ¶ that the region will
continue to outperform Europe and North ¶ America in the upcoming years, supported
mainly by high internal ¶ consumption and ever-strengthening trading ties with China.¶
Demand for power in the region is forecast by Business Monitor ¶ International (BMI) to rise by 4% in 2013 due to continuous
growth ¶ in GDP and socioeconomic migration. The latter is particularly ¶ positive for investors considering that, according to Brazil’s
¶ International Labour Organization, approximately 30 million ¶ Brazilian citizens have migrated above the poverty line between ¶
2003 and 2009 and there is expectation that this positive trend ¶ will continue.
Recent memorandum between Mexico and China provides a gateway for
future renewable cooperation.
Business Mexico, 6/6/13 (“Mexico and China sign Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on renewable
energy; EU imposes anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese solar panels”, June 6, 2013, http://business-mexico-online.com/mexico-andchina-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-to-cooperate-on-renewable-energy-eu-imposes-anti-dumping-tariffs-on-chinese-solarpanels/)//TWR
The Mexican Secretary of Energy and the Chinese head of the National Development
and Reform Commission agreed to cooperate on renewable energy programs, just as the
European Union slaps tariffs on China for dumping solar panels.¶ Mexican Secretary of Energy Pedro Joaquín
Coldwell and Xu Shaoshi, President of the Chinese National Development and Reform
Commission signed a memorandum of understanding making cooperation on renewable
and clean energy programs, such as solar energy and carbon dioxide recovery, a priority
between the two countries, according to a press release issued by the Secretariat of Entergy.¶ The memorandum of
understanding, signed during the state visit to Mexico of Chinese President Xi Jinping, calls for working groups to
meet in China in the second half of this year to determine areas in which China and
Mexico can cooperate on energy projects.
China annually spends TONS on renewables-solves tech and cash.
Bloomberg, 6/30/13 (“China’s Spending on Renewable Energy May Total 1.8 Trillion Yuan” Bloomberg news, June
30, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/china-s-spending-on-renewable-energy-may-total-1-8-trillionyuan.html)//TWR
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
China’s spending to develop renewable energy may total 1.8 trillion yuan ($294 billion) in the
five years through 2015 as part of the nation’s efforts to counter climate change, according to
a government official.¶ China may invest another 2.3 trillion yuan in key energy-saving and
emission-reducing projects, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and
Reform Commission, said today at a conference in Beijing. China stands by its pledge to cut carbon
emissions per unit of economic output by as much as 45 percent before 2020 from 2005
levels, he said.¶ Flags fly in front of wind turbines at the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city in Tianjin, China, on Wednesday, March
13, 2013. Photographer: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg¶ The increased reliance on renewable sources of
energy fits with efforts by China, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, to help mitigate the
effects of pollution blanketing its major cities. Along with renewables investments, the
environment ministry is considering stricter controls on vehicle and industry pollution.¶
The government aims to have 100 gigawatts of wind-power installed capacity and more than 35 gigawatts of solar power by 2015,
Xie reiterated today. China’s
targets have encouraged companies including China
Petrochemical Corp., also known as Sinopec Group, to strengthen their commitment to
protect the environment.¶ Sinopec yesterday said it will invest 22.9 billion yuan on an environmental protection plan.¶
China asked seven cities and provinces last year to put in place regional caps and pilot programs for trading emission rights.¶ The
country will gradually expand the regions falling under its carbon trading pilot program
starting from 2015 in order to explore the potential for a national system, Xie said.¶
China is superior than the US on energy investment-China ranks first while
US ranks 28th.
Ross, 6/25/13
-Deputy Editor, Power Engineering International (Kelvin, “China Tops Table for Renewables Investment”, Renewable Energy
World, June 25, 2013, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/china-tops-table-for-renewablesinvestment)//TWR
LONDON -- China
is currently the best country in the world for renewable energy
investment, while India has the strongest potential for conventional power investors,
according to a new report.¶ Published by analysts at PA Consulting, ‘Mapping Energy Investment Potential Around the
World’ ranks 30 countries against several criteria to determine where the best internal rate of return can be found.¶ China
tops the renewable league table, followed by Sweden and Denmark. The
top ten also includes the Philippines and Brazil while the U.S. is way down
the list in 28th place.¶ The report covers 16 countries in Europe; Dubai, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the
Middle East; Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Singapore in the Asia-Pacific; the five BRICS nations and the
U.S.¶ The analysis examines
seven renewable technologies: solar photovoltaic, concentrated
solar power, onshore and offshore wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass and looks at
four conventional technologies: nuclear, combined cycle gas turbine, gas turbine and
coal.¶ PA Consulting scores each country based on two criteria: business case and risk
assessment. The business case is calculated on the expected internal rate of return for each technology. The final score
is based on several factors that influence the financial performance of an energy project:
initial investment costs; operation and maintenance costs; revenues, including capacity
factors, incentives, subsidies, market price forecasts and revenues from CHP; fuel costs
and fuel price forecasts; and CO2 emissions.¶ The risk assessment is also weighted across key factors for each
technology: country risk (credit default and financing risk); market risk (revenue risk and market potential); project risk (technology
availability and grid access); and operational risk (sourcing and fuel risk, labour availability and O&M expertise). ¶ PA
Consulting says China’s position “at the head of the class for renewables is a result of a
relatively unique combination of extensive, high-quality renewable resources — and the
potential for their development — as well as government support that provides
attractive pricing for renewable energy.”¶ It states that Sweden, Denmark and the UK — which is at number six
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
in the renewables league table — scored highly because of “a combination of good-quality renewable resources plus the effective use
of market mechanisms in the form of renewable energy credits.¶ However the
U.S. ranks so low for renewable
energy investment because “many key states have already met or exceeded their
renewable targets, resulting in low prices for renewable energy credits. The effects on
renewable investment economics are compounded by relatively low overall power
prices.Ӧ The report notes that countries on the Arabian peninsula have made significant renewable energy progress, with Saudi
Arabia “leading the region with one of the world’s most ambitious energy transition programmes supported by a market-based
renewable energy policy.”¶ The UAE is also highlighted for its “high-quality renewable resources” as well as the Gulf region’s first
renewable energy framework, and PA notes that “other Arabian countries are quickly moving in the same direction.”¶ PA highlights a
significant shift in the fortunes of renewables in Europe. It states that for a long time, many European countries were “the safest
havens for renewable investments”, but now they are “losing momentum as a result of policy responses to the financial and debt
crisis.”¶ “Customers have pushed back against the increasing energy prices resulting from many countries’ renewable policies, and
policymakers have significantly scaled back on expensive feed-in-tariff programmes in many countries, notably Spain, Germany and
Austria.”
China is first in providing renewable investment internationally
Zhao and Polycarp, 13 (Yingzhen Zhao and Clifford Polycarp, “China Invests Billions in International Renewable
Energy Projects”, WRI Institute, 6/6/13, http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/06/china-invests-billions-international-renewableenergy-projects)//TWR
It’s well-known that China
ranks first in the world in attracting clean energy investment, receiving
China is increasingly
becoming a global force in international clean energy investment, too. In fact, the
country has provided nearly $40 billion dollars to other countries’ solar and wind
industries over the past decade.¶ This investment is consistent with a broader trend of major
emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil becoming important sources of global
overseas invest¬ments. WRI’s new working paper, China’s Overseas Investments in the Wind and Solar Industries:
US$ 65.1 billion in 2012. But new analysis from WRI shows another side to this story:
Trends and Drivers, helps to better understand China’s renewable energy investments overseas, as well as the policy and market
forces that drive them.¶ China’s Overseas Wind and Solar Investments, By the Numbers¶ According to our research,
Chinese
companies have made at least 124 investments in solar and wind industries in 33
countries over the past decade (2002 – 2011), more than half of which were made in 2010 and 2011 (see Figure 1).
Despite some gaps in the data that prevent us from generalizing about all of China’s wind and solar investments, we learned that.
China already has broken into the Latin American energy market-loan
opportunities.
Nielsen, 12
(Stephan, “China Grabs Share in Latin America Wind Energy with Cheap Loans”, Bloomberg, November 20, 2012,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/11/china-grabs-share-in-latin-america-wind-energy-with-cheaploans)//TWR
Chinese wind-turbine makers have broken into the South American market, the world's
fastest-growing, by offering government-backed loans at interest rates as much as 50
percent lower than local offerings.¶ The package deals can get buyers to choose Chinese machines over those of
Western manufacturers such as Vestas Wind Systems A/S of Denmark or General Electric Co., much in the way the U.S. government
helps American exporters sell everything from cotton to satellites by guaranteeing loans or insurance.¶ In one of the latest
transactions, China Development Bank Corp. agreed on Nov. 15 to loan $261 million for a Grupo Isolux Corsan SA project in
Argentina that will use 100 megawatts of turbines from Xiangtan, China-based XEMC Windpower Co. The state-run bank is talking
to Argentine developer Geassa to support a $3.5 billion wind project that would be the continent’s largest.¶ “The
name of the
game here is the loan,” Geassa Executive Vice President Eduardo Restuccia said in an interview. The Buenos Aires-based
company is negotiating to borrow $3 billion from China Development for its planned 1,350-megawatt wind project in southern
Argentina’s Chubut province. “It’s not possible to get a long-term loan from a commercial bank.”¶ South
American banks
see multiyear loans for wind energy as too risky compared with lending on cars or
homes. That has opened the door for Chinese turbine makers that provide both turbines
and financing to establish a toehold in the world’s fastest-growing wind market,
Restuccia said.¶ Chinese Loan¶ Geassa, short for Generadora Eolica Argentina del Sur SA, is seeking a 12-year loan with a
two-year grace period and an annual interest rate of 6 percent above Libor, the London interbank offered rate. The financing may be
complete by June, he said. The company will use Chinese turbines and hasn’t selected a supplier.¶ Benchmark three-month Libor
rate for U.S. dollar- denominated financing is about 0.31 percent. That makes the loan Geassa is seeking less than half the cost of
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
financing from Argentina’s development lender Banco de Inversion y Comercio Exterior, which offers loans for infrastructure
projects at about 15 percent, said Eduardo Tabbush, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. ¶ Commercial
banks in Latin America are often reluctant to offer loans for the lifetime of wind
projects, which may exceed 15 years, Tabbush said. Chinese banks are less skittish, and
willing to push out repayment until after the projects begin selling power and generating
revenue.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Permutation
US renewable investment crowds China out – McMahon says it’s a zero sum
game for manufacturing, supplies and profits because there’s a finite
amount of global investment
China’s ahead in clean tech development and it’s zero sum – vital to growth
and stability
Bennhold ‘10
[K. Staffer for the New York Times. “Race is On to Develop Green, Clean Technology” The New York Times, 1/29/10 ln]
It is shaping up to be the Great Game of the 21st century . To top officials and business
executives here at the World Economic Forum, Topic A this year was the race to develop greener,
cleaner technology, which is emerging as one of the critical factors in reshaping the world
economy as emerging powers snap at the heels of battered Western economies. With the United States and China
sizing each other up across the Pacific and Europe seeking to maintain its economic stature, it is a battle for
potentially millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in export revenues. The outcome —
which pits a venture capital-driven market approach relying on government subsides against a top-down system of state capitalism
— has
the potential to influence how economic and political systems evolve. Concern that
China may be edging ahead in potentially lucrative growth sectors like renewable energy
was palpable here, where senior officials from the United States and Europe warned that the West could not afford to be complacent.
“Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China,”
said Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who has been deeply involved in climate change issues in Congress.
“Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green
“China has made a long-term strategic decision and they are going gangbusters.” Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, agreed. “It’s a race and whoever wins that race
will dominate economic development,” she said. “The emerging markets are well-placed.”
economy.” He added:
Even if the tradeoff’s small, err negative – the perception of the plan
destabilizes China
Kennedy ‘10
[Andrew. Prof Econ at Australian National University. “China’s New Energy Security Debate” Survival, Vol 52 N 3. 2010. Ebsco]
China’s booming energy demand has also helped make it the world’s most prolific emitter of greenhouse gases in recent years.
Generally speaking, this development, and the threat of climate change more generally, has not been a driving force behind new
thinking about energy security in China. While Chinese government reports have made the case that
climate change is under way and that it is already damaging China’s economy, most Chinese analysts see power supply and local
pollution as more pressing problems.48 But even before the Copenhagen conference a clear sense was emerging that climate
change is altering the international context in which China operates. Many analysts worry that
other countries will impose ‘carbon tariffs’ on Chinese exports if Beijing is seen as insufficiently cooperative on the climate-change
issue, a concern that came to the fore after the US House of Representatives passed legislation authorising such tariffs in mid2009.49 More broadly,
many Chinese officials
and analysts are
focused on the idea that
countries are now competing to develop and produce low-carbon
technologies , and there is a determination to see China succeed in this race.50 In
short, while fighting climate change is not the top priority for most Chinese analysts, the emergence of climate change
as a high-profile international issue is reinforcing the sense that China must modernise, and
even revolutionise, its domestic energy system if it is to prosper.
It’s zero-sum because of profit margins
Mormann and Reicher ‘12
[Felix Mormann Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Faculty Fellow with Stanford University’s SteyerTaylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance. Dan Reicher Executive Director of Stanford’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
and Finance, a joint center of the Stanford business and law schools"Smarter Finance for Cleaner Energy: Open Up Master Limited
Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to Renewable Energy Investment," November 2012,
www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/11/13%20federalism/13%20clean%20energy%20investment.pdf]
The worldwide race for technological leadership in clean and renewable energy is on.
Valued at $2.3 ¶ trillion globally over the next 10 years, the clean energy market already employs close to 3 million
U.S. ¶ workers and continues to grow, making clean energy a key piece of America’s “Next Economy.” In ¶ addition to good-paying
jobs, victory in the global clean energy race beckons with enhanced energy ¶ security and significant environmental benefits,
including cleaner air and water. Winning
this prize, ¶ however, will require an aggressive push to keep
up with international competition. Virtually all industrially developed and most
developing nations are competing for a slice of the global clean energy ¶ pie. In 2011, it
took $48 billion of clean energy investment for the United States to reclaim the lead
from ¶ China ($45.5 billion). But much of this money came from the 2009 American Recovery and ¶
Reconstruction Act’s (ARRA) stimulus funding. As these funds run out, America finds itself
at a crossroads.
Leadership is zero sum – either they don’t solve or they link to the DA
Caperton et al, 11
(*Richard W., Policy Analyst with the Energy Opportunity group at the Center for American Progress, **Kate Gordon, Vice President
for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress, ***Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress,
***Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, “Helping America Win the
Clean Energy Race,” Center for American Progress, February 7, 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/ces_brief.pdf, JKahn)
Unfortunately Senate Republican leaders blocked any energy legislation in 2010, just as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds began to run their
course. The result: Cleantech companies now find themselves in a tight financial position, facing slackening market demand and a tightening supply of
we have seen cutting-edge solar power
manufacturing companies begin to close their doors, either permanently or to move to other
private-sector investment capital. This is no way to build a modern industry. Already
countries with strong and dedicated clean energy markets . Evergreen Solar Inc., for
example, recently announced plans to close its Massachusetts plant to put more funds into solar panel manufacturing in
China. The company followed on the heels of SpectraWatt Inc. in New York and Solyndra Inc. in California closing some of their facilities. As
General Electric Co.’s chairman and chief executive, Jeff Immelt, said at last year’s ARPA-E summit, those countries with strong
demand for renewable energy products will naturally pull these companies into their
borders because “innovation and supply chain strength gets developed where the demand is
the greatest.” Similarly, wind manufacturers in Iowa, once a state leader in this industry, are laying off workers as new orders fail to
materialize. Leading global financier Deutsche Bank decided to move billions of investment dollars out of the U.S. clean energy market, and into
China and Europe as soon as it was clear there would be no comprehensive climate and energy legislation coming out of the 111th Congress. China
and our other economic competitors in Asia, Europe, and emerging markets are not
waiting for America to regroup . The home team can win the clean energy race These stories share a
common theme: investment dollars leaving the United States to be deployed among
our global competitors who have fully embraced the economic and environmental
imperative to enter a new era of cleaner, more sustainable and domestic energy. China is
the most striking example. In 2009, even as the United States was installing more wind turbines, China driven by stable longterm demand for its products, became the world’s largest manufacturer of wind power systems. It
was already the world’s largest solar manufacturer and developer of efficient nuclear and coal technologies. But
China isn’t alone. Not by a long shot. Germany is not far behind in linking strong clean energy policies to market growth and manufacturing
leadership, as the leading global manufacturer of solar inverters—a key part of solar power systems—and has made huge strides in energy storage
solutions that will further accelerate the widespread adoption of renewable power. Denmark, Japan, and the United Kingdom are also global clean
countries have comprehensive programs in place to
spur robust and stable demand for low-carbon energy, which then creates a market for
businesses to manufacture and install the technologies to meet that demand. Last June, China
announced its plan to meet a renewable energy standard of 20 percent by 2020, matching the European
energy leaders with thriving domestic markets. All these
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Union’s target. Germany has set a target of 60 percent by 2050. The country already gets 16 percent of all its power from renewables, well on its way to
meeting this ambitious goal, and some think it may reach 100 percent by 2050. Denmark has gone a step further, actually announcing its intention to
become 100 percent independent of fossil fuels by 2050, something that at least one of its islands has already achieved. This occurred in a country that
in 1970 was almost completely dependent on foreign fossil fuels. These countries prove that strong clean energy standards build growing economies.
But even more than that, strong clean energy standards are now imperative if we are to compete on the same playing field as China and Europe.
America over the course of the 20th century took command of the Industrial Revolution and the communications revolution, and then led the world
into the Information Age. It is time for us to lead the clean-tech revolution, too. Today, others are beating us to the punch, not because we lack the
technology and innovation to lead this new revolution, but because we are not providing the market signals needed for our private-sector entrepreneurs
need to invest over the long haul. This clean energy investment gap is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to America’s technology leadership. Smart
policy for strong U.S. electricity markets Building on the pioneering renewable electricity or portfolio standards already in place in 30 states, a
nationwide clean energy standard would provide much-needed certainty to electricity markets, utilities, energy investors, and state power regulators.
With meaningful standards in place, these businesses could make smarter long-term planning decisions on engineering, capital budgets, and
investment needs. But for a new generation of technology companies to grow up to meet the changing needs of this marketplace, any clean energy
standard must be carefully crafted, setting a target that not only phases out older, more inefficient and polluting plants, but also accelerates the growth
of diverse domestic renewable energy supplies to meet our changing energy needs.
China and the U.S. are engaged in a clean tech arms race – the plan reverses
Chinese progress
Harvey, 11
(Fiona, environmental correspondent for the Guardian, former editor for the Financial Times, Foreign Press Association Awards,
“Developing world ups ante in cleantech 'arms race’”, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/evelopingworld-lead-wind-power-renewable-energy, JKahn)
Last year was a turning point in the global race to develop clean technology . It marked
the first time that more new wind power generating capacity was installed in developing countries than in the rich world.
China led the way , according
to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), andnow has the most wind generating capacity in the world, thanks to favourable government policies. A record capacity of 19
gigawatts was added in China last year, taking the total to more than 42GW. India also showed strong growth, in line with the government target of adding more than 10GW of
new capacity by 2012, and there are industry estimates that 100GW is possible. According to GWEC, the growth illustrates the advantages of investing in green power. "This puts
an end to the assertion that wind power is a premium technology only for rich countries which cannot be deployed at scale in other markets," it says in its annual report. "It is
also testament to the inherent attractiveness of wind power for countries striving to diversify their energy mix, improve their security of supply in the face of rapidly growing
demand and relieve national budgets of the burden of expensive fossil fuel imports at volatile prices." In the developed world, by contrast, growth was inhibited by the financial
The US
market fared particularly badly, with only half as much new wind capacity built as in the previous year. Europe's growth also
slowed down, with 7.5% less capacity added than in 2009, according to GWEC. Even an increase in the offshore wind market and growth in eastern Europe was not
enough to make up for the slack elsewhere. The rapid growth of wind energy in emerging economies also shows how
power is shifting in the clean technology world. Three of the world's top 10 wind
turbine manufacturers are now Chinese, and the country makes turbines capable of producing 30GW a year, of which an increasing
crisis and recession: while €50bn was invested and about 39GW added around the world, the overall market for wind energy was static compared with 2009.
number are now destined for the export market. India also boasts 17 companies making wind power equipment, the biggest and best known being Suzlon. By 2013, according to
Other
forms of clean technology are also growing rapidly in the developing world – China, for
instance, is also the world's biggest manufacturer of solar power equipment, the vast majority of it
estimates for the World Institute for Sustainable Energy, Indian companies will be making turbines to produce 17GW a year, many to be exported around the world.
exported. European governments facing severe fiscal crises have given less attention to promoting clean technology than in the past, and some have cut back on subsidies to save
money. But this neglect carries a potential cost and a risk, as if Europe falls behind it will struggle to make up the lost ground. Connie Hedegaard, climate change commissioner
for the EU, warned a European Wind Energy Association event earlier this year that unless governments upped their game, Europe as a whole would lose out. "We should not be
losing this race, because these are the growth industries of the future, that will generate wealth and create jobs," she said. In the US, there are similar fears among clean
Obama called in 2009 for a doubling of renewable energy within three years,
but this now looks less likely to be achieved. There are doubts over some of the support available for renewables – many of the relevant
technology advocates. President
grants and loans are due to expire this year, and there is hostility towards such mechanisms from some quarters. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has called for
support to be stepped up, against attacks from some politicians and sections of the media. Rob Gramlich, senior director of public policy for AWEA, claims that conventional
forms of electricity have benefitted from subsidies for years. "Tax incentives have been the most effective means of bringing new energy sources to the market," he says.
"Previously they brought us much of our domestic oil and gas supply, including the new shale gas resources. They typically apply in the early and middle stages of development,
so it's not surprising that in any given year, new sources receive much more than conventional sources." Steven Lang, clean tech leader for the UK and Ireland at Ernst and
government policies are one of the key determinants for how fast new clean
technologies grow. "Governments need to send a very clear signal to the market, that they are committed to this. Financial incentives are also very important,"
Young, says
he says. Lang points to Alex Salmond, the leader of Scotland's devolved administration, who has put renewable energy firmly at the heart of his economic agenda, and a
particular focus on new marine technologies such as wave and tidal power. The first minister told a conference in September: "I'm confident that by 2025 we will produce at least
100 per cent of our electricity needs from renewables alone, and together with other sources it will enable us to become a net exporter of clean, green energy." Salmond even won
the praise of Al Gore recently for his "inspiration".
The world is engaged in a "clean tech arms race",
Lang
says, but he argues that all countries have opportunities in different types of clean technology. For instance, in the UK offshore wind is likely to be a winner, and has been
championed by the government because it avoids the problems associated with obtaining planning permission for onshore wind farms. Carbon capture and storage is another
potential British winner, if government plans for as many as four demonstration projects are successful. There is also plenty of room for innovation around the world in energy
efficiency, smart girds and smart meters – all technologies that could revamp electricity supply networks, particularly in countries such as the US where experts say an overhaul
is urgently needed. Electric vehicles have a vast potential, and many renewable heating technologies are still only used on a small scale. China may be taking the largest slice of
the clean tech market currently, but that is by no means the end of the race.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Say No
Mexico says yes to China, no to the US
Mares ‘11
BAKER INSTITUTE SCHOLAR FOR LATIN AMERICAN ENERGY STUDIES¶ JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC
POLICY¶ RICE UNIVERSITY(David R. Mares, Ph.D, “THE RISE OF CHINA AND ITS ENERGY IMPLICATIONS”, Energy Forum,
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY¶ RICE UNIVERSITY, December 2, 2011,
http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-RiseOfChinaMares-120211-WEB.pdf)//TWR
Latin America needs capital and technology to develop its hydrocarbon resources. Historically,¶ the
region’s primary economic partner has been the United States, but the United States has
a¶ well-earned reputation for exercising a heavy diplomatic hand in the region and for
attaching¶ strings to economic assistance and investment. Lingering recession in the
United States has¶ combined with Latin America’s desire to diversity its political
relations away from dependency¶ on the United States to create an opportunity for global economic players. At the
same time,¶ fast-growing nations in Asia seeking to develop energy resources to stoke expanding¶
economies are eager to craft “package deals” that address Latin American development,
and¶ China’s Investment in Latin American Energy Resources¶ incidentally, political interests. The
resulting diversification of major political relations reduces¶ Latin America’s dependency
on the United States and can facilitate the consolidation of¶ governments whose interests
rival that of the United States. In addition, these new sources of¶ investment capital and loan funds can increase a
country’s influence regionally within Latin¶ America, as well as globally, by increasing the resources upon which a government can
draw¶ for its foreign policy.¶ This
diversification of sources of capital has occurred despite the
decision by major energy¶ producing countries in Latin America to move toward more
strident resource nationalism and¶ policies that significantly increase their resource rent appropriation. Venezuela,
Ecuador, and¶ Bolivia immediately come to mind, but even Brazil has moved toward greater resource¶ nationalism regarding its presalt hydrocarbon basins. Argentina uses domestic pricing¶ mechanisms to appropriate rents in favor of domestic consumers. Though
Colombia and Peru¶ have not emphasized resource nationalism and provide attractive environments for private and¶ foreign
investors, they are still relatively small players in the energy sector and thus attract¶ fewer investments.¶ China
is
undeterred by resource nationalism because of its own nationalist views on natural ¶
resources and its voracious appetite for energy. Combined with its general policy of
noninterference¶ in the domestic affairs of others, these factors make China an especially
attractive¶ source of capital for Latin American countries. Chinese companies are also the best
positioned¶ among Asian competitors to deal with the uncertainties raised by resource nationalism. China’s¶ oil majors can afford to
take longer-term bets than some of their Western peers, thanks to state¶ support at home and access to cheap credit. China’s
available capital is so much greater than that¶ of others such as India and South Korea that it readily crafts huge package deals
combining¶ development aid and government loans with energy contracts. Consequently, as this paper has¶ demonstrated, India and
South Korea are both less active and more selective in their energy¶ investments in the region.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC China DA Overview
Disad outweighs and turns the case –
Chinese growth prevents CCP lashout, and maintains U.S. primacy and the
economy – means it turns their hegemony and economy advantages – China
will lash out against U.S. military installments and freeze U.S. economic
assets and debt – CCP collapse independently leads to a civil war which
shatters regional stability, leads to refugee crisis, and nuclear volleys
between irrational warlords – escalates to a full blown conflict
The plan’s crowd out also guts US-China climate cooperation – turns the
case
Goldenberg 7-11
[Suzanne, reporter for The Guardian, “U.S. & China to Extend Joint Effort to Curb Climate Change” July 11, 2013,
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-china-to-extend-cooperation-in-effort-to-curb-climate-change-16224]
America and China agreed on Wednesday to work together to develop cleaner trucks, expanding joint efforts
against climate change by the two greatest emitters and raising prospects for a global climate deal. The new initiatives
announced in Washington on Wednesday would see China and the U.S. extend their climate cooperation to five new areas —
beginning with heavy trucks, which are a significant cause of greenhouse gas emissions in both countries. The U.S. secretary of state,
John Kerry, speaking before the announcement, said such cooperation would resonate far beyond the two countries, boosting
prospects for a global climate agreement. America and China between them account for more than 40 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions, but signs
of cooperation between the two big emitters could help unlock a global
deal to cut emissions, Kerry suggested earlier on Wednesday. "I want to underscore that when we make a decision … it
ripples beyond our borders," Kerry said. "How will we curb climate change? How will we pioneer new energy technology that is in
fact the solution to climate change?" Kerry said in his opening remarks at the fifth annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue. A State Department fact sheet on the new initiatives underlined Kerry's point, noting that the two countries pledged to
work together to advance the United Nations' efforts to reach an international climate accord. "Recognizing the importance of
working through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
United States and
China are committed to enhancing our policy dialogue on all aspects of the future agreement," the fact
sheet said. That spirit of cooperation represents a drastic change from the calamitous
Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, when diplomatic snubs and general distrust
between the two countries wrecked any prospect for a deal. The State Department climate envoy, Todd
Stern, told reporters he thought the initiative would help efforts to reach a deal by 2015. Under the initiatives announced on
Wednesday, the two countries agreed to work together to reduce emissions from heavy duty trucks and other vehicles by raising fuel
efficiency standards and introducing cleaner fuels. The State Department notes in its fact sheet that emissions from transport
account for a significant share of China's notorious air pollution. The countries also agreed to work together to develop carbon
capture technologies, increase energy efficiency in buildings, promote smarter grids and improve reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions. The working groups for each initiative are to report back in October, the State Department said. The announcement
marks the second agreement on climate cooperation between America an China in a month following the agreement in California
between Barack Obama and China's premier Xi Jinping to work together to reduce the production of especially powerful climate
pollutants — hydrofluorocarbons. HFCs are used in air conditioners and refrigerators and are far more potent than carbon dioxide in
the short-term. That deal — followed one week later by Obama's announcement of a sweeping climate change plan — appeared to
have eased the way for further cooperation between America and China, said Deborah Seligsohn, who has advised the World
Resources Institute on China's climate and energy policies. Obama's plan would bypass Congress to use government agencies to cut
emissions from power plants and take other climate measures. Seligsohn said the
move could prod China towards
more ambitious curbs on its own greenhouse gas emissions at future negotiating rounds. "There is a
little bit of new wind in everybody's sails right now," she said.
Crushing Chinese clean tech development independently turns warming –
Chinese emissions cuts are key to any effective strategy
Chen et al 10 (Chen, Qian, Peridas, Qiu, Ho: Natural Resources Defense Council, Friedmann: Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Li, Wei: Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sung, Fowler: Clean Air Task
Force, Seligsohn, Liu, Forbes: World Resources Institute, Zhang: China Tsinghua University, Zhao: Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jason Chen, Jingjing Qian, George Peridas, Yueming Qiu, Bruce Ho, Julio
Friedmann, Xiaochun Li, Ning Wei, S. Ming Sung, Mike Fowler, Deborah Seligsohn, Yue Liu, Sarah Forbes, Dongjie Zhang, Lifeng
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
Zhao, December 2010, “Identifying Near-Term Opportunities For Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in China,”
http://docs.nrdc.org/international/files/int_10121001a.pdf)//DR. H
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
if China and the world are to avoid the worst consequences of
climate change, then China’s rapid growth in total carbon dioxide emissions— though
approaching only the world’s average level on a per capita basis—must be curtailed and begin to decrease within the
next two decades. This process must happen in parallel with deep emissions reductions
by industrialized countries, starting now, in order to save the world from dangerous
climate change.
As discussed at the beginning of this report,
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Link
China’s main investments go to the energy sector- the plan crowds it out
Xiaoxia 5-6
[Wang, Economic Observer, “In America’s backyard: China’s Rising Influence in Latin America”, 5/6/13,
http://www.worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policytrade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/]
Initially, China’s activities in Latin America were limited to the diplomatic level. By providing funds and assisting in infrastructure
constructions, China managed to interrupt diplomatic ties between poor Latin countries and Taiwan. Since then, with
China's
economic boom, the supply of energy and resources has gradually become a problem
that plagues China -- and its exchanges with Latin America thus are endowed with real
substantive purpose. Among the numerous needs of China, the demand for oil has always been the
most powerful driving force. In the past 30 years, China has consumed one-third of the world's
new oil production and become the world's second-largest oil importer. More than half
of China's oil demand depends on imports, which increases the instability of its energy
security. Diversification is inevitable. In this context, Latin America and its huge reserves and
production capacity naturally became a destination for China. China must better protect
its energy supply, and can't just play the simple role of consumer. It must also help solidify the important
links of the petroleum industry supply chain. Indeed, the China National Petroleum Corporation frequently
appears in Latin American countries, and China’s investment and trade in the Latin American
countries are also focused on its energy sector.
Energy is zero-sum between the US and China
Luft 6
[Gal, PhD and Co-Director for the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, “Challenge or Opportunity? China’s Role in Latin
America”, United States Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg28258/html/CHRG109shrg28258.htm]
Energy is today perhaps the main driver of China's recent international behavior. Many of
China's foreign policies in the Middle East, East China Sea, Central Asia, and Africa are shaped by its energy
expediencies, often at the detriment of the United States. China's recent effort to drive the United States
out of Central Asia and in support of terrorist-sponsor regimes like Iran and Sudan just because it needs their oil are the latest
testimonies of this trend. With
global reserves of cheaply recoverable oil and gas being depleted,
China is already competing with the United States over the same oil reserves in some of
the world's most unstable areas. When it comes to Latin America, China's demand for
oil has resulted in a series of deals with a number of countries, primarily Peru, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia,
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela, which is America's fourth largest oil supplier.
Investments by the US and China are zero sum
Rachman 12
[Gideon, chief foreign-affairs commentator for the Financial Times, “The End of the Win-Win World” January 24, 2012,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/24/the_end_of_the_win_win_world]
In my book Zero-Sum Future, written in 2009, I attempted to predict how the global economic crisis would change international
politics. As the rather bleak title implied, I
argued that relations between the major powers were likely
to become increasingly tense and conflict-ridden. In a worsening economic climate, it
would be harder for the big economies to see their relationships as mutually beneficial -as a win-win. Instead, they would increasingly judge their relationships in zero-sum terms. What was good for China
would be seen as bad for America. What was good for Germany would be bad for Italy, Spain, and Greece. Now, as
the paperback edition of my book comes out, the prediction is being borne out -- which is gratifying as an author, although slightly
worrying as a member of the human race. The
rise of zero-sum logic is the common thread, tying together
seemingly disparate strands in international politics: the crisis inside the European Union, deteriorating U.S.-Chinese
relations, and the deadlock in global governance.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. IL
Chinese renewable access is the vital internal link to their stability –
controls every other factor
Bradsher, 10-Keith Bradsher is the Hong Kong bureau chief of The New York Times, covering Asian business, economic, political and science news.¶ In 2013,
he was part of the team awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting “for its penetrating look into business practices by Apple and other technology companies that
illustrates the darker side of a changing global economy for workers and consumers.Ӧ He has been a reporter for the newspaper since 1989; previous postings include as Detroit
bureau chief; Washington correspondent for domestic economics; Washington correspondent for trade and international economics; New York business reporter for
telecommunications; and New York business reporter for airlines and freight transportation.¶ He won the Asia Society’s Osborn Elliott Award and the Overseas Press Club’s
Malcolm Forbes Award in 2010, for coverage of clean energy in China. He won the George Polk Award for national reporting for his coverage of sport utility vehicles in 1997 and
was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize the same year. Public Affairs published his book on S.U.V.’s, “High and Mighty,” in 2002 and it won the New York Public Library’s Helen
Bernstein Award. (Keith Bradsher, “China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy”, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energyenvironment
/31renew.html?pagewanted=all#h[])//TWR
China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s
largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build
nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.¶ These efforts to
dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday
trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind
turbines and other gear manufactured in China.¶ “Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate,
‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on
renewable energy.¶ President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling
behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root
beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.¶ The United States and other countries are offering incentives
to develop their own renewable energy industries, and Mr. Obama called for redoubling American efforts. Yet many
Western
and Chinese executives expect China to prevail in the energy-technology race.¶ Multinational
corporations are responding to the rapid growth of China’s market by building big, state-of-the-art factories in China. Vestas of
Denmark has just erected the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex here in northeastern China, and transferred the
technology to build the latest electronic controls and generators.¶ “You
have to move fast with the market,” said
Jens Tommerup, the president of Vestas China. “Nobody has ever seen such fast development in a wind market.”¶ Renewable
energy industries here are adding jobs rapidly, reaching 1.12 million in 2008 and
climbing by 100,000 a year, according to the government-backed Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association.¶
Yet renewable energy may be doing more for China’s economy than for the
environment. Total power generation in China is on track to pass the United States in
2012 — and most of the added capacity will still be from coal.¶ China intends for wind, solar and biomass energy to represent 8
percent of its electricity generation capacity by 2020. That compares with less than 4 percent now in China and the United States.
Coal will still represent two-thirds of China’s capacity in 2020, and nuclear and hydropower most of the rest.¶ As China seeks to
dominate energy-equipment exports, it has the advantage of being the world’s largest market for power equipment. The government
spends heavily to upgrade the electricity grid, committing $45 billion in 2009 alone. State-owned banks provide generous
financing.¶ China’s
top leaders are intensely focused on energy policy: on Wednesday, the
government announced the creation of a National Energy Commission composed of cabinet
ministers as a “superministry” led by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.¶ Regulators have set mandates for power generation
Generous subsidies for consumers to install their own solar
panels or solar water heaters have produced flurries of activity on rooftops across
China.¶ China’s biggest advantage may be its domestic demand for electricity, rising 15
percent a year. To meet demand in the coming decade, according to statistics from the
International Energy Agency, China will need to add nearly nine times as much
electricity generation capacity as the United States will.¶ So while Americans are used to
thinking of themselves as having the world’s largest market in many industries, China’s
market for power equipment dwarfs that of the United States, even though the American market is
more mature. That means Chinese producers enjoy enormous efficiencies from large-scale
production.¶ In the United States, power companies frequently face a choice between
buying renewable energy equipment or continuing to operate fossil-fuel-fired power
plants that have already been built and paid for. In China, power companies have to buy
companies to use more renewable energy.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
lots of new equipment anyway, and alternative energy, particularly wind and nuclear, is
increasingly priced competitively.¶ Interest rates as low as 2 percent for bank loans — the result of a savings rate of
40 percent and a government policy of steering loans to renewable energy — have also made a big difference.¶ As in many
other industries, China’s low labor costs are an advantage in energy. Although Chinese wages have
risen sharply in the last five years, Vestas still pays assembly line workers here only $4,100 a year.¶ China’s commitment to
renewable energy is expensive. Although costs are falling steeply through mass production, wind energy is still 20 to 40 percent
more expensive than coal-fired power. Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal.¶ The Chinese government charges a
renewable energy fee to all electricity users. The fee increases residential electricity bills by 0.25 percent to 0.4 percent. For
industrial users of electricity, the fee doubled in November to roughly 0.8 percent of the electricity bill.¶ The fee revenue goes to
companies that operate the electricity grid, to make up the cost difference between renewable energy and coal-fired power.¶
Renewable energy fees are not yet high enough to affect China’s competitiveness even in
energy-intensive industries, said the chairman of a Chinese industrial company, who asked
not to be identified because of the political sensitivity of electricity rates in China.¶ Grid operators are unhappy. They are reimbursed
for the extra cost of buying renewable energy instead of coal-fired power, but not for the formidable cost of building power lines to
wind turbines and other renewable energy producers, many of them in remote, windswept areas. Transmission losses are high for
sending power over long distances to cities, and nearly a third of China’s wind turbines are not yet connected to the national grid.¶
Most of these turbines were built only in the last year, however, and grid construction has not caught up. Under legislation passed by
the Chinese legislature on Dec. 26, a grid operator that does not connect a renewable energy operation to the grid must pay that
operation twice the value of the electricity that cannot be distributed.¶ With prices tumbling, China’s
wind and solar
industries are increasingly looking to sell equipment abroad — and facing complaints by Western
companies that they have unfair advantages. When a Chinese company reached a deal in November to supply turbines for a big wind
“Every country, including
the United States and in Europe, wants a low cost of renewable energy,” said Ma Lingjuan, deputy
managing director of China’s renewable energy association. “Now China has reached that level, but it gets criticized
farm in Texas, there were calls in Congress to halt federal spending on imported equipment.¶
by the rest of the world.”
Energy security’s key to stability
Mares ‘11
BAKER INSTITUTE SCHOLAR FOR LATIN AMERICAN ENERGY STUDIES¶ JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC
POLICY¶ RICE UNIVERSITY(David R. Mares, Ph.D, “THE RISE OF CHINA AND ITS ENERGY IMPLICATIONS”, Energy Forum,
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY¶ RICE UNIVERSITY, December 2, 2011,
http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-RiseOfChinaMares-120211-WEB.pdf)//TWR
China’s foreign policy uses the “soft power” tools of trade—foreign investment, tourism,¶ education, and
economic aid, mainly in developing countries—to promote the perspective of a¶ win-win relationship. In the area of
energy, the 2007 White Paper on Energy proposes¶ “cooperation for mutual benefit” and
“intensifying mutually beneficial cooperation in energy¶ exploration and utilization.”3 This
strategy well reflects recognition that energy security is not¶ the only threat to China, and
that if those traditional issues are not kept in mind, oil security¶ strategies could be
defeated through traditional conflict (use of military force and embargoes).4 It¶ also recognizes that “soft power”
might achieve what threats cannot, including steering many of¶ the 12 Latin American countries that still recognize Taiwan’s
sovereignty to China’s position.5¶ Not coincidentally, most of the states recognizing Taipei are Latin American
Renewables are key to long term Chinese energy security.
Zhang, 11-Consultant, Office of the Chief Economist, World Bank
CNAPS Visiting Fellow, China, Autumn 2009 ( Jian, “CHINA’S ENERGY SECURITY: PROSPECTS, CHALLENGES, AND
OPPORTUNITIES” , THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION¶ CENTER FOR NORTHEAST ASIAN POLICY STUDIES
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers
/2011/7/china%20energy%20zhang/07_china_energy_zhang_paper.pdf)//TWR
China needs to design its own
energy security given its natural resource endowments, technological level, and
potential growth. Figure 11 compares the global primary energy consumption structure with China’s primary energy consumption structure. Though China has
strong potential for growth in the hydro-power, nuclear, wind, and natural gas sectors, in
the short run it may consider making full use of its coal resources in order to alleviate oil dependence or oil conflicts . In the medium run or long run, China
should build a low-carbon economy by conducting R&D in clean coal technology and
developing renewable energy.
The Western industrialization economic model that relies heavily on high carbon output may not be a good example for China to replicate.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Energy Key
Energy is key to Chinese influence in the region, and doesn’t threaten the
US-no risk of conflict. Chinese influence in energy also resolves illegal
immigration, the drug war, and American energy security.
World Crunch, 6/13-delivers the best global journalism previously shut off from English language readers: selecting,
translating and editing content from top foreign-language outlets. (Laura Lin, “IN AMERICA'S BACKYARD: CHINA'S RISING
INFLUENCE IN LATIN AMERICA”, June 5, 2013, http://www.worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/)//TWR
Among the numerous needs of China, the demand for oil has always been the most
powerful driving force. In the past 30 years, China has consumed one-third of the world's new oil production and become
the world's second-largest oil importer. More than half of China's oil demand depends on imports, which increases the instability of
its energy security. Diversification
is inevitable. In this context, Latin America and its huge
reserves and production capacity naturally became a destination for China.¶ China
must better protect its energy supply, and can't just play the simple role of
consumer.
It must also help solidify the important links of the petroleum industry supply chain. Indeed, the China National
Petroleum Corporation frequently appears in Latin American countries, and
China’s investment and trade
in the Latin American countries are also focused on its energy sector.¶ In the
opinion of many European and American scholars, China's current practice isn’t much different from
that of Western colonizers of the last century. These scholars believe that China doesn’t
care about local human rights or the state of democracy when dealing with countries. All
China is interested in is establishing long-term, stable economic relations. This realistic path is
exactly opposite to that of America's newfound idealism. Thus China has become a close collaborator of certain Latin American
countries, such as Venezuela, that are in sharp conflict with the United States.¶ The global financial crisis of 2008 was a chance for
China to become an increasingly important player in Latin American. As Europe and the United States were caught in a financial
quagmire, China, with nearly $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves as backing, embarked on "funds-for-assets" transactions with
Latin American countries.¶ So
what does China want exactly in entering Latin American? Is it to
obtain a stable supply of energy and resources, and thus inadvertently acquire political
influence? Or the other way round?¶ Presumably most U.S. foreign policy-makers are
well aware of the answer.¶ China's involvement in the Latin American continent
doesn’t constitute a threat to the United States, but brings benefits. It is precisely
has reached "loans-for-oil" swap agreements with Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and other countries
that it brings much-needed funds to these oil-producing countries in South America. Not only have these funds been
used in the field of oil production, but they have also safeguarded the energy supply of
the United States, as well as stabilized these countries' livelihood -- and to a certain
extent reduced the impact of illegal immigration and the drug trade on the U.S.
because China
Latin American energy is a key issue for China.
Dumbaugh et al 05
[Kerry, Specialist in Asian Affairs “China’s growing interest in Latin America”, April 20 2005,
http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AWC/AWCGATE/crs/rs22119.pdf]
China’s Latin-American diplomacy. China
announced a $10 billion energy deal in Brazil in November 2004.7Brazil’s state-owned oil company,
Petrobras, and China’s National Offshore Oil company reportedly also are studying the feasibility
of joint operations in exploration, refining, and pipeline construction around the world.
The PRC is also exploring energy deals in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia, as well
as offshore projects in Argentina.
Energy concerns play an especially important role in
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Chinese Growth Good – Turns US Competitiveness
Chinese contractions derail US competitiveness
Anand and Srivastava ’11
[Swait and Ishan. Staffers for the Times of India. “The War for Talent is Going to Get Worse” The Times of India, 1/26/11 ln]
Post recession, hiring is back in India across sectors. But one reads mixed reports about
the US and Europe markets. The blue-collar jobs have been the first to pick up. Things are looking up in the IT and finance
sectorsin the US and Europe. European countries like Germany and France are showing strong growth, especially in the third
quarter and by the end of the fiscal there should be better news. I
am pretty optimistic about global recovery.
of world economy is inter-connected. When growth happens in Asia, it
spreads to US and then to Europe. What are the hiring trends in Europe? Europe is facing a serious shortage of
Also growth
skilled workers. According to a study, Europe will fall short of 32 million skilled workers by 2050. But if we look at this situation
qualitatively, we can see that the gap is even wider since the skills required in future will be higher and more specialised. Therefore,
Europe should try to increase immigration. And that will be good for India. Indians will get more jobs and that too, around the
world. How do you compare India with China and African countries? Actually, there are lots of similarities between India
and
China. Both have big unorganised sectors, good supply of well educated people and strong
demand. Africa is certainly a big opportunity but you have to put it in perspective. It is a continent of 600 million people. In
contrast the size of the middle class in China itself is 250-300 million. Africa has a lot of natural resources but reasons like political
instability are making growth difficult. But there has been improvement. Also in
context of India versus China
discussions, I would like to say that growth in global economy is not a zero-sum game. Everyone
can grow together at the same time and not necessarily at the expense of someone else.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Chinese Growth Good – Turns US Hegemony
Chinese growth turns US hegemony
Yiwei ‘7
[W. Center for American Studies @ Fudan. “China’s Rise: An Unlikely Pillar of US Hegemony” The Harvard International Review,
Vol 29 No 1. Spring 2007 Questia]
China’s rise is taking place in this context. That is to say, Chinese
development is merely one facet of Asian
and developing states’ economic progress in general. Historically, the United States has provided the
dominant development paradigm for the world. But today, China has come up with development
strategies that are different from that of any other nation-state in history and are a
consequence of the global migration of industry along comparative advantage lines.
Presently, the movement of light industry and consumer goods production from advanced industrialized countries to China is nearly
complete, but heavy
industry is only beginning to move. Developed countries’ dependence on China will be far
more pronounced following this movement. As global production migrates to China and other
developing countries, a feedback loop will emerge and indeed is already beginning to
emerge. Where globalization was once an engine fueled by Western muscle and steered by
Western policy, there is now more gas in the tank but there are also more hands on the steering
wheel . In the past, developing countries were often in a position only to respond to
globalization, but now, developed countries must respond as well. Previously the United States believed
that globalization was synonymous with Americanization, but today’s world has
witnessed a United States that is feeling the influence of the world as well. In the past,
a sneeze on Wall Street was followed by a downturn in world markets. But in February 2007, Chinese stocks fell sharply and Wall
Street responded with its steepest decline in several years. In this way, the
whirlpool of globalization is no
longer spinning in one direction . Rather, it is generating feedback mechanisms and is
widening into an ellipse with two focal points: one located in the United States, the historical
leader of the developed world, and one in the China , the strongest country in the new
developing world power bloc . Combating Regionalization It is important to extend the discussion beyond
platitudes regarding "US decline" or the "rise of China" and the invective-laden debate over threats and security issues that arises
from these.
We must step out of a narrowly national mindset and reconsider what Chinese
development means for the United States. One of the consequences of globalization has been that countries
such as China, which depend on exporting to US markets, have accumulated large dollar reserves. This has been unavoidable for
these countries, as they must purchase dollars in order to keep the dollar strong and thus avoid massive losses. Thus, the
United States is bound to bear a trade deficit, and moreover, this deficit is inextricably tied
to the dollar’s hegemony in today’s markets. The artificially high dollar and the US economy at large
depend in a very real sense on China’s investment in the dollar. Low US inflation and interest rates
similarly depend on the thousands of "Made in China" labels distributed across the United States. As Paul Krugman wrote in The
New York Times, the situation is comparable to one in which "the American sells the house but the money to buy the house comes
from China." Former US treasury secretary Lawrence Summers even affirms that China and the United States may be in a kind of
imprudent "balance of financial terror." Today, the US trade deficit with China is US$200 billion. China holds over US$1 trillion in
foreign exchange reserves and US$350 billion in US bonds. Together, the
Chinese and US economies account
for half of global economic growth. Thus, a fantastic situation has arisen: China’s rise is actually
supporting US hegemony . Taking US hegemony and Western preeminence as the starting point, many
have concluded that the rise of China presents a threat. The premise of this logic is that the international
system predicated on US hegemony and Western preeminence would be destabilized by the rise of a second major power. But
this view is inconsistent with the phenomenon of one-way globalization. The so-called process of
one-way globalization can more truly be called Westernization. Today’s globalization is still in large part driven by the West,
inasmuch as it is tinged by Western unilateralism and entails the dissemination of essentially Western standards and ideology. For
example, Coca Cola has become a Chinese cultural icon, Louis Vuitton stores crowd high-end shopping districts in Shanghai, and, as
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
gender equality progresses, Chinese women look to Western women for inspiration. In contrast, Haier, the best-known Chinese
brand in the United States, is still relatively unknown, and Wang Fei, who is widely regarded in China as the pop star who was able
to make it in the United States, has less name-recognition there than a first-round American Idol cut.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
South China Sea Impact
Chinese oil insecurity will cause South China Sea conflict-most volatile
region in Asia with quick escalation likely.
Dosch, 11-Ph.D. (Political Science and International Relations ,University of Mainz,Germany)¶ M.A (Political Science, Public Law and
Ethnology,University of Mainz,Germany)¶ Habilitation (Post -doc/professorial degree: Political Science and International Relations, University of
Mainz,Germany), Harvard International Review (Jörn, Harvard, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: Order-Building on China’s terms?” August
18, 2011, http://hir.harvard.edu/the-spratly-islands-dispute-order-building-on-china-s-terms)
As the result of China’s participation in world trade and its consequent growing demand
for overseas energy and raw materials, the South China Sea has become an increasingly
important resource for Beijing. China’s demand for imported energy resources is predicted to rise
to 500 million tons of oil imports and over 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas by 2020. For comparison, in 2009 China imported 204 million tons of
oil and just about 5 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Because of its rapidly increasing energy consumption, China will be more actively
involved in oil and gas exploration in its adjacent sea areas and in securing the oil
supply routes at sea. Other claimants, of course, value this resource for the same reasons
and, just as in China’s case, have seen nationalism and geostrategic interests enter their policy equations. Therefore, the South China Sea has
been host to territorial disputes that are among the most contentious and volatile in the
Asia-Pacific theater. Amid the intense competitions for its vast natural resources, the
South China Sea’s role in regional security and stability has never been more important.¶
At the heart of these disputes lie the Spratly Islands–a collection of coral reefs, atolls, islets, islands, and sand bars scattered over a sea zone of some 410,000 square kilometers.
This area is claimed, in whole or in part, by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei,
and the Philippines. Although the total area of the islands does not exceed ten square kilometres, the Spratly Islands’ geostrategic and economic
significance are invaluable. Linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the South China Sea sees passage of nearly 50 percent of global merchant traffic and 80 percent of crude oil
Securing sovereignty over the Spratly Islands equates to
direct control over some of the world’s most important sea-lanes. Furthermore, the islands are set amid some of
transports en route to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
the world’s most productive fishing grounds and may prove to be rich in undersea oil and gas resources. The exact size of the deposits is not yet known, but according to a
17.7
billion tons. If this figure is correct, the area would form the fourth largest reserve bed in
the world. While most of the reserves are currently not exploitable due to their position
beneath the oceanic crust in sedimentary beds, few doubt that the necessary technology
will be available in the near future. ¶ The dispute is symptomatic for regional security
and order in two ways. First, the Chinese ‘win-win’ rhetoric, which emphasizes the
mutual benefit of Beijing’s economic and political relations with other states, is mere
window dressing when its core national interests are at stake. Second, the sovereignty
conflict shows the fallacy of multilateralism rhetoric in China-Southeast Asia relations.
frequently cited estimate by China’s Geology and Mineral Resources Ministry, the region around the Spratly Islands holds oil and natural gas reserves of approximately
Contrary to a commonly held view, attempts by the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) to provide an effective multilateral framework for conflict management
have not resulted in a de-escalation of tensions or indeed moved the dispute closer to a sustainable solution. ¶ Following the oil crisis in the early 1970s, discovery of crude oil in
Spratly Islands soon transformed the area into one of the hotly contested among its
claimants. When German merchants first mapped and surveyed the Spratly Islands in the early twentieth century, they found no signs of human habitation. Today,
the
military forces from Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines occupy about 45 of the islands. Brunei has claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone in the south-eastern
part of the region without maintaining a military presence
. The dispute is inevitably linked to China’s rise
and its military ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region. In recent years, the
Chinese navy has intensified its patrols throughout the area and has shown
an increasing readiness and willingness to confront other nations for
control within the contested island chains.
¶ The dispute has its roots in the early twentieth century when Chinese
authorities began to assert Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. This triggered protest by the Vietnamese court at Hue, which had established its
control over the islands well before the French conquests of Vietnam. In the 1930s, while China began to publish maps declaring its territorial claims in the South China Sea,
French authorities in Indochina also began to set up weather stations on and send garrisons to the Paracel and Spratly Islands.¶ The dispute gained prominence in 1978, when
the Philippines set out its EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), formally including the island Kalayaan in the Spratlys. An EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km)
beyond a coastal state’s 12-mile territorial sea, and grants sovereign rights over the natural resources and exploitation in the zone, while preserving the freedom of navigation.
Several coastal states had claimed EEZs since the 1940s, but it was not until 1982 that the third UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) codified the EEZ.¶
The controversy over the Spratly Islands remained relatively dormant until 1988, when China and Vietnam clashed at the Johnson Reef; several Vietnamese boats sank and over
70 sailors died. Since then, hostilities in the South China Sea have regularly erupted, most prominently between China and the Philippines. The Philippines considers China’s
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
occupation of the Mischief Reef in 1995 and its repeated incursions into Scarborough Reef since 1997 as direct assaults on Philippine territory. Conflicts arose as a result. In
1996, Chinese ships engaged in a naval battle with a Philippine gunboat near the Campones Island. In 1998, the Philippine navy arrested Chinese fishermen off the Scarborough
Shoal, and Vietnamese soldiers fired on a Philippine fishing boat near the Tennent (Pigeon) Reef. Since then, actors in the region have taken action to avoid military
confrontation, but provocations still occur regularly. For example, in February 2011, Vietnam protested over a Chinese military drill near the Spratly Islands, claiming that the
exercise was a violation of its sovereignty over the archipelago. Despite the many conflicts in the region, it is unlikely that any of the Southeast Asian claimants would be in a
position to challenge China militarily if Beijing decides to use force in defence of its claim. Therefore, it can be said that the relative peace in the South China Sea is largely the
While
Beijing has repeatedly stated that China owns sovereignty and jurisdiction over the
island and adjacent waters, other nations involved in the dispute contradict this claim,
basing their responses on historical or legal arguments. At the core of the sovereignty dispute lies the so-called “nine-dash
result of deterrence of action from the Chinese side.¶ The essential problem is simple: the claimants disagree about the distribution of the Spratly Islands.
line”, as defined by nine dashes on Chinese maps. This U-shaped line indicates China’s claims to over 80 percent of the South China Sea. The original line, which was denoted by
11 dots, was first introduced by the Kuomintang government in 1947, and it included regions in the Gulf of Tonkin off of Vietnam’s northern coast. China later altered it by
deleting two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin. However, it was only in May 2009 that China issued an official note concerning the nine-dash line, formally bringing the nine-dash
line map to global attention. Beijing’s declaration of the international significance of this line was a response to Malaysia and Vietnam’s joint submission to the United Nations
China’s claims in
the South China Sea to a “core” national interest, which would put it on par with Tibet
and Taiwan. Beijing has never publicly confirmed this. Neither, however, has it made a formal denial despite the apprehension aroused in the region. In April 2011,
that manifests their own claims in the South China Sea. In early 2010, Chinese officials appeared to have considered the idea of elevating
the Philippines filed a formal protest in the United Nations over China’s nine-dash line. According to the contested map, the Chinese-claimed waters include several oil, natural
gas, and condensate fields of the Philippines (Malampaya and Camago), Malaysia (fields offshore Sarawak), Indonesia (Natuna Islands) and Vietnam (several blocks off the
Vietnamese coast).¶ Almost all involved governments have invoked both history and international law to justify their respective sovereignty claims. The most important
provision in this regard is the 1982 UNCLOS, which came into force in 1994. It created several guidelines concerning the status of islands, the continental shelf, enclosed seas,
and territorial limits; and it is most important for the legal recognition of the 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone. This area can extend to a maximum of 350 nautical
miles if the natural conditions related to the continental shelf satisfy certain criteria. However, the convention also states that “rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf”. It is partly for this reason that some claimants have built permanent structures on their
islands and are occupying them to the greatest extent possible. In 1999, China completed a five-story building on Mischief Reef, and the Philippines consequently viewed this as
evidence of Beijing’s intentions to establish military facilities in the region. Manila, for its part, is in the process of installing radar equipment on nine of the Spratly Islands that
it claims. There are also plans to upgrade an airstrip on one of the islands into a full-scale air base. Taiwan maintains a small military presence on Itu Aba, the largest of the
Spratly Islands (489,600 square meters), and it built a long runway there in 2009. Both China and Vietnam have recently been building more structures, including armed
bunkers, on some of the islands they occupy. Because of excellent conditions for scuba diving in the Spratly Islands, Malaysia has developed one atoll by bringing soil from the
mainland and constructing a hotel and an airstrip to fly in tourists.¶ The application of UNCLOS is not straightforward in the case of the Spratly Islands, however, because most
of the declared EEZs overlap and the Convention’s legal provisions clash with the “historical evidence” that all parties in the disputes have put forward. In 2004, for example,
Vietnam issued a White Paper claiming Vietnam’s exclusive rights to sovereignty over the region in question. Vietnam has followed the Chinese example of using archaeological
evidence to strengthen sovereignty claims. While UNCLOS represents an internationally recognized framework for establishing oceanic boundaries, it is not in itself a conflict
resolution mechanism. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg and the International Court of Justice in Hague are the main international bodies that deal
So far they have looked for alternative
means of dispute management to avoid the risk of losing a judgment that would be final
and binding. Outcomes are unpredictable given that all claimants have at least some
convincing arguments on their side without being able to make a watertight case overall.
This is particularly true for China’s claim to the Spratly Island which has no legal basis in
UNCLOS. Yet Beijing holds the key to a resolution of the dispute which will
with law of the sea cases. However, the claimants are under no obligation to employ the courts.
either be decided through Chinese power projection
or a negotiated settlement on the Chinese terms.
Goes nuclear and causes extinction
Wesley ‘12
[Michael Wesley, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and an Adjunct Professor at Griffith University and The
University of Sydney, former Executive Director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, former Professor of International
Relations and Director of the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University, and Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the
University of New South Wales, July 2012, “What’s at stake in the South China Sea?”
http://lowyinstitute.cachefly.net/files/wesley_whats_at_stake_snapshot11.pdf]
The South China Sea is enclosed by the west coast of mainland Southeast Asia, Borneo and the Philippine archipelago.
Rich in hydrocarbons and fish stocks, it is traversed by over one-third of global shipping.
Its waters and seabed are subject to six opposing territorial claims – by China, Taiwan, Vietnam,
Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines – but these confrontations are generally not regarded as seriously as the
Taiwan Straits and the Korean peninsula standoffs. But the South China Sea is more unpredictable, and
certainly warrants much closer and more sustained attention by strategists and policy-makers. It is in the
South China Sea that the components of Asia’s changing power dynamics are most
concentrated and on display: China’s growing strategic heft and paranoid sense of entitlement; its
Southeast Asian neighbours’ hopes and misgivings about China’s regional dominance; and the United
States’ compulsion to meet China’s strategic challenge. The South China Sea is a tangle of
competing and mutually complicating claims over territory, resources and navigation
rights. Geopolitically, it is like the Bermuda triangle, reversing expected alignments and suspending normal rules of the game. It
pits Asia’s two most significant Communist countries, China and Vietnam, against each other, unites usually bitter enemies China
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
and Taiwan, and is drawing the United States back to a partnership with Vietnam a generation after the fall of Saigon. The
South China Sea is the flashpoint in the Pacific where conflict is most likely to
break out through miscalculation . It is a crowded maritime environment
contested by some inexperienced maritime forces with underdeveloped naval doctrine,
among whom there are no established and accepted rules for managing maritime
incidents. And the combination of the claimant states’ power asymmetries, overlapping
prerogatives, and growing nationalism mean that incidents, once they occur, are likely to
escalate. There are four reasons why finding solutions to the South China Sea disputes should be given the highest priority by
strategic policy-makers. 1. For China it’s about security – and respect The South China Sea symbolises Beijing’s
larger maritime dilemma. The country’s major population and productive centres cluster along China’s coastline, and
are therefore vulnerable to major attack from the sea. Naval strategists see China as hemmed in along its sea coast by a chain of
states or territories hostile to Beijing: Japan, Korea, the Ryuku Islands, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The
overriding goal
of Chinese naval strategy is to establish dominance over the waters within this ‘first
island chain’. At the southern end of the first island chain, the South China Sea is crucial to China’s
commercial shipping, energy flows, and the access of its Hainan island-based submarines to the Pacific. But the
South China Sea’s southern and western access points – the Sunda, Lombok, Luzon and Malacca Straits –
are controlled by allies or partners of the United States. The best way to offset this
vulnerability is to control the South China Sea itself – and thereby loosen the American
position in Southeast Asia. Influential elites in China view the South China Sea as ‘blue territory’ – that is, as much a
part of China’s sovereign territory as Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan. To this line of thinking, any surrender of its claims in the South
China Sea would signal a weakening of its rights to Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan – and is therefore unthinkable. China’s 1992 Territorial
Law classified the South China Sea as China’s internal waters, meaning foreign naval vessels and aircraft must first gain Beijing’s
permission before transiting, submarines must surface, and that China retains the right to evict other countries’ shipping at any
time. Beijing’s willingness to enforce this law has been growing apace with its naval power in the western Pacific. In recent weeks,
Beijing has placed the Spratly and Paracel Islands and the Macclesfield Bank under prefectural-level administration, established a
45-member legislature to administer the 1100 people who live on the islands, and approved the deployment of a People’s Liberation
Army garrison to the islands. 2. Southeast Asia – avoiding the bad old days If
unaddressed, the dynamics in the
South China Sea could return Southeast Asia to the bad old days of inter-state
divisions , domestic instability and competitive great-power interventions . On
no other issue have the disagreements and rivalries between ASEAN member states
been so sustained and obvious. The Philippines and Vietnam demand that the organisation supports them in standing up to
Beijing. On the other side are Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, with no direct stake in the conflict and which refuse to endorse the
Philippines’ and Vietnam’s confrontational stance. Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are concerned about the dispute, but believe
that avoiding confrontation with China will improve the prospects for productive negotiations. The
stand-off over the
South China Sea exposes the hollowness of Asian institutions’ reliance on the principle of
unanimity – which means that any member’s objection can keep an issue, no matter how pressing, off the agenda. Beijing’s
refusal to discuss the South China Sea in any regional meeting, and its implicit threat to withdraw from any organisation that doesn’t
respect this wish, shows Southeast Asia’s confidence that it could ‘socialise’ China by welcoming it into regional institutions was
misplaced. Asian institutions allow Beijing to make apparent concessions, such as its 2002 agreement with ASEAN to a Declaration
of Conduct on the South China Sea, without actually surrendering any part of its position. As China and the United States increase
the stakes in the South China Sea, ASEAN’s cardinal principle of neutrality is threatened. The Philippines,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are tightening their strategic relationships with the United States, just as Cambodia,
Laos and Thailand deepen their links to China. And there are signs that the disputes have become entangled in domestic politics in
the Philippines and Vietnam, making their stances even more uncompromising. In Manila, following allegations that Beijing used
corrupt payments to soften the former Arroyo administration’s stance on the South China Sea, the current Aquino administration
and its Parliamentary opposition are vying for the most uncompromising policies on the issue. To counter rumours circulating
around Hanoi that Beijing has ‘bought’ the Vietnam’s senior leadership, the Vietnamese government has passed a law claiming
sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands. 3. For the United States it’s about Credibility – within limits It is in the South China
Sea that Southeast Asia’s anxieties about China overlap with American anxieties about Beijing’s naval buildup. Over the past two
years, the United States has taken an active interest and position in what had formerly been a dispute between China and the other
claimants. This means there are now in effect two layers to this dispute: a basic stand-off between the territorial claimants; and an
overarching strategic contest between Beijing and Washington. For
the United States, what’s at stake in the
South China Sea is the viability of its entire presence in the western Pacific. The US
Navy’s access to the South China Sea is contested by Beijing. China claims it will respect the freedom of
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
passage of ships and aircraft through the area, on the condition that they are en route to another destination, and do not conduct
military exercises or collect intelligence or militarily useful data. Washington
is adamant that the South China
Sea’s sea lanes are international waters, and are therefore subject to freedom of navigation,
which in international law allows the conduct of military exercises and the collection of intelligence and militarily useful data. If
Washington surrenders its ability to navigate the South China Sea on its own terms, it
will lose a major foothold in the western Pacific. The South China Sea in effect pits a Chinese expansive claim
(sovereignty based on historical usage) against an American expansive claim, that freedom of navigation allows the collection of
intelligence and military data. The American claim is contested in other waters by Malaysia, Indonesia and India, though supported
by other regional countries. China accuses the US of ‘hyping’ the freedom of navigation question, arguing that it hides an intention to
use the issue to build a coalition against China. For the Southeast Asian states contesting China’s South China Sea claims, the United
States’ presence and interest in the issue is a prerequisite for their position. Washington is acutely aware that it needs
to
be seen as a reliable ally and partner in the Pacific. It realises that its arms-length response to the Asian
Financial Crisis eroded its position in Asia and set China on its path towards building soft power in the region. For Southeast Asians
worried that Washington’s attention or will to stay in the region may erode, there is virtue in keeping the South China Sea on the
agenda. But Washington
can’t give its allies and partners a blank cheque which allows them
to confront, and even provoke, China from the comfort of the assumption that the United States will back them up. And
some in Southeast Asia are watching Washington’s moves very closely, sensitive that any
concession could signal its acceptance of China’s claims in the South China Sea. 4. Solutions
are Part of the Problem Either multilateral mediation or international law is most often used to
resolve disputes of this sort – but in the South China Sea they act to exacerbate the
situation. Beijing refuses to discuss the dispute in any multilateral context , fearing that it will
facilitate the formation of a front against China. The Southeast Asian claimants, however, are adamant that
they must deal with China as a coalition, with Manila particularly insistent that ASEAN must negotiate a
common position before negotiating with China. The result is a stand-off: the Philippines insists that ASEAN must find a
common position before negotiating with China, while China will only negotiate if ASEAN abandons the search for a common
position. International
law also intensifies the dispute. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea does not recognise China’s historical claims, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for an adjudication of
the dispute. Worse, because international law relies on unbroken longevity of claims as the
basis for adjudication, none of the parties to the South China Sea dispute can allow
others’ claims to pass uncontested, in case this is taken as evidence of its relinquishing
of its claim. The result is a steady drum beat of hydrocarbon prospecting, fishing, the occupation of
islets, and maritime clashes. Policy Implications There is a great deal at stake in the South China
Sea. The dynamics of this issue will impact on China’s evolving international personality, the response of its neighbours to its
rising power, and the longevity of the United States’ position in the western Pacific. With the growth of trade and investment around
Asia’s IndoPacific coast, the South China Sea will become ever more crowded with shipping and commerce.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//SCS Impact Defense
South Asia Sea flashpoint-China is willing to escalate over resources.
Schofield, 12/12/12-Professor Clive Schofield is the Director of Research and ARC Future Fellow at ANCORS. He is a
political geographer specialising in international boundaries and particularly maritime boundary delimitation. He holds a PhD in
Geography from the University of Durham, UK and also holds an LLM in international law from the University of British Columbia.
The central theme of his research can be summarised as the examination of the intersection of geographical/technical, legal and
political disciplines in the law of the sea with particular reference to maritime boundary delimitation. The core objective of his past
and present academic activity is to make a constructive, substantial and lasting practical contribution to the resolution of maritime
jurisdictional disputes.(Clive, “Island Disputes and the "Oil Factor" in the South China Sea” Current Intelligence,
http://www.currentintelligence.net/analysis/2012/12/12/island-disputes-and-the-oil-factor-in-the-south-china-sea.html)
Between a rock and a hard place:
Heated “diplomatic” exchanges, protests and counter-protests,
the issuing of competitive and overlapping oil concessions, military sabre-rattling and
confrontations at sea. All of these have been featured in recent debates over conflicting territorial and maritime claims in
the South China Sea – one of the principal potential flashpoints for conflict in
the Asia-Pacific region . Clive Schofield provides maritime geographical and legal context to the disputes while
teasing out some of the key drivers behind them. He argues that a reason for the apparently extreme nature of some of the claims
advanced, notably China’s, is a strong desire on the part of claimants to access the region’s perceived seabed energy resources.
Expectations that the South China Sea is likely to offer a silver bullet for regional energy security concerns are misplaced, and further
friction appears highly likely.¶ --¶ The
South China Sea has long been regarded as one of the key
potential flashpoints for conflict in the Asia-Pacific, alongside North Korea and Taiwan.
Recently tensions have been on the rise and relations between China and the other
South China Sea littoral states have become more fraught – characterised not only by diplomatic claim
and counter-claim (though frequently framed in less than diplomatic language) but also, more worryingly, by confrontations at sea.¶
Context, as they say, is everything. This article briefly outlines geopolitical drivers that sustain these complex and seemingly
intractable disputes, and seeks to shed light on their international legal dimensions.
It suggests that China in
particular has been driven to adopt extreme positions in order to secure
access to what Beijing tends to regard as its proper share of the resources ,
especially seabed energy reserves, of the South China Sea. However, such resources may not, in fact, prove to be the kind of panacea
for regional energy security concerns that they are sometimes perceived to represent. Nonetheless, if present trends are sustained,
further incidents are highly likely. Before proceeding to assessment of those issues, a brief consideration of the disputed South China
Sea islands is in order.¶ Dangerous Ground¶ The South China Sea disputes tend to focus on possession of several groups of islands,
sovereignty over which is contested among multiple claimants. Remarkably, for all of the attention devoted to the disputed South
China Sea islands over the years, some uncertainty remains over their geographical characteristics.¶ Looking at a map of the region,
the key island groups in the South China Sea are, clockwise from the northwest: the Paracel Islands (disputed between China and
Vietnam), the Pratas Islands (administered by Taiwan but, inevitably, claimed by China also), Scarborough Reef (or Shoal) together
with Macclesfield Bank (contested between China and the Philippines) and the Spratly Islands group (see Figure 1). The Spratly
Islands are claimed in whole or in part by no few than six states or entities (in the case of Taiwan) – Brunei, China, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. With the exception of Brunei, all of these claimant states occupy and garrison at least one of the
disputed features.¶ Accordingly,
the Spratlys Islands represent the primary point of contention
among the South China Sea littoral states. The Spratlys group comprises around 150-170 islands, islets, rocks,
reefs, shoals and low-tide elevations. That different authors offer different figures regarding precisely how many Spratly Islands
there in fact are, is testament to the bewilderingly varied character and types of insular features in question. This complexity has
tended to lead to disagreement over which features to count, resulting in different figures. The Spratlys also have different names in
multiple languages, including Chinese, English, French, Malay, Filipino and Vietnamese as well as variants within these languages,
adding a further problematic dimension to the equation. For convenience this essay refers to the most commonly used English
names of local features.¶ The Spratly Islands are uniformly small, isolated and uninhabited save for garrisons of occupying troops
and government personnel. The tiny dimensions of the Spratly Islands is underscored by the fact that the largest, Itu Aba (Taiping
Island), occupied by Taiwan, is a mere 1.4km long and 370m wide, with an area of approximately 50 hectares. Indeed, a review of
hydrographic records suggests that as few as 36 of the Spratly “Islands” are actually above water at high tide. Collectively these
features have an estimated total area of less than 8km2 (3 sq. miles) scattered over approximately 240,000km2 of the southern
South China Sea (Figure 1; map to appear in the Fall 2012 issue of this bulletin).¶ The Spratly Islands are therefore almost
vanishingly small specks of territory, in a broad swath of ocean space semi-enclosed by the surrounding mainland and main island
coastlines of the littoral states. Indeed, for most of their history the Spratlys have been known as places to avoid because of the dire
threat to the safety of navigation that they pose, rather than as the highly desirable real estate that they have become. This is well
illustrated by the fact that on British Admiralty charting, the area now commonly known as the Spratly Islands group has
traditionally, and aptly, been labelled “Dangerous Ground”.¶ All
the more remarkable, then, that these
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
seemingly insignificant and intrinsically worthless features are the cause of such angst
in regional relations.¶ What's at stake?¶ As at least some of the Spratly Islands are indeed above water at high tide, they
constitute land territory, no matter how small, that can be subject to sovereignty claims on the part of surrounding coastal states.
Such territorial claims are notoriously hard to reach compromise on as they instantly engage with a core state interest: safeguarding
territorial integrity. Such disputes are readily hijacked by nationalists, leaving extremely limited leeway for dispute resolution – a
situation that, arguably, works to the advantage of governments keen to bolster legitimacy and popularity and prepared to do so by
appearing firm on territorial and border issues.¶ The Spratly Islands are located in close proximity to sea lanes which are vital to the
generally resource-poor and thus import-dependent major economies of East and Northeast Asia. In particular the South China Sea
forms an important part of the sea lane of communication (SLOC) carrying seaborne energy supplies from the Middle East, Africa
and Australia. The military significance of the installations on the Spratlys has also been touted in this context. That said, shipping
tends to avoid rather than sail through the disputed islands, which remain hazards for navigation. The military worth of small bands
of troops garrisoned on the disputed islands is also militarily questionable save perhaps for their role as listening posts.¶ It is
noticeable, however, that many sovereignty disputes over small, sparsely inhabited and far-flung islands, including those of the
South China Sea, have only manifested themselves in the post-World War II period, as extended claims to maritime jurisdiction
became more prevalent. That such tiny features may have the potential to provide the basis for broad maritime claims offers a
seductive additional dimension to the sovereignty disputes over them. This is particularly the case given strong, though not
necessarily well-founded, presumptions that the ocean spaces associated with these disputed features contain valuable marine
resources, especially seabed energy resources.¶ Two factors suggest that the ‘oil factor’ in the South China Sea disputes tend to be
overplayed. The first of these relates to the international legal status of the disputed islands –and thus their capacity to generate
extensive maritime claims or significantly influence the course of future maritime boundaries in the South China Sea. The second
concerns the existence (or non-existence) of South China Sea hydrocarbon resources themselves, and their likely impact on the
regional energy security picture.¶ When is an Island a Rock?¶ The islands are often regarded as the key to the South China Sea
disputes, not only because the disagreements represent the primary source of contention among the littoral states but also because
they are viewed as having the potential to generate extensive claims to maritime jurisdiction and thus offer access to a significant
prize in terms of marine resources. Such broad maritime claims would, however, only result if the disputed features were actually
capable of generating such extensive maritime claims and, crucially, were awarded full weight in the delimitation of future maritime
boundaries in the South China Sea. Both of these propositions are open to question.¶ All of the South China Sea states with the
exception of non-UN member Taiwan are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article 121 of
the Convention articulates the “regime of islands” in international oceans law. In accordance with UNCLOS an island is defined as “a
naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide”. In principle the maritime claims made from
islands should be determined in the same manner as for “other land territory”. Islands can therefore be used as the basis for
advancing claims to a 12 nautical mile broad territorial sea as well as continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) rights out
to 200 nautical miles.¶ There is an exception to the rule, however. Article 121, paragraph 3 provides for a disadvantaged sub-category
of islands, formally termed “rocks”, that are incapable of supporting human habitation or an economic life of their own. Such
features “shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf”. This represents an enormous disadvantage in terms of capacity
to generate claims to maritime jurisdiction. Thus, if an island had no maritime neighbours within 400nm, it could generate 125,664
sq.nm [431,014km2] of territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf rights as compared to the capacity of a “rock” to generate a
territorial sea claim of 452 sq. nautical miles (1,550km2).¶ Great volumes of academic ink have been expended in the quest for clear
distinctions between islands, capable of generating continental shelf and EEZ rights, and mere rocks, which cannot. To little avail.
Such efforts have proved futile, as Article 121, paragraph 3 was drafted in a deliberately ambiguous manner in order to satisfy
competing, indeed diametrically opposed, positions and interests among the drafters of UNCLOS. This provision of the Convention
is, as a result, open to radically differing interpretations in order to enable consensus on a particularly controversial issue. ¶ Clearly at
least some of the disputed features of the Spratly Islands remain above water at high tide. At first glance many of these would,
however, seem to most readily fit the description of rocks. There is, though, no way to be conclusive on this point because Article 121
of UNCLOS lacks an objective test. Some of the claimant states, notably Malaysia and Vietnam, have indicated that they are of the
view that the disputed islands should be treated as rocks and therefore generate territorial seas of no more than 12 nautical miles. If
all the claimant states were to accept this position, the maritime area in dispute would shrink significantly. It is clear, however, that
China does not agree. It has stated in explicit terms that it not only possesses “indisputable” sovereignty over the disputed islands
(despite the palpable reality that such disputes do indeed exist), but also that the islands are capable of generating the full suite of
maritime zones, including EEZ and continental shelf rights.¶ Even if at least some of the Spratly Islands are, in fact, capable of
generating EEZ and continental shelf claims, there is little reason to anticipate that they would necessarily give rise to jurisdiction
over broad maritime spaces on behalf of whichever coastal state is ultimately deemed to hold sovereignty over them. The putative
delimitation of maritime boundaries is between small, isolated features among the Spratly Islands, on the one hand, and the long
mainland and main island coasts surrounding them, on the other.¶ There is significant disparity in the length of relevant coasts
under such a scenario. It is highly unlikely that the disputed islands would be accorded full effect in the delimitation of a maritime
boundary. Indeed, there is a growing trend internationally of small islands, especially those that are remote, sparsely inhabited or
completely uninhabited, and which possess restricted coastal fronts, being awarded only limited impact on their respective maritime
boundaries. Instead, they have often been awarded only territorial sea rights as though they were indeed mere rocks. ¶ Temptations
and Illusions: The “oil factor” in the South China Sea¶ There is a strong, long-standing perception of the South China Sea as a major
potential repository of seabed oil and gas resources. It is a view not well supported by evidence. The South China Sea’s reputation as
an oil rich region arises in part from a fervent desire on the part of interested parties for this to be the case, and tends to be
perpetuated through misinterpretation of oil reporting terminology and a general lack of reliable data.¶ All
of the South
China Sea states face increasing energy security concerns. The rapid industrialisation of
East and Southeast Asian economies has led to sharp, and ongoing, increases in demand
for natural gas and petroleum-derived products. At the same time many of the countries
concerned are facing stagnating or declining domestic oil and gas production leading to
growing reliance on imported energy resources to meet the gap between supply and demand. Of the six direct parties to the South
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
China Sea islands disputes, China, the Philippines and Taiwan are already strong net importers of oil while Malaysia and Vietnam
are on the cusp of becoming net importers. While Brunei Darussalam remains a net exporter of oil, on a global or even regional scale
it is not a major player. Enhanced energy security concerns have created a compelling incentive for these states to seek sources of
supply ‘close to home’.
This has made claimants extremely reluctant to concede any potential
source of supply falling within the scope of their own potential jurisdiction, such as may
underlie disputed parts of the South China Sea.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Trade Disadvantage
This DA’s a little complicated. We’ll talk about it more in lab, but it has to do
with the way that renewable energy materials are procured.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
1NC
Protectionism’s on the decline
Rapoza 5-17
(Kenneth Rapoza-contributor, “New Brazil WTO Director Says Protectionism Waning...Slowly”, Forbes, May 17, 2013,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/05/17/new-brazil-wto-director-says-protectionism-waning-slowly/)//TWR
Most Americans don’t care about the World Trade Organization, let alone know what it does. But what it does can affect their daily
lives, like it or not. When the WTO said that Brazil was in the right regarding cotton subsidies, U.S. farmers lost tens of millions in
financial support from Washington. And if the WTO says the U.S. is wrong for adding tariffs on solar panels made in China, more
solar panel companies in the United States could go bankrupt.¶ Trade
protectionism may save jobs, but trade
protectionism is slowly on the decline. At least that is what the new Brazilian director general of the World Trade
Organization thinks.¶ Roberto Azevedo, the Brazilian representative in Geneva for the WTO who was chosen to take over from Pascal
Lamy on Sept 1, said countries
are slowly removing trade protectionism set up during the 2008
crisis.¶ “We are already seeing a climate of declining protectionism,” he said during a press
conference in Brasilia on Friday. He said that around 20% of the trade measures created in 2008 that
could be considered protectionist are no longer active. The problem is that 80% of them still are.¶ “We
have to learn how to work within the limits that are possible, not what is desirable,” he said to Brazilian reporters, anxious to hear
about agricultural trade rules that have been on hold since the Doha round of negotiations way back in the stone ages of 2001.
The plan’s support of renewable industry constitutes an actionable subsidy
Selivanova ‘6
[Julia. Expert in Trade from the Energy Charter Secretariat, Has a PhD in International Economic Law from University of Berne,
has worked with the International Trade and Practice Group Baker & McKenzie for 4 years, former Consultant in the WTO’s Rules
Division. “WTO Rules and Sustainable Energy Policies” Bridges, Vol 10 No 7, JSTOR, 2006]
The fact that certain renewable energy sources are not currently commercially viable
makes the question of the WTO-compatibility of different support schemes
particularly acute. Such programmes cannot be contingent upon export performance (they would fall under
the category of prohibited subsidies). Subsidies found to be specific to certain
enterprises, industries or groups thereof are considered actionable and products
benefiting from such subsidies can be countervailed . Alternatively, a WTO Member can request
the withdrawal of such subsidies if they cause adverse affects. Limiting the subsidy to producers of renewable energy could meet the
criteria of ‘specificity’. For instance, if
a government decided to grant financial support to energy
production plants using renewable energies, this programme would be deemed specific, i.e.
actionable subsidy. The question is how to design programmes aimed at attaining environmental objectives without the
financial support being considered an actionable subsidy. A possible solution might be to devise objective criteria or conditions
governing the eligibility for, and the amount of, a subsidy, make eligibility automatic and carefully monitor compliance. The criteria
and conditions should be transparent and clear. For instance,
a possible criterium could be a certain level of
carbon dioxide emissions during the production. Although it is possible to devise
programmes encouraging efficient energy use in general, attempts to directly
support renewables industries are more likely than not to fall into the
category of actionable subsidies .
Triggers tit-for-tat retaliation
Lincicome ‘12
[Scott. Trade Attorney at White & Case. “Countervailing Calamity: How to Stop the Global Subsidy Race” CATO Policy Analysis
#710, 10/9/12 ]
Third, U.S.
subsidies also raise serious concerns under international trade rules .
The U.S. government’s subsidization of specific companies and enterprises
subjects U.S. exports—and U.S. trade and subsidy policy more broadly— to scrutiny and
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
potential retaliation by other WTO Members in the form of CVDs or suspended
concessions via a WTO dispute. Such responses undermine U.S. efforts to
promote trade and to discourage other countries’ use of trade-distorting
subsidies on the national, bilateral (Free Trade Agreement [FTA]), and multilateral
(WTO/G20) levels. They also inject uncertainty into U.S. and global markets ,
while wasting finite government resources on long legal battles and tit-for-tat trade
disputes .
Nuclear war
Panzner ‘8
(faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in
New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase (Michael, “Financial Armageddon:
Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse,” p. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs
on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other
nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the
Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious
economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long
forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance,
investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border
movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel.
Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try
to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange.
Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other
assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will
cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this
will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link
that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows
diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges
of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism
will
bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and
other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly
nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to
secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with
minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem
from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by
channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning
threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the
threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent
conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more
heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture
toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its
part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of
conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an
“intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to
be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural
and religious differences will be transformed from wars of
battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest
of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with
words to
conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret
stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC UQ
Global trade’s expanding
Yu 8-2
[Wenchi. Asia Society Associate Fellow and a non-resident fellow at Project 2049. “TPP Talks Show Promise for US Asia Strategy—
With or Without China” The Diplomat, 8/2/13. http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2013/08/02/tpp-talks-show-promise-forus-asia-strategy-with-or-without-china/ ]
TPP) trade negotiations ended in Malaysia last week. As the newest participant, Japan's
entry expanded TPP's membership to 12; the combined economy represents nearly 40 percent
of the world's trade. When this high-standard, ambitious trade agreement concludes, the
region's markets would be better integrated and more competitive .¶ To the United States,
the TPP is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration's economic policy in the Asia Pacific, a priority of the
"rebalancing to Asia" policy. Through this agreement, the Obama Administration is seeking to boost U.S.
economic growth and support the creation of American jobs by increasing exports to the
region that includes some of the world's largest economies. Asia's steady growth during and post the financial
The 18th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (
crisis in 2008 provides the United States with an opportunity that developed economies can no longer afford. ¶ In the past, the Asia Pacific Economic
APEC is the vehicle for promoting open
is not a trade agreement and has no legal
binding authority.¶ Rather, economies use multilateral or bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) to negotiate trade rules. TPP
started as an agreement among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Since
President Obama's announcement of the United States' intention to participate in the trade talks in
2009, more countries have followed suit. Since then, the United States has become the perceived leader of the
TPP.¶ The key question, however, is whether China is going to join. As the world's second largest economy and a major trade partner for almost all
countries in the region, can the TPP be effective without China? Some commentators believe the United States is
using the TPP to contain China, especially after Japan's recent announcement of its participation.¶ This theory, however,
ignores the U.S. consideration of its own economic interests . The United
States needs new, emerging markets to increase the demand for American products and
services in order to support job creation and reduce unemployment. China's participation in the TPP
might benefit all, especially if trade can be conducted with agreed upon principles, preventing further disputes. ¶ In fact, the United States
and China are currently negotiating the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The two counties
agreed to begin the process during the latest U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington, signaling BIT's
importance to both governments.
Forum (APEC) has been the primary mechanism for U.S. economic engagement with the region. While
trade and practical economic cooperation in the Asia Pacific region, it
More evidence – massive trade expansion – Asia and Europe
Richardson 7-17
[Michael. Senior research fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore. “The rush toward Asia-Pacific FTAs”
7/17/13 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/07/17/commentary/the-rush-toward-asia-pacific-ftas/#.Uf__6m0V-H4]
there are now three
mega-trade-and-investment liberalization blocs being shaped in various parts of the
world.¶ Each is different in geographic coverage. But all have substantial economic clout. So whichever is
first to conclude a credible agreement will have a significant impact on international
trade and geopolitics.¶ With multilateral negotiations under the World Trade
Organization stalled, the big bloc negotiators are, by default, setting key rules and standards
for global commerce in the 21st century. This is important. All three mega-blocs are often
referred to as free trade arrangements. But in practice, they would be preferential trading groups discriminating against
nonmembers.¶ Of course, the three top economies — the U.S., China and Japan — have to be big players in this
game. Each seeks stronger influence and market access, particularly in Asia, where
economies, trade and investment have been expanding fast for several decades.¶ From a global
Following the recent launch of free trade negotiations between the United States and the European Union,
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
perspective, economic activity breaks down into three segments: 6 percent growth in emerging markets (with Asia, minus Japan, playing a lead role); 2
the U.S.-EU deal would span the Atlantic, stimulating
growth by integrating the world’s two largest trading zones. They account for nearly 50 percent of global
GDP, at least for now. The other two proto-free trade agreements (FTAs) are tied to Asia.¶ One is the Trans-Pacific Partnership
percent growth in the U.S.; and no growth in the EU.¶ Still,
(TPP) linking North and South America to the Asia-Pacific region. It started its 18th round of negotiations in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, on July 15. ¶
When Japan, the world’s third biggest economy, joins the round of talks in Malaysia, probably on July 23, the 12 negotiating states in the TPP
will
account for some 40 percent of global GDP, still significantly less than the U.S.-EU FTA. But the TPP
appears to have better economic growth prospects and its members are already
responsible for one-third of all international trade.¶ The first round of negotiations to
form the other Asia-linked trade bloc, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), was held in Brunei in
May. The RCEP covers 13 economies in Southeast and Northeast Asia, but also includes Australia, New Zealand and India. With one-third
of global GDP and the expectation of much faster than world-average expansion, the RCEP’s
heft is less than that of the TPP, but still considerable.¶ There is some overlap in membership between
the TPP and RCEP. However, one of the major differences between them is that the U.S. is in the TPP but not the RCEP, while China is in
the RCEP but not the TPP.¶ In the global mega-bloc negotiations, the U.S. is in talks with Europe as
well as in the TPP. Japan is in both the TPP and RCEP. Meanwhile, China is only in what is, arguably, the weakest and least ambitious of
the two Asia-linked trade and investment groups.¶ This worries China, which has relied heavily on foreign trade and investment for economic growth
and employment. China has accused the U.S. and Japan of using the TPP as an exclusive economic mechanism to stunt China’s future growth.¶ Beijing
has asserted that the Obama administration’s military “pivot” to Asia serves a similar policy of containment, with the U.S. and its Japanese ally
China’s attitude to the TPP
has moderated to the point where some Chinese officials and analysts are separating the
two issues and saying openly that Beijing should seek to join the TPP talks.¶ China is, after all, the second-largest
trading partner of the U.S. after Europe. It is also the U.S.’ third-biggest export market,
and its biggest source of imports. China cannot afford to be locked out of both the TPP
and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.¶ U.S. and EU started detailed
cooperating closely to counter China’s increasing military strength. ¶ However, in the past few months,
negotiations on their planned pact in Washington on July 8, with the aim of reaching a conclusion by late 2014. The TPP deal is supposed to be
In a significant development, the U.S. and China
agreed on July 11 to re-start long stalled negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty.
Chinese officials have said that if this leads to reduced investment restrictions on both sides, it could pave the way for
finalized by the end of this year, and the RCEP by 2015.¶
China to join the TPP .
New pro-trade measures will overcome protectionism
Gradus 10-8
[Ray. Prof Economics at the University of Amsterdam. “EU, US Trade Agreement is Top Priority”
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-free-trade-growth/trade-agreement-europe-us-top-pr-analysis-515240 10/8/12 ]
A transatlantic trade agreement can give new hope for growth and a more
positive agenda in the devastating eurocrisis , writes Raymond Gradus. In the last week of June,
the Economist cover read 'Protectionism Alert'. Despite all nice words of, for example EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht, on free
trade as an engine of growth, the real account is more worrying.¶ There has been a paralysing discussion on China’s trade
restrictions on importing US cars for a long time. But also imposing
trade restrictions as the “Buy
American” clause implemented by the Obama administration sends a dangerous signal
and creates uncertainty among investors, particularly in times of recession.¶ And we all know the outcome: long-term disadvantages
of protectionism strongly outweigh any short-term benefits of protectionism. But also in
Europe the perspectives
for free trade are narrowing as anti-trade and anti-Europe politicians get more appeal. Nevertheless, there are
many avenues to explore the internal market . Especially, a further liberalisation of
services will boost trade inside and outside Europe.¶ Although with the upcoming US elections it will be
difficult this year, nevertheless there are some positive signs for trade higher on the
agenda as someone close to Republican Mitt Romney’s ideology put forward the urgent need for a new trade
agreement between the US and Europe.¶ Republicans have always been a supporter of free trade. But also
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
Barack
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Obama and his Democratic party know that a new trade agreement
between Europe and the US is necessary , because it stimulates job growth at the
medium term. Economic research by, for example, the OECD points out that the reduction of
existing non-tariff and regulatory trade barriers could lead to GDP growth of up to 3.5% on
both sides of the Atlantic.¶ Although tariffs in this part of the world are already very low, eliminating tariffs on
imported goods would, according to research by the European Centre for International Political Economy, increase
exports between the United States and Europe by 17% in the coming years.¶ Due to the huge volume of
Transatlantic trade of more than €460 billion a year, gains from removing these barriers would be
substantial. Therefore, we should strongly advocate a breakthrough in Transatlantic
economic relations and support those working on a new trade agreement.¶ Hopefully,
eliminating tariffs and non-tariff barriers between Europe and the US should be viewed as a valid first step towards a Transatlantic
free-trade agreement. But more important, the
economic and political message of a free trade
agreement between both sides of the Atlantic will be large.¶ Creating a Transatlantic
market with harmonised regulations will boost trade all around the world as common standards
will act as global regulatory standard-setters. In addition, it gives a clear political message that free trade
should be on the top of the agenda again and gives prospects for economic growth and
jobs in time, where they are needed so badly. And with the devastating euro crisis it can
give new hope for growth and a more positive agenda in this part of the Atlantic.
More ev – no protectionism now
Isakson, 10 (Henrik, “Protectionism: is the long-term decline coming to an end?” May 6, 2010, http://www.nccrtrade.org/events/protectionism-is-the-long-term-decline-coming-to-an-end/)//TWR
Warnings of protectionism have been heard in the debate for many years. Mostly, they have
been triggered by some specific trade defence measure that has been over-interpreted to imply a nonexistent trend towards
increased protectionism. In fact, when one looks at the last 15 years, since the founding of the WTO, there
is a clear, fairly
consistent and global trend towards sharply reduced protectionism. This holds for most
policy areas and most countries. Tariffs are down, quotas abolished altogether and trade
defence is not on the rise but still a fairly marginal phenomenon on the whole.
Agricultural support levels are also down, as are restrictions on FDI. It also appears that services trade
has been liberalised. Protectionism is partly contained by the WTO and a rising number
of FTAs. Not only has protectionism fallen, but also border procedures are smoother. At
the same time, in some areas we simply do not know much about the long term trend. Data, for one thing, is poor. Perhaps more
significantly, it is also in these areas where the short term trend is worrisome. This includes TBT and SPS but above all subsidies and
government procurement. The economic crisis has not unleashed a protectionist wave, rather it has
highlighted the areas where the current trade architecture is weak and where any possible retreat from free trade principles is
likeliest to emer-ge and be hard to contain.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Trade Disputes Now
Latest dispute was just resolved – trade credibility’s high
WSJ 8-5
[The Wall Street Journal. “Obama's Hollow Trade Win” 8/5/13 ln]
Obama Administration is crowing, or rather clucking, about its victory last week over China at the
World Trade Organization. A panel ruled that Beijing's antidumping duties of up to
105% on U.S. chickens violated WTO rules, which is a win for American producers,
Chinese consumers and free trade in general. The pity is that this was a trade war of President Obama's choosing, and the
victory won't undo the damage to the American economy.¶ The chicken case concerned Beijing's decision in 2010
to impose stiff antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of American broiler
chickens, ostensibly on the theory that the U.S. sold chickens at a price below their cost of production and unfairly subsidized chicken producers.
The
Although antidumping and countervailing duties are allowed under WTO rules, Washington objected to the way Beijing had conducted its investigation
WTO arbitrators credited most of Washington's procedural
complaints. "This decision sends a clear message that the Obama Administration can fight
and win for American farmers, businesses and workers in the global trading system ," U.S. Trade Representative
of the matter. On Friday a panel of
Michael Froman said.
US-China trade’s high – despite disagreements
Bloomberg ‘12
[“commiting to smart trade with China October 29 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/committing-to-smarttrade-with-china.html]
Hence, the U.S. needs to take a fairer, more comprehensive approach in its efforts to
restore global balance. Rather than singling China out, the U.S. should work toward bringing currency
policy under more effective review, either through the International Monetary Fund or the World
Trade Organization. Member countries should promise to allow movement of currencies toward levels that would reduce trade
imbalances. The
WTO could decide when and how to punish those who failed to comply -an approach that would insulate the process from political vagaries, such as the outcome of
the U.S. presidential election. The Chinese, for their part, should recognize that strong
multinational oversight is in their best interests. The WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, were designed to help governments promote trade through exchanges of concessions: You lower your import
barriers, I’ll lower mine. The idea
that opening up to trade hurts your economy unless you’re
compensated for it is bad economics, but it’s good domestic politics in that it helps
contain protectionist passions. That’s why the international trade-policy system has
worked so well. The WTO has been aptly described as a disarmament treaty for
mercantilists.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC Link
Increasing energy exports is green mercantilism
Stepp and Atkinson ‘12
[Matt and Robert. Clean Energy Analyst and the President – both at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
“Green Mercantilism: The Threat to the Clean Energy Economy” June 2012, http://www2.itif.org/2012-green-mercantilism.pdf ]
While many “good” clean energy policies may seem like subsidies by definition (e.g.,
subsidizing clean energy RD&D), the difference is in their impact. “Good” clean energy
policies add to the global supply of knowledge by spurring innovation, whereas the
green mercantilist subsidies described in this report do not. Another way to describe it is that countries competing
using “good” clean energy policies are racing to the top—i.e. trying to out-innovate each other—while countries competing using
green mercantilist strategies are racing to the bottom—i.e. simply trying to out-subsidize each other.¶ This
is an important
distinction because most countries implement subsidies to provide their citizens
with access to cheap energy . The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates that the world spends over
$500 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, but by no means are all of these subsidies illegal under the WTO or mercantilist in nature.8 But
many are, and as such the focus of this report is on the egregious green
mercantilist policies that explicitly
reduce global innovation and the competitiveness of other countries. These policies can be
conceived in two groups: those designed to (1) unfairly boost exports and reduce
imports while being indifferent to firm nationality, and (2) explicitly discriminate
against foreign companies.
Green leadership is perceived as energy protectionism – causes a fight
Hayward ‘7
[Steve. “Q&A: Energy Independence” The American, 5/17/7, www.american.com/energy/q-a-energy-independence ]
15. How should we think about energy security going forward?
A sensible policy goal would be not independence, but diversification: a portfolio of energy technologies and global supplies that
minimizes the economic and political risk of disruptions from any particular region or energy source.¶ A diversification strategy can
recognize that, even if supplies are precarious, the
case for free trade in energy is just as strong as for
any other commodity or economic activity. Energy independence, which could also be
described as energy protectionism or isolationism, is a counterproductive goal. By
limiting ourselves to only what we can make at home, we make ourselves poorer.¶ If a desire
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions motivates us to discourage oil consumption, we should avoid the temptation to
provide specific subsidies to particular alternative approaches. A carbon tax, which
would use the market to decide how and where to reduce greenhouse gas emissions most efficiently, would be preferable.
The plan would include subsidies for the materials and industries necessary
to complete the plan – triggers backlash
Beattie 10-28
[Alan. Financial Times. “Global Economy: Tricks of the Trade Law” 10/28/12 ln]
Familiar battlegrounds such as agriculture, fisheries and passenger aircraft have been joined by new energy industries: biofuels,
solar and wind power. US solar cell manufacturers this year persuaded the International Trade Commission, an independent quasijudicial federal agency, to impose CVDs on imports from China. A coalition of EU solar companies is seeking the same from
Brussels.¶ Subsidies
in global biofuels and renewable energy have followed a similar trajectory to
those of industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding in earlier decades. Initially
justifying handouts by reference to big start-up costs and increasing returns to scale,
such sectors went on to become symbols of national economic virility and self-sufficiency but frequently ended up
with global overcapacity, production gluts, falling output prices and trade
disputes .¶ True, there may be a strong economic case for subsidising the use of solar
and wind power if it cuts carbon emissions relative to fossil fuel – a sector that has also traditionally received handouts.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
But many interventions are producer subsidies designed to build up domestic industries,
potentially distorting competition and leading to waste.¶ Since 2009, for example, the US has greatly expanded
existing programmes of grants and loan guarantees to energy equipment manufacturers. The bankruptcies of two such businesses –
the solar company Solyndra and the battery maker A123 Systems – have become a cause célèbre among critics of Barack Obama’s
administration.¶ Though governments with high deficits have slashed renewables subsidies in the past year, several have sought to
skew interventions further to domestic companies. France has tendered a series of contracts for offshore wind generation including
clauses that critics say favour its own producers. In China, although Beijing has become more sceptical about subsidies for solar
producers, city-level authorities fear the unemployment caused by factory closures. Last week the solar panel manufacturer LDK,
which had already received financial help from local government, gained breathing space from financial difficulties by selling a 20
per cent stake to a city-related fund.¶ Subsidy
programmes that discriminate between local and
foreign producers invite WTO litigation. According to a leaked copy of a ruling obtained by the International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, a Geneva-based think-tank, the WTO will uphold a complaint brought by Japan and
the EU against a power generation scheme in the Canadian province of Ontario that gives preferential treatment to locally
manufactured solar and wind equipment.¶ If that ruling is confirmed, it could provoke a flurry of subsidy-related litigation, with
Europe itself vulnerable. Spain recently introduced a “local content” rule favouring domestic biodiesel producers, prompting
Argentina to threaten a WTO case against the EU claiming unfair treatment.¶ Yet while
international trade law can
restrain the use of trade-distorting support, it would be optimistic to imagine that WTO
litigation or the widespread use of CVDs will bring the subsidy wars to a neat and rapid
end. Applying WTO rules is neither simple nor straightforward. First, there are difficulties in assembling information. Second,
governments encounter conflicts of interest in their own industries. Third, many countries are vulnerable to counteraccusations.¶
Finding reliable data on subsidies, particularly in an opaque, multilayered state such as China, is a big challenge in itself. Last year
the US, complaining that Beijing and New Delhi had failed to notify the WTO of their subsidies, took the unusual step of “counternotifying”, submitting its own estimates of state support. A US trade official notes that the administration has increased its number
of Mandarin-speaking trade lawyers from one to six and is aggressively conducting its own investigations. “We are piercing the
Chinese veil ourselves,” the official says. “We are not relying on them to tell us what is going on.”¶ Even
with good
information, companies may be unwilling to submit a CVD petition or support a
government bringing a WTO case. Many industries have internal conflicts. In the EU
and the US, for example, cheap Chinese solar cell imports infuriate manufacturers but
are welcomed by solar panel installers.
( ) The plan also opens the door for greater protectionism
Citing Haufbauer ‘9
[Haufbauer is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for Intl Economics. Doug Palmer – Trade for Reuters. “Crisis could Lead to
Creeping US Protectionism” Reuters, 1/18/9, ln]
Likely U.S. action this year to address climate change or to protect consumers from "unsafe"
foreign products provide other opportunities for both Congress and the Obama
administration to slip in trade-restricting measures under the cloak of highersounding objectives , Hufbauer said.
( ) The magnitude of our link is huge. Domestic investment in energy
infrastructure poses a fundamental institutional challenge to the
multilateral trade system
Syunkova, 7
[Alina, National Foreign Trade Council, “WTO–Compatibility of Four Categories of U.S. Climate Change Policy,” December 2007,
http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf, ]
Within the WTO, subsidies are defined and regulated by the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures (SCM). The SCM is premised on the notion that some forms of subsidies, but not others,
distort, or have the potential to distort, international trade25. In principle, any U.S. government measure supporting climatefriendly investment interferes with free-market forces. However, not all government measures have international trade implications.
First, in order to fall under the scope of the SCM Agreement, a government measure must contain three elements: it must be a
“financial contribution,” or subsidy, conferring “benefits” (SCM Article 1), and it must be “specific to certain industries or
enterprises” (SCM Article 2)26. Of those subsidies that fall under its scope, the SCM prohibits specifically those that are either
export-dependent, or favor the use of domestic goods over foreign goods (SCM Article 3)27.¶ Presently, some subsidies for
encouraging climate-friendly investments would fall under the “prohibited” category (SCM Article 3). Subsidies that are “prohibited”
are “contingent, in law or in fact,” on export performance. That is, they are either legally contingent upon export performance, or are
in fact tied to actual or anticipated exportation or export earnings. The mere fact that a subsidy is granted to exporting enterprises is
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
not sufficient to determine that it favors exports; empirical study and factual evidence are required. Also, subsidies that are
“contingent, whether wholly or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods” are expressly
“prohibited” by the SCM.¶ As governments increasingly seek to provide incentives for the development of climate-friendly goods and
services, ways to change or broaden the scope of the SCM are being proposed. In the meantime, U.S.
legislators must be
mindful of the WTO’s limited capacity to accommodate climate-friendly subsidies, although
they are often a preferred and domestically-acceptable policy tool for achieving legitimate environmental policy goals28. If
legislators choose to pursue domestic climate-friendly subsidies, they could encourage the Administration to negotiate
internationally-accepted climate-friendly subsidy schemes, minimum taxation thresholds for energy imports, etc. The United States
could negotiate with other WTO Members to mutually agree to allow a specified range of flexibility vis-à-vis WTO rules in enacting
climate change policies.¶ Example 1: Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve in H.R. 6, “CLEAN Energy Act of 2007”;
Renewable energy subsidies in the Senate version of H.R. 6, the “Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act
of 2007Ӧ The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 also contains provisions for imposing new energy taxes on the oil and gas industries, and
channeling these Federal revenues into a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, which will cover the costs of
subsequent legislation to promote climate-friendly investments29. From an environmental policy perspective, this is effective. The
fossil energy taxes discourage polluting economic activity, while clean energy subsidies encourage climate-friendly economic
activity. By some estimates, the revenues transferred from the oil and gas industries into the Strategic Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Reserve could amount to $14 billion over five years30. These funds would be appropriated “to accelerate the use of
domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels,” “to promote the utilization of energy-efficient practices and
conservation,” and “to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy efficiency technologies31.” While
this financial aid is clearly intended to speed the transition to an environmentally-friendly U.S. economy, WTO rules do not
distinguish between “good” and “bad” subsidies.32¶ Comparing the broad goals that H.R. 6 envisions pursuing through subsidies
with what is allowed in the SCM Agreement, future conflict seems very likely unless the scope of the SCM broadens. Alternatively,
the United States could negotiate treaties with other WTO Members to circumvent the SCM’s limitations on climate-friendly
Most types of subsidies for climate-friendly investments are likely to be found
"actionable" or even "prohibited" by the SCM Agreement. For example, the Senate
version of H.R. 6 contains a provision for renewable fuel facilities loan guarantees (H.R. 6,
subsidies.¶
Senate version, Section 124). Facilities may receive loans of up to $250 million, covering up to 80% of the total cost of the facility.
This federal "financial contribution" is "specific to certain industries or enterprises" in
the sense of Article 2 of the SCM, as it is intended for the biofuels industry. However, the loan
guarantees provision is aimed at "a particular subsidized primary product or commodity" - ethanol and other biofuels - and affects
another primary product, conventional fuels. If it is found to be empirically-provable that international trade in biofuels and/or
conventional fuels is substantially affected by this loan guarantee program (alone or in conjunction with other similar provisions in
H.R. 6), they may become a WTO dispute issue. In
such circumstances, a dispute panel may determine
that loan guarantees, besides providing domestic "technological and economic benefits"
to renewable fuels facilities (which in itself does not mean that they have international trade consequences), also
serve to increase the U.S. share of the world market in ethanol and other
biofuels "as compared to the average share it had during the previous period of three
years, and this increase follows a consistent trend over the period that subsidies have
been granted." (SCM Article 6.3 (d)). In this case, the loan guarantees would constitute an
"actionable" subsidy, which could be successfully challenged under WTO rules.¶ Section 204
of H.R. 6 could also be determined to be "contingent in law or in fact" on export performance, or "the use of domestic goods over
foreign goods." The WTO governs only those subsidies which it determines to have international trade implications; however, it has
little flexibility for such subsidies. Thus, Section 204 could constitute a "prohibited" subsidy, especially if U.S. biofuels producers
decide to take the path of expanding and exporting their products and advanced biofuels technologies to foreign markets. The WTOcompatibility of federal subsidies for renewable fuels research and development and production is complicated by the involvement
of both agricultural and energy commodity products, as well as both international trade and national security interests. Subsidies
and agriculture are contentious issues at the WTO; energy commodities and national security have traditionally been WTO nonissues altogether. Trade
in biofuels is one example of how comprehensive energy and climate
change legislation is posing fundamental institutional challenges to the
multilateral trade system. The SCM Agreement may be one of the first WTO documents revised in overcoming this
challenge.¶
( ) This ensures the link and derails solvency
Syunkova, 7
[Alina, National Foreign Trade Council, “WTO–Compatibility of Four Categories of U.S. Climate Change Policy,” December 2007,
http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf, ]
¶ U.S. domestic policies to address climate change can, in principle, be compatible with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and
the multilateral trading system. However, certain
climate change policy tools can be more trade-
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
distorting than others and conflict with specific WTO provisions, raising the costs and
jeopardizing the long-term success of comprehensive climate change abatement
programs in the U nited S tates.¶ This paper analyzes key climate change proposals in the U.S. Congress from the
perspective of their compatibility with WTO rules. The analysis reaches the following conclusions:¶ • Energy efficiency requirements
and standards, such as the renewable fuel standard found in H.R. 6, are likely to violate GATT Article III on national treatment. In
fact, similar measures adopted in the United States in the 1990s were successfully challenged in a landmark WTO dispute. By
contrast, CAFE standards in H.R. 1509 appear to be more WTO-compatible.¶ • Government-administered eco-labeling schemes in
H.R. 6 may violate Article II of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade for constituting measures that are “more traderestrictive than necessary” to protect the environment, even if this objective is “legitimate.”¶ • Subsidies
for renewable
energy are very likely to violate the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures. For example, loan guarantees for renewable fuels facilities in H.R. 6 are
financial contributions targeting specific industries and commodity products; they may
act to increase the U.S. world market share in biofuels while decreasing foreign
countries’ U.S. market share in conventional fuels. Any subsidy that affects the export
performance of a U.S.-produced climate-friendly good is likely to be prohibited under
WTO rules.
Plan leads to import tariffs – those doom free trade
Charnovitz ‘4
[Steven. PEW Expert on Environment & Trade. “Trade and Climate: Potential Conflicts and Synergies” Beyond Kyoto,
www.pewclimate.org ]3
climate policy will have significant implications for trade
relations and for the trade regime (Gibbs 2003, pp. 16–17). By raising the cost of energy and
energy-intensive goods, climate policies will affect economic competitiveness—both among
Just as trade policy will have climate effects,
countries undertaking climate efforts, due to different mitigation costs, and between those countries that undertake significant
action and those that do not. To
protect vulnerable sectors, governments may seek to compensate
for the costs of domestic climate action by imposing comparable costs on imported
products or by reducing costs on exported products. Either approach is likely to invite
challenge in the WTO. Apart from efforts to address competitiveness, national policies to reduce GHG
emissions may also come into conflict with trade rules to the extent they affect domestic and
imported products differently.
Low threshold for our link – the WTO focuses on correlation, not cause
Green ‘6
[Andrew. Prof of Economic Law @ U of Toronto. “Trade Rules and Climate Change Subsidies” World Trade Review, Vol 5 No 2,
2006. JSTOR]
While the Appellate Body appears to emphasize causality, some aspects of its decision
are troublesome in this regard. The Appellate Body established a low threshold for
explanation by or reasons of the Panel. After reviewing the plausibility of the aspects of the Panel’s
determinations challenged by the US, the Appellate Body noted that ‘the voluminous evidentiary record before the Panel included
several econometric studies, and substantial data and information’ and that the Panel had posed a ‘large number of questions’.
However, it also stated : ‘we believe that, in its reasoning, the Panel could have provided a more detailed explanation of its analysis
of the complex facts and economics arising in this dispute. The Panel could have done so in order to demonstrate precisely how it
evaluated the different factors bearing on the relationship between the pricecontingent subsidies and significant price suppression.’
Despite the lack of such an explanation the Appellate Body found no legal error by the Panel ‘ in light of the Panel’s examination of
the Appellate Body found there was no
error in the Panel not quantifying the amount of the subsidy and relying solely on the
finding that the subsidy was ‘very large ’ in its analysis of serious prejudice. It merely
stated that the assessment may be relevant in some cases and that ‘ in the present case,
the Panel could have been more explicit and specified what it meant by ‘‘very large
amounts ’’ ’.84 These findings place a low threshold on causality analysis by Panels.
They need not necessarily provide detailed explanations of how they reached their
the relevant evidence, coupled with its legal reasoning’.83 Moreover,
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
causality conclusions and need not even have particularly precise estimates of the
amount of subsidies, which seems important in assessing causality in most cases. The analysis of the Appellate Body in
future cases will be very important. A focus on correlation rather than causality, or a weak
requirement for explaining causality, fails to address the concerns about the effect of
review of domestic subsidy policies by the WTO under the SCM Agreement. A focus on
correlation may be administratively simple but reduces the ability of the Panels and the
Appellate Body to distinguish subsidies that are detrimental to international trade from
those which are not. It sweeps under the disciplines in the SCM Agreement subsidies
that may not legitimately be of concern to international trade.
( ) Perception of protectionism is a link
Green ‘6
[Andrew. Prof of Economic Law @ U of Toronto. “Trade Rules and Climate Change Subsidies” World Trade Review, Vol 5 No 2,
2006. JSTOR]
Second, Sykes notes that the
definition does not require that there be any impact of the subsidy
on the output of the subsidized product (Sykes, 2003a).58 The ‘subsidy’ may have no or
minimal impact on the market for the foreign goods and yet can be found to fall within
the SCM Agreement. The concern about subsidies from a WTO perspective is that they
will impact international trade. If they do not impact production, they should not be
found to be subject to international trade laws. It seems a weak argument for limiting domestic sovereignty
that the subsidizing country would be better off if it did not subsidize on the basis that any subsidies distort resource allocation.
These concerns should fall within the domestic political realm. The issue becomes one of administrative simplicity weighed against
reducing intrusions on domestic sovereignty. In one sense this overbreadth may not in and of itself be unacceptable but it must be
combined with the
limitations in the other tests under the SCM Agreement and the lack of a public interest
exception, as discussed below, it unacceptably captures beneficial subsidies
examined in combination with the other provisions relating to subsidies (Chalifour, 2004). However,
along with both internationally harmful and harmless subsidies .
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC Fiat Link
The plan violates WTO rules – either that causes it to get rolled back, or the
US does it in direct contravention of global trade norms, which touches off
an international fight
Ikenson ‘7
[Dan. Assc Director of CATO’s Center for Trade Policy. “US To Comply with WTO Ruling on Zeroing” CATO, 2007. www.cato-atliberty.org, ]
I have been warning on this blog that U.S.
failure to comply with the latest WTO ruling against the
antidumping calculation technique known as zeroing
could open a Pandora’s box that could
undermine and eventually destroy the rules-based trading system .
Well, in the
words of the old Gilda Radner character from SNL, Emily Litella, “Nevermind!” The U.S. mission in Geneva announced yesterday
the United States intends to
comply. That is very good news, for at least two reasons. First, zeroing severely and
unjustly inflates antidumping duty assessments and collections, creating bigger
that, despite its view that the Appellate Body’s decision was intrusive and wrongheaded,
trade barriers .
Depriving the Commerce Department of that methodological trick will undoubtedly lead to lower
dumping margins overall. Second,
it is important that the United States show some respect for the
outcomes of dispute settlement. Berating and disregarding those outcomes only serves
to erode support for the system. And if the United States expects to get some mileage as
a complainant out of its likely string of cases before the WTO (a subsidy case against China was filed
two weeks ago, and the Democratic congress is at least rhetorically fixated on enforcement, enforcement, enforcement), it
should show some deference to the rules.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC “Its” Link
The plan reads “its renewable energy assistance” – that’s a single term of
art because “transportation infrastructure” describes the investment of the
plan. Any other interpretation is a grammatical nightmare. Now, its means
belonging to –
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive
pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show
possession or ownership.¶ EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to
me.)
That’s a link – gives preferential treatment to domestic producers
Stepp and Atkinson ‘12
[Matt and Robert. Clean Energy Analyst and the President – both at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
“Green Mercantilism: The Threat to the Clean Energy Economy” June 2012, http://www2.itif.org/2012-green-mercantilism.pdf ]
Subsidies work like currency manipulation except that they explicitly target the clean
energy industry. But not all subsidies are mercantilist in nature. Under the WTO, subsidies can be
considered harmful if it is proven that the subsidy distorts international
trade .15 So on one hand, subsidies to buyers of clean energy technologies can help
these technologies gain market share, especially in a market where the negative externalities of fossil fuels are not
priced. But on the other hand, subsidies specifically provided to domestic firms to give
an unfair export advantage against foreign competitors is mercantilist . These
subsidies to domestic clean energy firms are the problem.¶ For example, China
utilizes subsidies to not just expand energy access to its citizens, but to also unfairly gain
global market share for its clean energy producers by leveraging its first-generation
technologies , like crystalline solar panels, as a market leader not on merit, but on subsidized
price. After the 2008 “Great Recession” the Chinese poured hundreds of billions of yuan into their clean energy firms to help them
lower their costs to gain global market share, largely through subsidies. According to the ITIF and Breakthrough Institute report,
Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian Nations Set to Dominate the Clean Energy Race by Out-Investing the United States, China is
investing $397 billion in their domestic clean technology industry from 2009 through 2013.16 And by all accounts China’s subsidy
policy has worked. Chinese crystalline solar PV prices decreased by 47 percent since 2010 and China now exports 54 percent of the
world’s solar panels.17 Building off of these successes, China is increasing its annual clean energy industry development subsidies
and investments by almost 400 percent from 2011 to 2012.18¶ By using mercantilist subsidies, China is able to gain a cost advantage
at the expense of foreign competitors, like the United States. Ben Santarris, the spokesman for SolarWorld and the company leading
a U.S. solar trade dispute with China, put these subsidies in simple terms, “Pervasive and all-encompassing Chinese subsidies are
decimating our industry.”19 According to the DOE National Renewable and Energy Laboratory (NREL), if all Chinese subsidies were
removed and accounting for transportation costs, U.S. crystalline solar panels would actually have a 5 percent cost advantage over
Chinese alternatives in U.S.-based solar projects.20 This has led the Department of Commerce (DOC) to recently impose
countervailing duties between 2.9 percent and 4.73 percent on solar panels imported from different solar manufacturers in
China.21¶ China faces similar charges of illegal subsidies for its wind industry. Last year China agreed to end its indigenous wind
subsidies program that provided “hundreds of millions of dollars” to Chinese wind companies.22 But even after this program ended,
China has continued to deeply subsidize its wind industry. A coalition of wind companies recently filed a trade dispute requesting
action against Chinese subsidies for domestic utility-scale wind towers.23 In response, the DOC recently imposed a preliminary
13.74 percent to 26 percent tariff on different Chinese wind tower companies.24¶ And China isn’t the only country using mercantilist
subsidies to give domestic industries an unfair advantage. The same coalition of U.S. wind tower companies to file a dispute against
China filed a trade dispute against Vietnam for providing their domestic producers subsidies that give them up to a 64 percent price
advantage.25 Mexico has created a subsidy fund to subsidize the use of domestically-sourced equipment and product components in
various energy projects.26 Brazil gives a greater tax exemption to domestic biodiesel producers compared to foreign-owned
companies.27 And Japan’s “Enhanced Facility for Global Cooperation in Low Carbon Infrastructure and Equity Investment” (EFACE) program provides subsidies and government-backed loans to domestic firms in an effort to boost the export of clean energy
technologies.28¶ Many countries
also use domestic content requirements as a vehicle for
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
providing preferential treatment to domestic firms . Starting this year, Ukraine requires up to 15
percent to 30 percent of clean energy technologies to be locally sourced in order to receive subsidies from its feed-in tariff program,
increasing to 50 percent by 2014.29 Ontario and Quebec require up to 50 percent and 60 percent respectively of renewable energy to
be locally sourced in order to be eligible for subsidies and feed-in tariff incentives.30 India has a similar clause in their feed-in tariff,
requiring that solar modules and cells must be produced in India to benefit from feed-in subsidies. 31 Italy provides an additional 510 percent production subsidy for solar components manufactured in the European Union. 32 Brazil increased taxes on
automobiles, including those that use clean energy technologies, by 30 percent, but exempt any vehicle that sources 65 percent of the
vehicles parts from domestic producers.33¶ And countries aren’t alone in using domestic content requirements as many U.S. states
use domestic preferences as well. Washington State offers a higher production tax incentive up to $0.54/kWh to companies that
manufacture solar PV systems in state while out-of-state manufacturers are only eligible for the base rate of $0.15/kWh.34 Colorado
and Missouri provide companies producing clean energy products in-state incentives 25 percent larger than if the companies were
located out-of-state.35 And Ohio requires that half of all mandated clean energy must come from in-state production.36
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
-- Trade Leadership / Perception IL
The plan destroys trade leadership – the perception’s key
Tarullo ‘7
[Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center (Daniel, “The Case for Reviving the Doha Trade Round,” Center for
American Progress, January, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/doha.pdf]
Moreover, the legacies of unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy and neglect in many areas of international economic policy in the last
six years have diminished the willingness of most other countries, including our traditional allies, to sign on to American plans. It
is important, therefore, that the U nited S tates burnish its leadership credentials in
anticipation of a broader set of changes in international economic arrangements.¶ The
Doha Round provides a good opportunity to do just that by assuming an active and
constructive role in breaking the current deadlock. Completion of a trade round with tangible benefits for
developing countries will give the U nited S tates greater credibility as a proponent of
international arrangements that can serve the interests of a broad range of countries. This
is especially the case for poorer developing countries where key U.S. national security issues are at stake. Developed and emerging
market countries can conclude bilateral agreements in the absence of multilateral negotiations, but poor countries have little
consumer demand of interest to those countries, which means the
poorest may lose opportunities for greater
exports if Doha fails.¶ More generally, a renewed American initiative will remind the rest of the
world that the U nited S tates remains the international actor best positioned to bring
multilateral negotiations to a successful conclusion. While the United States cannot expect to influence
today’s trade agreements as much as it did those of the 1940s, it still carries considerable weight at the negotiating table. This weight
will be greater still if it exercises leadership to conclude arrangements that take account of the interests of all countries, including the
poor countries that lack commercial leverage.¶ This last point is significant despite—or, perhaps more accurately, because of—the
fact that the Doha Round looks increasingly likely to be the last large round of multilateral trade negotiations, regardless of its
outcome. Although
there is no plausible near-term substitute for the U nited S tates as a leader
in multilateral trade negotiations, there are obvious contenders for regional leadership.
Bilateral negotiations do not even require the same form of leadership. With the demise of an established mode of multilateral
negotiations, it is a near certainty that countries will turn to bilateral and regional negotiations to fill the vacuum. Many, including
the United States and the European Union,¶ already have moved bilateral negotiations forward in their trade agendas.¶ The
multilateral vs. bilateral agreement has been actively debated in the United States for over a decade. Yet even
those who
have championed bilateral agreements have generally done so against the backdrop of a
vigorous multilateral system, which prevents too much fragmentation in international
trade rules and practice. Should that system begin to deteriorate, the effects of
bilateralism could change substantially. ¶ From an American perspective, a world in which only
bilateral and regional trade agreements are concluded will not likely be a positive change. In any multilateral negotiation, the United
States will be no less than the single most important participant. In all but the most unusual of circumstances, this status will assure
considerable influence over the outcome of the negotiation, at least if the United States plays a constructive role. In bilateral or
regional negotiations to which the United States is not party, it will have only the most indirect influence over the terms of the
resulting agreements. And, by definition, it will not receive any rights created by those agreements.¶ Whether
the issue is
non-tariff barriers on agricultural exports or the protection of labor standards,
American interests can be better pursued through preservation of a complementary
system of bilateral and multilateral arrangements.¶
US trade leadership’s key
Lincicome ‘12
[Scott. Intl Trade Attorney. “Even More on Protectionism’s Rise and the Dearth of US Trade Leadership” 7/2/12,
http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2012/07/even-more-on-protectionisms-rise-and.html]
Over the last few weeks, I've
repeatedly asked whether the recent, troubling increase in global
protectionism can be attributed, at least in part, to the absence of American leadership - long
the driving force behind global trade liberalization - during the Obama administration's
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
tenure at the helm of US trade policy. Dartmouth's Doug Irwin - a true expert on the
history of US trade policy and the rise of protectionism in the early 20th century adds more support for my little theory in a new WSJ op-ed. After ticking off a long list of new protectionist
measures across the globe , Irwin notes that it has coincided with a significant protectionist
streak in the U nited S tates--¶ President Obama has provided no leadership in trying to keep world markets open for trade.
Out of fear of offending labor unions and other domestic constituencies, his administration long delayed submitting free trade
agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama for congressional approval. Instead of seeking to reinvigorate the languishing Doha
round of trade negotiations at the WTO, it has been almost completely passive and allowed world-trade policies to drift.¶ Congress
has also done little to help. Senate Republicans and Democrats teamed up late last month to maintain import restrictions for the
sugar industry, defeating an amendment from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) that would have gradually eliminated them. Keeping
domestic sugar prices at twice the world level helps a few sugar-cane and beet farmers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers,
while leading to job losses in sugar-using industries, such as candy and confectionary manufacturing.¶ Meanwhile, Congress and the
administration continue to flirt with new "Buy American" provisions, drawing the ire of Canada and other trade partners. Yet
economists Laura Baughman and Joseph Francois calculated that if foreign retaliation led U.S. companies to lose just 1% of the
potential sales opportunities created by foreign stimulus programs, U.S. exporters would lose over 200,000 jobs. This would far
exceed the 43,000 jobs supposedly created by the "Buy American" preferences included in the 2009 stimulus bill.¶ He then
concludes:¶ Any serious march backward toward protectionism would constitute a major
failure of economic policy. Experience has shown that, once imposed, trade
restrictions are very difficult to remove because vested interests then have a
stake in perpetuating them. Protectionism also breeds foreign retaliation ,
making barriers doubly difficult to unwind. Now is no time to entertain dangerous illusions.
Trade leadership’s key to the health of global markets – the signal of the
plan collapses interdependence
Lincicome ‘12
[Scott. Intl Trade Attorney at White & Case. “Is Missing American Trade Leadership Beginning to Bear Protectionist Fruit?” 6/12/12
http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-missing-american-trade-leadership.html]
Over the past few years, I and several other US trade-watchers have lamented the
United States' dwindling leadership on global trade and economic issues and warned of
that trend's troubling potential ramifications. It appears that at least one of our breathless predictions may
finally be coming true. Starting in mid-2009 - when it became depressingly clear that the Obama administration viewed trade in
mostly political terms and thus would not be advancing a robust, proactive free trade agenda - we free traders expressed grave
concern that US
recalcitrance could harm not only US companies and workers, but also the
entire global free trade system . As I explained in a 2009 oped urging the President to adopt a robust pro-
trade agenda (as outlined in this contemporary Cato Institute paper):¶ Since
the 1940s, the US has led the
charge to remove international barriers to goods, services and investment. The
result: a global trade explosion that has enriched American families, spurred innovation, enhanced our security and
helped millions escape poverty. Every US president since Herbert Hoover has championed free trade because of its proven
benefits....¶ Because
of today's rules-based multilateral trading system and the
interdependence of global markets, US fecklessness on trade shouldn't lead to
devastating protectionism akin to the Smoot-Hawley-induced tariff wars of the 1930s.
But it's still a problem. In 2008, global trade contracted for the first time since 1982, and protectionist pressures abound.
The WTO's Doha Round is comatose, even though an ambitious deal could inject US$2 trillion into the reeling global economy.
Considering the US has steered every major trade initiative in modern history, any
chance for significant progress on trade will disappear without strong American
leadership - in word and deed.¶ Since that time, the President has clearly not taken free traders' advice. The WTO's
Doha Round is dead, despite a pretty good opportunity to force the issue back in late 2010. The Obama administration took three
years to implement already-dusty FTAs with Korea, Panama and Colombia and actually insisted on watering the deals down with
new protectionist provisions in order to finally agree to move them. And while countries around the world are signing new trade
agreements left and right, we've signed exactly zero and have eschewed important new participants and demanded absurd domestic
protectionism in the one agreement that we are negotiating (the TPP). Meanwhile, on the home front the President has publicly
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
championed mercantilism, as his minions quietly pursued myriad efforts to restrict import competition and consumer freedom,
embraced competitive devaluation and maintained WTO-illegal policies (while publicly denouncing protectionism, of course).¶
Pretty stark when you lay it all out like that, huh?¶ Despite this depressing state of affairs, it did not appear that the United States'
diversion from its long free trade legacy had resulted in a tangible increase in global protectionism (although the death of Doha
certainly isn't a good thing). Unfortunately, a new blog post from the FT's Alan Beattie indicates that those chickens may finally be
coming home to roost:¶ One of the very few bright spots in governments’ generally grim recent performance of managing the world
economy has been that trade protectionism, rampant during the Great Depression, has been relatively absent.¶ That may no longer
be the case. The WTO, fairly sanguine about the use of trade barriers over the past few years, warns today that things are getting
worrying. The EU made a similar point yesterday. And this monitoring service has been pointing out for a long time that a lot of the
new forms of protectionism aren’t counted under the traditional categories, thanks to gaping holes in international trade law.¶ After
glancing at the bi-partisan protectionism on display in the 2012 US presidential campaign, Beattie
concludes that, on
the global trade stage, "things are looking scarier than they have for a while." I'm certainly
inclined to agree, and one need only look South to Brazil's frighteningly rapid transition from once-burgeoning free trade star to
economically-stagnant, unabashed protectionist to see a scary example of why.¶ And while I agree with Beattie that the world still
isn't likely to descend into a 1930s-style trade war - we can thank the WTO and the proliferation of free market economics for that -
the rising specter of global protectionism is undoubtedly distressing.¶ And, of course, it has risen just
as America's free trade leadership has faded away.¶ Now, as we all know, correlation does not necessarily
mean causation, and it's frankly impossible to know just how much the dearth of US trade leadership has actually affected global
trade policies. But I think it's pretty safe to say that it certainly hasn't helped matters. Just ask yourself this: how can the US
admonish Brazil or any other country about its distressing mercantilism when the President is himself routinely preaching - and his
administration is busy implementing - similar policies? How can we decry the global "currency wars" when we're discretely
advocating a similar strategy? How can we push back against nations' increasing use of market-distorting subsidies or regulatory
protectionism when we're....¶ I think you get the idea.¶ As I've frequently noted here, it was a Democrat - Secretary of State Cordell
Hull - who over 70 years ago began a global free trade movement that until very recently had been led - in word and deed - by
Republican and Democratic administrations alike. And while the
distressing recent spike in global
protectionism may not have been caused by a lack of American trade leadership, it is very, very likely not going
to recede until the U nited S tates regains its long-held place at the front of the trade
liberalization pack.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
-- WTO Credibility IL
WTO credibility controls every other facet of global trade
Bluestein ‘8
[Paul. Economic Scholar at Brookings. “Doha Trade Talks Collapse: What’s Next for Global Trade” Brookings, August 2008]
The serious ramifications of the events of July 29 are long-term—and this is why I think the
quaver in Susan Schwab’s voice that day was warranted.¶ The breakdown in Geneva was the third that in
the past three years for the Doha Round, which was launched in 2001 with the aim of reducing tariffs and
subsidies, especially those that harm developing countries. This has raised uncomfortable questions about
the WTO’s ability to continue as the central rule-writer of global trade. That in turn
raises the risk that the WTO’s authority will undergo a significant erosion in years
to come. ¶ For all its flaws, the WTO is a crucial lynchpin of stability in the global
economy. It is the current embodiment of the multilateral system that was established
after World War II to prevent a relapse to the 1930s, when protectionism and exclusive trade blocs
deepened the Great Depression and intensified rivalries among the great powers.¶ The WTO’s rules keep a lid on
member countries’ import barriers, and by adjudicating trade disputes among nations, the WTO helps
keep those disputes from flaring into tit-for-tat trade wars. In addition to its dispute-settlement
function, the WTO is the guardian of the “most favored nation” principle, under which member nations are supposed to treat each
other’s products on a non-discriminatory basis. Although this principle has often been breached, it is still a valuable bulwark against
trade blocs.¶ The WTO’s centrality to the global trading system is already under some doubt, thanks to the proliferation in recent
years of bilateral and regional trade agreements. More than 200 of these accords are currently in force. These range from the big and
consequential—NAFTA being one—to the minuscule and absurd, such as Singapore’s deal with Jordan, and Thailand’s with Bahrain.
The Bush administration fueled this trend by forging deals with Australia, Morocco, Oman, Central American countries and other
partners.¶ The upshot is a sort of double whammy for the WTO. Disillusionment
with its ability to set the
rules of global trade is on the rise because of the repeated fiascos in the Doha talks. At the
same time, the profusion of bilaterals tempts politicians to think of those deals as reasonable substitutes for multilateralism.
Although the WTO is in no danger of disintegrating overnight, the danger
is that its authority will atrophy to
the point that member nations will start to flout their commitments and ignore the
rulings of WTO tribunals. That would greatly increase the threat of trade wars
and a breakdown in the system that has helped keep trade blocs and
protectionism at bay. ¶ The heightened risk of such a scenario demands action aimed at shoring up the multilateral
system’s health.¶ Having imparted so much momentum to bilateralism and regionalism, the
U nited S tates should now exercise leadership in the hope of bringing this trend to a halt.
The next president should renounce intentions to pursue further bilateral or regional pacts and declare that henceforth Washington
will pursue trade deals only under WTO auspices—whether these are big conventional trade rounds or more limited agreements
involving individual sectors such as services. Regrettably, the response from some policymakers and commentators has been
precisely the opposite. These knee-jerk
free traders are calling for more bilateral trade deals, on the
grounds that liberalization is stalled on the multilateral front. Although this approach might have been
understandable in 1948, when trade barriers were still very high, it is short-sighted in
2008, when the liberalization process is 60 years old and the multilateral system is
imperiled.¶ As for the Doha Round, the next president could propose expanding its agenda to include new challenges, including
the food crisis and global warming change (which the WTO must confront soon, because an effective global deal on climate change
would probably involve trade sanctions). That would breathe new life into a system that is sadly underappreciated for its role in
keeping bad things from happening.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
-- US Key
The US is key – dictates all global trading trends
Riley 10-25
[Bryan – Trade Policy analyst at Heritage. Et al. “2013 Index of Economic Freedom: No Boost in Trade Freedom” 10/25/12,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/2013-index-of-economic-freedom-no-boost-in-trade-freedom]
U.S. Trade Leadership Needed ¶ International trade plays an increasingly
significant role in the economies of the U nited S tates and other countries. Since 1960, trade as a
percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for the world has doubled. Trade as a percentage of U.S. GDP has nearly tripled, but
remains lower than the world average due to the large U.S. internal market.[12]¶ Historically,
the U nited S tates has
led efforts to expand global trade freedom. Since 1980, U.S. tariff rates have dropped by 58 percent, and tariffs
in other countries have fallen an average of 50 percent just since 1998.[13] With the U.S.–Canada free trade agreement and then
NAFTA, the United States initiated a healthy global contest to see which country can sign the most free trade agreements. Today,
239 regional trade agreements are in force, and dozens more are currently being negotiated.[14]¶ Thanks
to U.S.
leadership in the Uruguay Round trade talks, 123 countries collectively implemented the
largest global tax cut in history and created the W orld T rade O rganization to mediate trade
disputes. Trade disagreements that could have escalated into trade wars in the past can
now be moderated by impartial referees.
( ) The US is key to global trade
Card and Daschle ‘11
[Andrew and Thomas – Dean of the Bush School of Govt and a Senior Policy Advisor at DLA Piper. “US Trade and Investment
Policy” The Council on Foreign Relations, September 2011. www.cfr.org/trade/us-trade-investment-policy/p25737 ]
The benefits of trade need to be realized by the American people, not only through cheaper and
better television sets and smart phones, but also through more jobs and higher incomes. In the absence of such gains,
it will be increasingly difficult for the U nited S tates to sustain its global leadership on
trade, which would have negative consequences for the U.S. economy, foreign policy and
national security, and global stability. The United States has not historically worried much about how to make
itself an attractive location for investment geared toward exports. Given a rapidly changing global economy,
this mindset needs to change.
( ) The US is key to global trade – even if the economy is multi-faceted
Cranage ‘9
[John. Staffer for the Birmingham Post. “Will Obama go Protectionist?” The Birmingham Post, 2/2/9 ln]
Whichever way the world goes over the coming months, whether we see a coordinated
effort to beat recession or a disintegration into feuding trading blocs, depends largely
on how President Barack Obama plays his cards.¶ Shades of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - a
classic piece of US protectionism that arguably turned the 1930s depression into a world war - have,
commentators say, been hanging over the annual Davos bun fight in recent days.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Tit-For-Tat Escalation
More evidence – violating WTO protocol results in TFT retaliation
Hufbauer and Reinsch ‘8
[Gary and William. Senior Fellow @ the Peterson Institute for Intl Economics and President of the National Foreign Trade Council.
“Climate Change: Competitiveness Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries” FDCH, www.nftc.org, 3/5/8 ]
Let me now turn to existing WTO
rules that bear on climate change legislation. They contain several disciplines, summarized in
tables 4, 5 and 6. At the same time, they permit many trade restrictions and penalties, in the name of
ensuring human health and safety, and protecting the environment. But the existing rules
do not preclude the eruption of tit-for-tat retaliation, if a major player, such as the
U nited S tates, the European Union, or China, imposes its own brand of GHG trade policy without
the prior blessing of a multilateral agreement. Any U.S. climate legislation which includes trade
restrictive measures should reflect the core disciplines of the existing WTO system. If and when WTO members negotiate a new code
on trade rules with respect to GHG emissions, these core disciplines are almost certain to be included.¶ • GATT Article I (Most
Favored Nation Treatment): Non-discrimination is a core principle in the GATT/WTO system, and is reflected in GATT Articles I
and III. Article I requires members to ensure that -- in the absence of an exception -- when favorable treatment is accorded to the
goods or services imported from one country, the same treatment must be accorded to the products of all WTO members.¶ • GATT
Article III (National Treatment): This article requires that the products of WTO members be treated no less favorably than “like”
products made by firms in the importing country. In decided cases, this requirement has been strictly applied.¶ • GATT Article XI
(General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions): This article prohibits the imposition of quotas, import or export licenses, or other
measures on trading partners unless they fall into one of the exceptions listed in paragraph 2 of GATT Article XI. ¶ • GATT Article XX
(General Exceptions): Even though an import restriction on imports violates another GATT article, including the articles discussed
above, it might be acceptable if the trade measure conforms to the chapeau of GATT Article XX and falls under one of subsections.
Relevant to climate change, these subsections allow otherwise inconsistent trade restrictions if they are “necessary” to protect
human, animal or plant life or health (Article XX (b)) or if they conserve exhaustible natural resources (Article XX (g)), a term which
covers GHG emissions.¶ Application of these basic rules to foreseeable GHG emissions controls is far from cut and dried. The NFTC
published an excellent paper in December 2007, titled WTO Compatibility of Four Categories of U.S. Climate Change Policy, which
explores many nuances. I commend this paper to your attention. Only
a brave or foolish lawyer would give
this Committee strong assurance that such-and-such a system of GHG controls is
immune from challenge in the WTO. When the Committee hears such assurances, it should ask its own legal staff
to prepare a “devil’s advocacy” memo describing the WTO vulnerabilities of the proposed system.¶ For now, the most reliable
guidance for incorporating trade measures in the U.S. climate policy in a WTO-consistent manner can be found by examining the
Appellate Body’s decisions on previous dispute cases and its interpretation of the shelter available under GATT Article XX. It must
be remembered, however, that Appellate Body decisions are made case-by-case; they depend on the particular facts and
circumstances, and the rule of stare decisis does not strictly apply. The Appellate Body’s rulings in previous cases (table 6) show
considerable sympathy with environmental concerns and have increased the likelihood that trade restrictions in furtherance of GHG
emissions controls would pass muster under WTO rules.¶ However, in
the absence of a negotiated compact
that defines WTO “red lines” and “green spaces” with respect to trade measures that
foster GHG controls worldwide, titfor- tat retaliation and prolonged WTO
litigation are all but certain if each country goes its own way with climate legislation.
In a response to the question #5 in the Committee’s White Paper, almost all trade restrictive measures stand a fair chance of being
challenged in the WTO. The best guidelines I can offer are these: engage in good faith international negotiations before restricting
trade; ensure that the measures adopted make a genuine contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions; and avoid discrimination,
both among foreign partners and between US producers and foreign producers.¶ If
the U nited States enacts its own
unique brand of import bans, border taxes, and comparability mechanisms – hoping that
measures which flaunt GATT Articles I, III and IX will be saved by the exceptions of GATT Article XX – the probable
consequence will be a drawn-out period of trade skirmishes and even trade wars .
During these battles, some countries will become more fixated on winning legal cases
than fighting the common enemy, climate change. Global cooperation in limiting
emissions could be the first casualty of a unilateral approach that ignores the basic
GATT articles.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
More evidence – the response to the plan is tit-for-tat retaliation
Lincicome ‘12
[Scott. Trade Attorney at White & Case. “Countervailing Calamity: How to Stop the Global Subsidy Race” CATO Policy Analysis
#710, 10/9/12 ]
When the Department of Energy announced the bankruptcy of federal loan recipient Solyndra, the agency was quick to blame
Chinese subsidies, rather than U.S. policy, for the failure. “Solar panel manufacturing is a growing international market,” the DOE
press release read, “with increasingly intense competition from Chinese manufacturers who are supported in many cases by interestfree government financing that is much more generous than what the U.S. provides.” In one sense, the department had a point:
Chinese and other subsidies distort global markets, strain public budgets, breed cronyism, and undermine public support for free
trade and free markets. What the department downplayed, however, were the literally hundreds of state and federal subsidies—
totaling billions of taxpayer dollars— that are available to U.S. producers and consumers of alternative or “green” energy products
such as solar panels, wind towers, or biofuels. The Chinese government, on the other hand, was quick to note the hypocrisy.¶ A few
months after the Solyndra news—but before the announced failures of a few other subsidized U.S. solar firms such as Abound Solar
and First Solar—the U.S. government initiated antidumping and anti-subsidy (or “countervailing duty”) investigations of Chinese
solar panel producers. The legality of these cases is not in doubt. But as American solar manufacturers and their political friends
shifted the blame for their failures to subsidized Chinese imports, they failed to mention that U.S. environmental goods exporters
increasingly have been subject to similar investigations abroad, while U.S.
green subsidies and U.S.
countervailing duty procedures have come under increasing scrutiny—and indictment—
at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Meanwhile, solar panel consumers around the world suffer
the ill effects of the litigation and policy uncertainty surrounding trade in green
goods.¶ Such problems are not isolated to Solyndra, or even to green subsidies. Since the financial crisis of 2008, the United
States and many other nations established or expanded taxpayer subsidies for favored industries such as
agriculture, alternative energy, and automobiles— subsidies which have since been found to harm just about everyone
except the subsidy recipients and, of course, their political patrons. These policies have led to increased antisubsidy litigation at the WTO and the imposition of more anti-subsidy
measures via national countervailing duty cases .¶ In an ideal world of free-market statesmen,
national and multilateral rules permitting remedial tariffs on subsidized imports would be unwelcome, if not unnecessary. Elected
officials would resist the temptation to subsidize private commercial activity. They would welcome, rather than punish, subsidized
imports from countries where governments chose to impoverish their citizens, distort their economies, and empty their public
coffers for the benefit of foreigners’ consumption. And, on the rare occasion when trade-distorting subsidies did persist, they would
be eliminated through nonconfrontational negotiations.¶ Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Instead, most
politicians in the United States and abroad—heavily influenced by wellorganized producer lobbies—
eagerly subsidize their preferred industries and view subsidized imports as an excuse to
further funnel public resources to private ends. The result is a global subsidies race
between governments to “invest” in favored industries to enhance the nation’s “global
competitiveness.” The casualties from this free-for-all are numerous, and diplomatic attempts at a ceasefire have proven
ineffective.¶ What should be done? Ignoring the problem— an attractive option to free-market advocates under many
circumstances—would encourage more subsidies from abroad, more subsidies in response at home, and more protectionist actions
that penalize U.S. consumers and consuming industries.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Perception Key
( ) All eyes on Obama – perception’s key
Keating ‘9
[Raymond, “Keating: Which direction on trade for Obama administration?” 1/8/2009, http://libn.com/blog/2009/01/08/keatingwhich-direction-on-trade-for-obama-administration]
Will the real President-elect Barack Obama please stand up when it comes to international trade?¶ Well, apparently, not just yet.
Unfortunately, trade policy presents another uncertainty for entrepreneurs, businesses and the U.S. economy in general.¶ The
president-elect’s position on trade matters a great deal. Consider the importance of exports after the
2001 recession. Export growth accounted for 20 percent of GDP growth from 2002 to 2007.¶ Unfortunately, Obama had a thin and
contradictory record on trade during his brief time as a U.S. senator. He voted in favor of trade agreements with Oman and Bahrain,
but voted against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement.¶ While vying for the Democratic Party’s
presidential nomination, Obama highlighted his opposition to pending trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, and
declared a desire to renegotiate the 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. It was a disturbing display of protectionist
pandering for votes.¶ But during the general election against John McCain and since his victory on Nov. 4, Obama’s
protectionist talk has pretty much disappeared, replaced by silence.¶ Indeed, President-elect
Obama seems to have everyone guessing on trade. Will he choose the generally pro-free trade path followed
by most U.S. presidents for over three-quarters of a century, or engage in protectionism for the first time since the bad old days of
Herbert Hoover?¶ Do Obama’s picks to fill key posts in his White House offer any clues? Well, again, the signals are mixed, but offer
some hope.¶ Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., is Obama’s choice for labor secretary. The AFL-CIO, according to The New York Times,
pushed Solis for the position. Since being elected to Congress in 2000, Solis seems to have never met a free-trade accord she liked.¶
However, more encouraging are the president-elect’s selections for Commerce Department secretary and U.S. trade representative.¶
Obama’s choice for trade representative is former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk. He has been a
pro-free trade voice, including advocating the construction of a “NAFTA Freeway” to speed the transportation of goods
between the United States and Mexico, according to The Wall Street Journal.¶ The Commerce secretary-designate is New Mexico
Gov. Bill Richardson. In a June 2008 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Richardson said, “I’m a free-trade Democrat.
I’m also an endangered species in the Democratic Party.”¶ (Since this column was written, Richardson has withdrawn from being
Commerce Secretary-designee.)¶ Unfortunately, Richardson is right about his own party’s dearth of free traders. In recent times, the
Democrats have moved in a protectionist direction at the urgings of labor unions and environmental activists. These groups
advocate inserting labor and environmental regulations into trade agreements. That is, they want to impose U.S. domestic
regulations on other nations. But if such requirements are unreasonable given a nation’s wealth and development, then trading
partners will simply not enter into agreements with our country, thereby limiting opportunities for American entrepreneurs and
businesses.¶ It turns out that the free-trade leanings of President Bill Clinton’s administration during the 1990s clearly were an
exception among Democrats. In fact, Clinton needed strong support among Republicans to get NAFTA passed. The sentiment
among congressional Democrats has only become more stridently anti-free trade.¶ President-elect Obama
has three
choices when it comes to trade. He can do nothing. He can stay linked with the
protectionists in his own party. Or Obama can join with his Commerce secretary and
trade representative by becoming that rare breed – a free-trade Democrat.¶ Given the
current economic challenges, Obama would have an excuse for shifting position. After all,
U.S. businesses and workers need to be free to capitalize on all possible opportunities. That means passing bilateral and multilateral
trade agreements that reduce governmental barriers to trade.¶ After being sworn into office, Obama should push Congress to pass
the pending trade deals negotiated by the Bush administration with Colombia, South Korea and Panama. That would send a positive
signal to businesses and markets that the threat of protectionism during an Obama administration is dead.¶ Ideally, the Obama
administration would then move aggressively on free-trade agreements covering from North America to South America, and the
Pacific Basin.¶ If President-elect Obama
is serious about real change, working in a bipartisan
manner and getting the U.S. economy back on track, then open international trade
is a must.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
2NC Impact Run
The plan chokes off global trade – Panzner says that results in war as a
result of resource scarcity and increase international tensions. Your
impact defense doesn’t apply – Panzner says that trade collapse changes the
decision calculus and causes hyper aggressive foreign policy. The DA
outweighs and turns the case:
Magnitude – Interdependence is a controlling impact that accesses conflict
in every theater. US isolationism would create conflicts in flashpoints
across the globe. US economic cooperation is essential to prevent global
power vacuum – the alternative is a wreck of secondary nations fighting for
power and influence.
Bremmer and Roubini ‘11
[Ian – President of the Eurasia Political Risk Consulting Group. And Nouriel, Prof Econ @ NYU. “A G-Zero World” Foreign Affairs,
Winter 2011. ln]
Following previous crises in emerging markets, such as the Asian financial meltdown of the late 1990s,
policymakers in those economies committed themselves to maintaining weak currencies, running
current account surpluses, and self-insuring against liquidity runs by accumulating huge foreign
exchange reserves. This strategy grew in part from a mistrust that the IMF could be counted on to act as the lender of last resort.
Deficit countries, such as the United States, see such accumulations of reserves as a form of trade
mercantilism that prevents undervalued currencies from appreciating. Emerging-market economies, in turn,
complain that U.S. fiscal and current account deficits could eventually cause the collapse of the U.S.
dollar, even as these deficits help build up the dollar assets demanded by those countries accumulating reserves. This is a rerun of
the old Triffin dilemma, an economic observation of what happens when the country that produces the reserve
currency must run deficits to provide international liquidity, deficits that eventually debase
the currency’s value as a stable international reserve. Meanwhile, debates over alternatives
to the U.S. dollar, including that of giving a greater role to Special Drawing Rights (an international reserve asset based on a
basket of five national currencies created by the IMF to supplement gold and dollar reserves), as China has recommended, are
going nowhere, largely because Washington has no interest in any move that would
undermine the central role of the dollar. Nor is it likely that China’s yuan will soon supplant the
dollar as a major reserve currency, because for the yuan to do so, Beijing would have to allow its
exchange rate to fluctuate, reduce its controls on capital inflows and outflows, liberalize its domestic
capital markets, and create markets for yuan-denominated debt. That is a long-term process that
would present many near-term threats to China’s political and economic stability. In addition,
energy producers are resisting policies aimed at stabilizing price volatility through a more
flexible energy supply. Meanwhile, net energy exporters, especially Russia, continue to use threats to halt
the flow of gas as a primary foreign policy weapon against neighboring states. Net energy consumers,
for their part, are resisting policies, such as carbon taxes, that would reduce their dependency on
fossil fuels. Similar tensions derive from the sharply rising prices of food and other commodities.
Conflicts over these issues come at a time when economic anxiety is high and no single country or bloc of
countries has the clout to help drive a truly international approach to resolving them. From 1945 until
1990, the global balance of power was defined primarily by relative differences in military
capability. It was not market-moving innovation or cultural dynamism that bolstered the Soviet bloc’s prominence within a
bipolar international system. It was raw military power. Today, it is the centrality of China and other emerging
powers to the future of the global economy, not the numbers of their citizens under arms or the weapons at
their disposal, that make their choices crucial for the United States’ future. This is the core of the G-
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Zero dilemma. The phrase “collective security” conjures up NATO and its importance for peace and prosperity across Europe.
But as the eurozone crisis vividly demonstrates, there is no collective economic security in a globalized
economy. Whereas Europe’s interest rates once converged based on the assumption that southern European countries were
immune to default risks and eastern European states were lined up to join the euro, now there is fear of a contagion
within the walls that might one day bring down the entire eurozone enterprise. Beyond
Europe, those who make policy, whether in a market-based democracy such as the United States or an authoritarian
capitalist state such as China, must worry first and foremost about growth and jobs at home. Ambitions
to bolster the global economy are a distant second. There is no longer a Washington
consensus, but nor will there ever be a Beijing consensus, because Chinese-style state
capitalism is designed to meet China’s unique needs. It is that rare product that China
has no interest in exporting. Indeed, because each government must work to build domestic security and prosperity to
fit its own unique political, economic, geographic, cultural, and historical circumstances, state capitalism is a system
that must be unique to every country that practices it. This is why, despite pledges recorded in G-20
communiqués to “avoid the mistakes of the past,” protectionism is alive and well. It is why the process of
creating a new international financial architecture is unlikely to create a structure that
complies with any credible building code. And it is why the G-Zero era is more likely to produce protracted
conflict than anything resembling a new Bretton Woods.
Timeframe – it’s immediate – even if intervening actors slow the impact,
the perception of protectionism results in preemptive wars
Lieberthal and O’Hanlon ‘12
[Ken – Dir of the China Center and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at Brookings. And Michael – Dir of Research and Senior Fellow
of Foreign Policy at Brookings. “The Real National Security Threat: America’s Debt” The LA Times, 7/10/12 ]
Second, such
a chronic economic decline would undercut what has been 70 years of strong
national political consensus in favor of an activist and engaged American foreign policy.
One reason the United States was so engaged through the Cold War and the first 20 years of the
post-Cold War world was fear of threats. But the other reason was that the strategy was associated
with improvements in our quality of life as well . America became even more
prosperous, and all major segments of society benefited.¶ Alas, globalization and
automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream
into question for the working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy
this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of
the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America —
especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses.¶
Lastly, American
economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other
countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline . If
this perception becomes more widespread , and the case that we are in decline becomes more
persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's
future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons
for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less
restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The
crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will
become more likely.¶ When running for president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions:
healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through
development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for
Obama or his successor, there
is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental
prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished .
High probability – the best studies vote neg
Royal ‘10
[Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, Economics of War and Peace: Economic,
Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior 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
in the global economy are associated with the rise and
fall of a pre-eminent power and the oftenbloody transition from one pre-eminent leader
to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution ofrelative
power (see also Gilpin, 1981) 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 conflicts as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles
leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
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 remains unknown. Second, on
a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggest 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 expectations of future trade decline,particularly for
difficult to replace item 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
ittriggers 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 favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to
amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other.
(Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the
likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess and 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 fabricate external military conflicts to create a “rally around 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 Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic
states due to the fact the democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being
removed from office due to lack of domestic support. De DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing
that periods ofweak economic performance in the United States and thus weak
Presidential popularity are statically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary,
recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises,
whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This
implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in economic-security debate and
deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those
studies
tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not
specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such
the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.
Turns US growth because we’re reliant on foreign growth
Beck ‘8
[Rachel. Staffer for the New York Times. “Slowing European Economy Could Dent US Corporate Profits” The NYT, June 2008 ln]
U.S. corporate profits fueled by international sales could quickly disappear if the
European economy begins to falter, stripping many multinational companies of a huge
source of earnings growth. Europe accounts for almost half of U.S. companies' foreign
sales, according to Citigroup. "Investors tend to think of China and India when they hear about
international sales," said Tobias Levkovich, chief U.S. equity strategist for Citigroup. "They don't recognize
how much comes from Europe."
Also turns climate change
Okonski and Boin ‘8
[Kendra and Caroline. Environment Program at the Intl Policy Network. “Protectionism May be Harmful to All” International Policy
Network, 2/3/8 ln]
The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where European and American producers are not
disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game
would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade
would be replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation .
Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions are concentrated and tend to
be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business from competition, especially when supported by
moralists, such as environmentalists, who claim that such protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised
labor unite. The Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Green groups but also by electricity providers and their
associated trade unions. Similarly, various European trade unions have applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU
competitors. But in reality, it is far more moral to support liberalization. Trade
barriers of any kind, including
"green" subsidies, tariffs and quotas, harm both consumers and producers. They
artificially increase costs, leading to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human
resources. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase the same goods and
services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future.
Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually
counterproductive. They favor the status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and
thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-saving technologies. Consider bananas. These
could be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and Russia. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in
warm places, and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and
the Ivory Coast. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably. Poor
countries would
suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers -- with adverse effects on both
people and the environment. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor
countries being sold to industrialized countries. So local companies will have less money
to invest in new, cleaner technologies. Instead, they will continue to use older, dirtier
production methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. This effect would be
exacerbated by reduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover, less trade means less wealth, which translates into
fewer resources available to invest in environmental conservation. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984, India
had one car manufacturer, which produced just one car -- the Ambassador -- which was technologically inferior, belched pollutants,
and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began to open its market to foreign car producers. This process exploded after
the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner,
moretechnologically advanced and efficient. Environmental ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's
future, claiming that we all must consume less, have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based
on their scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades, these claims should not be heeded
seriously. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their practical ability to enable
humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. The competitive market process,
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by ecodoom mongers. Protectionism,
naked or cloaked in green, harms the vast majority of people
as well as the environment -- and is best avoided.
And the functionality of US energy assistance
Stepp and Atkinson ‘12
[Matt and Robert. Clean Energy Analyst and the President – both at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
“Green Mercantilism: The Threat to the Clean Energy Economy” June 2012, http://www2.itif.org/2012-green-mercantilism.pdf ]
At first glance, some of the above green mercantilist strategies appear successful on both the national and global level. At the
national level, many nations’ clean energy sectors have enjoyed rapid growth due in large part to mercantilist policies. For instance,
China, the most egregious green mercantilist, has managed to leverage its widespread
discriminatory practices into massive growth in the global solar and wind market. At the
global level, mercantilist policies, particularly those aimed at boosting exports, helped drive down clean energy prices and grow the
installed clean energy base. For example, cheaper, mercantilist-backed Chinese solar panels were a big factor that led to a 69 percent
increase in global solar installations in 2010-2011.80¶ Notwithstanding this fact, green
mercantilism hurts, not
helps the quest to transform the global economy from fossil fuels to clean energy
because it limits clean energy innovation . As ITIF’s report The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of
Innovation Policy found, a global trading system plagued by “bad” and “ugly” mercantilist
practices will produce less innovation than a system based on “good” innovation policies. Clean energy
innovation is key to making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels without long-
term subsidy dependence . According to former Microsoft CTO and Intellectual Ventures CEO Nathan Myrhvold,
“We need to invent new energy technologies…We need higher efficiency in solar. We need new kinds of nuclear technology. We need
lower cost for all of these things. So there is a lot of energy invention to do.”81¶ According to MIT solar energy experts, solar PV must
reach $0.50 per peak watt to become competitive without subsidies yet, “Current [silicon PV] manufacturing costs are two to three
times higher than the $0.50 per peak watt target, raising questions of whether insurmountable cost barriers exist for this
technology…Reaching $0.50 per peak watt costs necessitates advanced concepts not currently in industry roadmaps.”82 Solar isn’t
the only technology that costs too much. Electric vehicle batteries account for over 25 percent the total cost of the vehicles and
according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “are the biggest drivers of the cost…and hence their uptake.”83 The innovation of
next-generation batteries that provide longer range per charge while also being significantly cheaper is vital to making electric
vehicles competitive with their gasoline counterparts. Other clean technologies like wind turbines are also not cost competitive when
all costs, including energy storage (for periods when the wind does not blow) and transmission, are factored in. And even
more
advanced low-carbon technologies like small modular reactors are still in the early
stages of first-of-kind development and require significant innovation before reaching
the market. In other words, cheaper, next-generation clean technologies are critical and the
only way to produce them is through new technology development, which green
mercantilist-backed deployment of existing technologies does little to support for two
reasons:¶ Mercantilism Limits Incentives for Domestic Firms to Innovate ¶ Green mercantilist policies focus on increasing
market share through large subsidies and market restrictions that limit foreign competition. Domestic firms that enjoy
the protections or advantages of green mercantilism have less of an incentive to
innovate, because pursuing innovation to bolster their competitive position is less
necessary to gain a competitive edge. Instead, firms can rely on subsidies to grow to a larger industry market
share, stifling competition not on the merits of better technologies, but on the subsidized price of less-innovative technologies.¶
Therefore, continuous public subsidies are required for green mercantilist-supported technologies to remain competitive and gain
greater market share. Yet governments
only have a finite amount of resources to invest and
the more public funding spent subsidizing the production of uncompetitive technologies
reduces the amount available to invest in innovation broadly. Especially in times of fiscal austerity, it’s
often unlikely that countries can subsidize an entire industry while supporting robust innovative activities elsewhere. Fundamental
choices must be made, and mercantilist
countries could potentially become a “one-trick pony”
focused solely on exporting existing clean energy while ignoring efforts to develop
cheaper and better alternatives.84 In fact, as both Table 2 and 3 show below, countries that practice more “good”
clean energy innovation policies rank near the top in producing clean energy innovations while countries that implement green
mercantilist practices are more often lower in the rankings.¶ This is particularly important to consider when comparing the United
States clean energy innovation ecosystem and China’s system of technology copying and low-cost manufacturing. As GTM Research
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Analyst Shyam Mehta states, “The Chinese don’t really add much value in terms of intellectual property.”85 In the clean energy
sector, this is most clearly seen in recent trends in the international solar PV trade. As noted above, China is the world’s largest
producer of first-generation crystalline silicon solar panels, and has been gaining market share rapidly at the expense of competitors
elsewhere.86 But Chinese investment in more advanced solar PV ideas is relatively small compared to the more mature
technology.87 On the other hand, American investments in solar are more mixed, with investments going towards more advanced
second-generation thin-film solar technologies or third-generation nanotechnology-based architectures that offer substantial upside
to achieving unsubsidized cost-competitiveness with fossil fuels. Chinese firms are simply not as innovative as American firms: they
invest a lower percentage of revenue on R&D, and while they patent broadly and aggressively, these patents tend to focus on minor,
low-value innovations.88 While the Chinese government has taken some steps to try strengthening its clean energy innovative
capacity, its success has been mixed and it still lags in effectiveness to other countries like Japan and the United States.89¶ ***table
omitted***¶ For example, the United States accounted for 20 percent of global clean technology patents filed under the
International Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) compared to 3.5 percent for China in 2009. Per capita, this ranks the United States
14th out of the top 60 countries that filed clean energy patents in 2009 under the PCT, whereas China is 41st (Table 2). In fact, the
history of the United States clean energy patents highlights that it has innovated the lion’s share of clean energy technologies in the
market today including first-generation solar PV, concentrated solar, key components of advanced wind turbines, electric vehicle
batteries, nuclear energy, and a host of energy efficiency technologies.¶ Analyzing a broader range of indicators, the United States
ranks higher than China in developing advanced clean energy innovations. The 2012 Global Cleantech Innovation Index ranks the
United States 4th and China 21st out of 38 countries in “emerging clean tech innovation” which factors in not only patenting, but
also early-stage private sector investment and start-up creation (Table 3).91¶ ***table omitted***¶ The difference between the
clean energy policies of the United States and China are made clear in comments by leading Chinese solar PV firm JA Solar CEO
Peng Fang, “It's not a pure technology business. If you invest in it as technology first and (cost reduction) second, you miss it. You
need to reverse that."93 In other words, instead of relying on innovation and the development of more advanced technologies to
grow their clean energy industry, Chinese firms rely on the “blunt force” of scale and unfair policy-driven advantages to drive down
costs—though still not far enough to reach cost-competitiveness with fossil fuel. Of course, this statement would be true if blunt force
subsidies—and not innovation—was all that was needed to make solar energy an economically feasible alternative.¶ Green
Mercantilism Limits Incentives for Foreign Firms and Entrepreneurs to Innovate ¶ Green
mercantilism also hurts
clean energy innovation by limiting the size of the global market and
discouraging foreign firms from investing in innovation . Tariffs, domestic
content requirements, and other subsidies distort the allocation of production by
often increasing the number of production facilities (so firms can benefit from the
incentives or meet domestic requirements), which doesn’t allow firms to reach higher
scales of manufacturing. This ultimately limits clean energy cost reductions in
the short and long-term . Also, countries protecting their indigenous industries
shrink the market available for foreign innovators to commercialize new products. An
artificially smaller market combined with unfairly supported industries, IP theft or forced technology transfer effectively limits
entrepreneurs and firms “Schumpeterian” profit potential—the profits captured from innovative activity—and reduces the incentive
for making risky investments in innovative ideas.¶ Why should U.S. firms invest in the kind of advanced, cutting edge research
needed to transform the global energy system if the odds are high that firms in other nations will steal the technology to compete
against them? Why should the government invest in research at leading universities that might lead to another American
Superconductor if the odds are high that the Chinese will steal the trade secrets to potentially dramatically reduce American
Superconductor market share and U.S. jobs? Why would an entrepreneur invest time and money in a brand new idea if the market is
effectively cut off from competition? The answer to all of these questions in a clean energy industry dominated by green mercantilist
is they shouldn’t.¶ And we’re starting to see this type of reaction from U.S. policymakers. U.S. federal policy has historically been the
main driver of breakthrough technology development, which includes high-profile investments in the development of the Internet,
the jet engine, and the microchip to name a few. And the federal government’s investment in breakthrough clean energy innovation
has been no different. From 2009 through 2014, the federal government will have invested $150 billion in the research,
development, scale-up, and deployment of clean energy.94 But green mercantilism is resulting in significant political backlash for
continuing these vital investments. For example, China’s green mercantilist practices allowed its manufacturers to capture
significant market share at the expense of U.S. industries, contributing to high-profile bankruptcies like Evergreen Solar and
Solyndra. These bankruptcies have become the focus of opposition to U.S. clean energy policy, including vital clean energy
innovation programs like the ARPA-E and public-private research partnerships through the National Labs. This opposition is
resulting in stagnant or declining budgets at a time when the United States should be doubling down on investments in
innovation.95¶ Combining
the effects of green mercantilist-protected firms’ lack of incentive
to innovate with its impact on foreign clean energy investments, green mercantilism
could potentially lock-in inferior clean technologies while limiting the
development of next-generation clean energy technologies . Without strong
and consistent incentives to innovate , the clean energy industry will not see the
necessary levels of investment required to develop and deploy cost-competitive clean
energy that isn’t reliant on subsidies and guide the world to drastically lower carbon
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
emissions. Clean energy policy experts Melanie Hart and Kate Gordon concur: “The long-term result [of Chinese subsidization]
is that a small number of heavily subsidized Chinese manufacturers could dominate the global solar market. That may make Chinese
leaders happy, but if those firms are not producing the best solar technologies—for example, if their solar panels are not as efficient
as they need to be to compete with traditional fossil fuels—that can slow solar-market development worldwide.”96¶ As
a result,
this leaves policymakers and consumers with a choice: cheaper existing clean tech that
is reliant on government subsidies or cheaper next-generation clean technologies that
are competitive on their own through innovation. A green mercantilist approach not
only continues the former but makes the latter much more difficult, both substantively
and politically.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
Ext. Trade Good – General
Must avoid protectionism – there’s no alternative to multilateral trade and
the transition away from it ensures global superpower wars that go nuclear
Panitchpakdi ‘4
[Supachai. Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. “American Leadership and the World Trade
Organization” www.wto.org, 2/26/4 ]
The second point is that strengthening
the world trading system is essential to America's wider
global objectives. Fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, improving health, integrating
China and other countries in the global economy — all of these issues are linked, in one way
or another, to world trade. This is not to say that trade is the answer to all America's economic concerns; only that
meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it. The world trading system is the
linchpin of today's global order — underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. A
successful WTO is an example of how multilateralism can work. Conversely, if it
weakens or fails, much else could fail with it. This is something which the US — at the
epicentre of a more interdependent world — cannot afford to ignore. These priorities must continue to
guide US policy — as they have done since the Second World War. America has been the main driving force behind eight
rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, including the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO.
The US — together with the EU — was instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. Likewise, the recent
initiative, spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick, to re-energize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is
yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral process — signalling that the US remains committed to further
liberalization, that the Round is moving, and that other countries have a tangible reason to get on board. The
reality is this:
when the US leads the system can move forward; when it withdraws, the system drifts.
Free trade is a controlling impact – war’s inevitable without it and
impossible because of it
Dyer ‘5
[Gwynne. Staffer for the Toronto Star. “End of War: Our Task over the Next Few Years is to Transform the World of Independent
States into a Genuine Global Village” The Toronto Star, December 30 2004. ]
War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human,
but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made
in the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we
have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another
great-power war, fought next
time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future. ¶ The "firebreak" against nuclear
weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of
the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some
countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. ¶ Add in the huge impending
shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the U nited S tates in GDP
over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of
control.
With good luck and good management, we
may be able to ride out the next half-century
without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly
exists for a major die-back of human population. ¶ We cannot command the good luck, but good
management is something we can choose to provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending
the multilateral system that we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers
must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for
them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses. ¶ Our
hopes
for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early and
concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically co-operative
international system. ¶ When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough spare
attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the moment is to
keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance systems and
arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some
never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges
and solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Economic / Trade Collapse Doesn’t Cause War
Even if the decline itself does not immediately cause war, it justifies an
increase in military spending which causes miscalculation and conflict –
empirically proven by Hitler and WWII
Current climate magnifies – Harris and Burrows indicate terrorists gain
recruitment off poverty and rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea will
become more adventurous – causes war
Diversionary conflict theory proves
Friedberg 2009
(Aaron Friedberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld, Professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School, Visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, Senior editor of Commentary, The Dangers of a
Diminished America, Accessed Online at the WSJ)
The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for
Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there
are shades of the 1930s,
when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to
cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of
economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to
become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum
vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic
competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has
demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down
by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign
investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even
sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good
news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails
with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are
struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past
dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical
power.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Impact Defense
( ) The plan results in creeping protectionism – overcomes barriers to a
trade war
Gee and Milner ‘9
[Marcus and Brian. “US Must Resist Instinct to Circle the Wagons” The Globe and Mail, 2/2/9 ln]
Back in 1930, countries responded quickly to the new U.S. tariff wall. Even before Smoot-Hawley became law, imposing high tariffs
on thousands of imported products, Canada responded with duties of its own on a range of important U.S. exports. Two years later,
the Ottawa agreements brought Canada and other parts of the old British empire together in protective trade pacts, at the expense of
the United States.¶ Most
experts don't see a return to those combative days, when competing
tariffs helped cause a two-thirds fall in global trade volumes. All-out trade wars are less
likely today because the W orld T rade O rganization and nation-to-nation trade deals such as
the North American free-trade agreement provide legal channels for working through
trade disputes.¶ Instead, the main worry is about a kind of creeping protectionism, in
which countries subtly limit competition with subsidies, bailouts and other measures to protect domestic
industries. Those measures distort trade and discriminate against foreign rivals, “but in the real
world, it's hard to imagine things being played out otherwise,” said Roy Culpeper, president and chief executive officer of the NorthSouth Institute in Ottawa. “Governments are going to look after their own first with the scarce dollars they have going into deficit
situations, and think about trade implications, if at all, only after that.”
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Other Economic Factors
( ) Trade is a controlling internal link to economic growth – it’s larger and
subsumes every other factor
IBD ‘8
[Investor Business Daily, “Lovin’ Free Trade,” 7/28/2008,
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=30213840372058]
Trade: The
U.S. economy has taken a number of gut-shots, but still it keeps running. And
if, contrary to many forecasts, it manages to avoid a recession entirely, it will largely be due to
one thing: booming exports. ¶ With all the jeremiads about the trade deficit and the millions of supposed "lost
jobs" due to imports, you wouldn't know that the reverse actually is true: Soaring U.S. exports are helping keep
America's economy afloat, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the U.S.¶
Sure, a weak dollar helps. So does a renewed interest by companies and their workers in pursuing business overseas. But most of the
credit should go to all the free-trade deals the U.S. has signed — which are now proving their worth.¶ Exports have been rising at a
remarkable 11.1% annual pace since 2000 (see chart), nearly doubling average nominal GDP growth of 5.8%. It's no exaggeration to
say trade has become a key underpinning of our economy's growth.¶ Recently, the National Association of Manufacturers noted that
we now sell more manufactured goods than we buy from all those countries we have free-trade agreements with. The first-quarter
surplus with our free-trade partners was a half-billion dollars — compared with a deficit of $176 billion with the rest of the world.¶ In
short, free
trade has become a major boon to American makers of everything from
jetliners and earth-moving equipment to movies and financial services.¶ As we said, trade
looks increasingly like a life preserver for the U.S. economy. In the second quarter, estimates
for GDP growth range from as low as just below 1% to as high as 3%. Different as they are, most estimates agree on one thing: Trade
will push growth in the second quarter, making up as much as two-thirds of GDP's rise.¶ This belies the
notion that has become
common of late: that trade is somehow a drag on the economy. Certainly right now it isn't. Nor is
it in the long run, as recent studies show. ¶ Since World War II, trade has been our
silent partner in growth. Free-trade deals signed by the U.S. have added millions of high-paying jobs to our economy
and moderated the length and frequency of our recessions. Thanks to free-trade, the average household since WWII has seen its
income rise by $10,000, studies show. ¶ And getting rid of remaining trade barriers would lift household incomes as much as
$12,000 more, according to economists Gary Hufbauer and Matthew Adler of the Peterson Institute.¶ Nor is the U.S. alone in
reaping benefits from freer trade. The World Bank says reducing trade barriers, subsidies and tariffs would boost the developing
world's income by $350 billion by 2015.¶ In short, nothing
is so falsely maligned in economics as free
trade. It's made all of us wealthier and more secure. Remember this as we enter a new election cycle, and charlatans on both the
left and right use free trade as a scapegoat for our current economic ills.¶
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//WWII Example / Ferguson 2006
The World War Two example goes our direction – most qualified evidence
confirms that the Great Depression caused the rise of European fascism
Ockham ‘8
[Ockham Research. Ockham Research is an independent equity research provider based in Atlanta, Georgia. Ockham covers an
expansive universe of stocks mostly in the US, but also from a variety of exchanges throughout the world. “Economic Distress and
Geopolitical Risks” Ockham Research, November 2008. http://seekingalpha.com/article/106562-economic-distress-andgeopolitical-risks ]
The economic turmoil roiling world markets right now brings with it plenty of pain. Jobs are being lost, people’s savings decimated,
retirement plans/goals thrown out the window, etc. Hard times bring with them harsh consequences. However, it is perhaps useful
to be mindful of the geopolitical risks that accompany economic dislocation. Many analysts are eager
to compare the difficulties now confronting the global economic system with those of the Great Depression. While I do not believe
that the world is facing a second Great Depression, it might be worthwhile to recall from history that the Great Depression spawned
geopolitical turmoil that lead to the Second World War. The incoming Obama administration—and Democratic members of
Congress who talk of implementing massive defense cutbacks—may want to remember the lessons of the past as they stand on the
threshold of power.¶ The
hardship and turmoil which impacted the world during the Great
Depression provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist, expansionist regimes in
Germany, Italy and Japan. Hard times also precluded the Western democracies from a
more muscular response in the face of growing belligerence from these countries. The
U nited S tates largely turned inward during the difficult years of the 1930s. The end result was a
global war
of a size and scale never seen by man either before or since. Economic
hardship is distracting. It can
cause nations to turn their focus inward with little or no regard for rising global
threats that inevitably build in tumultuous times. Authoritarian regimes invariably look for scapegoats to
blame for the hardship affecting their populace. This enables them to project the anger of their citizenry away from the regime itself
and onto another race, country, ideology, etc.¶ Looking at the world today, one
can certainly envision numerous
potential flashpoints that could become problematic in a protracted economic
downturn. Pakistan, already a hotbed of Islamic extremism and armed with atomic
weapons, has been particularly hard hit by the global economic crisis. An increasingly
impoverished Pakistan will be harder and harder for its new and shaky democratically-elected government to control. Should
Pakistan’s economic troubles cause its political situation—always chaotic—to spin out of
control, this would be a major setback in the global war on terror. ¶ Russia,
whose economy, stock markets and financial system have literally imploded over the
past few months, could become increasingly problematic if faced with a protracted
economic downturn. The increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger
projection. Its invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West
reflect a desire to stoke the pride and anger of its people against foreign powers—
particularly the U nited S tates. It is no accident that the Russians announced a willingness to deploy tactical missile
systems to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama’s election in the U.S. This was a clear “shot across the bow” of the new
administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign policy going forward.
Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia’s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil at $70 per
barrel or higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past
few months by ham-fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system.
Bristling with
nuclear weapons and nursing an ego still badly bruised by the collapse of the Soviet
Union and loss of superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a
dangerous thing to behold.¶ China too is threatened by the global economic downturn.
There is no doubt that China has emerged during the past decade as a major economic power. Parts of the country have been
transformed by its meteoric growth. However, in truth, only about a quarter of the nation’s billion plus inhabitants—those living in
the thriving cities on the coast and in Beijing—have truly felt the impact of the economic boom. Many of these people have now seen
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
a brutal bear market and are adjusting to economic loss and diminished future prospects. However, the vast majority of China’s
population did not benefit from the economic boom and could become increasingly restive in an economic slowdown. Enough
economic hardship could conceivably threaten the stability of the regime and would
more than likely make China more bellicose and unpredictable in its behavior, with
dangerous consequences for the U.S. and the world. ¶ Economic hardship invariably has
consequences that can dwarf the original impact of those troubles. With the U.S. already at war and facing an increasingly troubled
world, it is probably not a good time to make large reductions to the defense budget. With the U.S. government carrying massively
greater amounts of debt now as a result of the financial carnage of the past few months, there will be increased pressure to wring
savings out of almost every element of government. However, given past experience in tough economic times, it would be wise for
our new government to understand the dire need to maintain a strong national defense.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//History Disproves
Empirics are a negative warrant – every modern conflict is explained by
economic contraction
Yulu ‘3
[Economic Analyst for the People’s Daily (China). “Economic Recession: The Blasting Fuse of War”. People’s Daily, 7/25/3 Lexis]
If one examines the wars broken out ever since more than a century ago, one will discover an
interesting phenomenon, that is, each fairly big economic recession (or economic crisis) was inevitably
followed by the eruption of a war. This is true with World I, World War II, the Gulf War, as
well as the Iraq war. It can be said that economic downturn is the blasting fuse of
modern war .
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Won’t Escalate
Trade wars escalate – history on our side
Miller and Elwood ‘88
[Vince and James. Founder of the International Society for Individual Liberty and ISIL VP. “Free Trade or Protectionism?”
www.isil.org, 1988]
In Trade Wars: Both Sides Lose When the government of Country "A" puts up trade
barriers against the goods of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally
retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in
which both sides lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of
a trade war . . . When Goods Don't Cross Borders, Armies Often Do History is not
lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe
suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive
trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their
empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later
the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports – a major factor leading to the American
Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted
politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities
built up until they eventually
exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover
ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the
notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year,
over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World
trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great
Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. The #1
Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively
free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade
barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these
economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What
generates war is the
economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls,
monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war."
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Trade Inevitable
Trade’s not inevitable – protectionism can unravel it
Lillie ‘12
[British Ambassador to the Philippines. “A World Built on Trade” The Philippines Star, 10/4/12 ln]
The 20th century has seen a great rise in liberalisation and a reduction in protectionism.
High points included the creation of the W orld T rade O rganisation. Other examples include the
European Union’s Single Market of over 500 million people and NAFTA in North America. The EU and India are negotiating a free
trade deal. And other agreements are popping up all around the world, including in ASEAN. All this has helped global trade to grow
exponentially during the past two decades. A 2009 study by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce estimated that a free trade
agreement between EU and ASEAN could boost Philippine GDP by an additional two percent. Free trade is not, as sometimes
depicted, about opening up developing country markets, it is about allowing developing countries to reap the benefit of access to the
biggest and most advanced economies.¶ However the
growth of free trade is not inevitable. The economic
problems of the 1930s brought about a revival of protectionism. In tough economic
times, a natural reaction is to conserve and protect. But this is precisely the wrong economic policy. Trade
is what will deliver growth and is why my government is seeking to ensure we are amongst the best and most open countries for
trade and investment. In
the tough times the global economy is facing, trade and more free
trade is the answer, not the problem.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//No Protectionism
The threat of protectionism’s high
Irwin ‘12
[Prof Econ at Dartmouth. “The Return of the Protectionist Illusion: Trade Barriers once again Threaten the Global Economy, and
the US Isn’t Helping” The Wall Street Journal, 7/1/12 ln]
When the Great Depression struck in the early 1930s, countries imposed high tariffs,
import quotas and foreign-exchange controls in the false hope that they might help
revive their economies. Instead, these beggar-thy-neighbor policies led to a collapse in
world trade . Today the threat of protectionism once again looms across the
world .¶ In order to prop up the peso, Argentina is rationing foreign exchange to sharply limit spending on imports, prompting
foreign retaliation. Brazil has been cracking down on automobile imports from Argentina and Mexico. A steady stream of new
antidumping duties creates additional obstacles to trade.¶ Export restrictions have also interrupted trade flows: Indonesia and nickel
ore, China and rare-earth minerals, Tanzania and maize. And subtle product regulations are increasingly invoked to block imports.
Russia recently banned imports of live animals from the European Union, ostensibly for health and safety reasons, prompting
vigorous objections from Brussels.¶ In addition to these overt measures, there are worrisome proposals on the horizon. The EU is
considering a "Buy European" initiative for public procurement that would mimic, and perhaps go well beyond, "Buy American"
provisions in U.S. law. These laws give preferences for domestic suppliers in government contracts, limiting trade and raising prices
that taxpayers pay for government services. India is considering mandating preferences for purchases of information and
communications-technology equipment, not just for government entities but for private firms, as well.¶ Pascal Lamy, director
general of the World Trade Organization, says these and other measures restricting or potentially restricting trade are "now a matter
of serious concern." EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht is also worried by what he characterizes as "the sharp rise in traderestrictive measures introduced over the last eight months."¶ G-20 leaders at the recent summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, claimed they
too were "deeply concerned about rising instances of protectionism around the world," and reaffirmed their "standstill commitment"
to avoid imposing new trade restrictions. They pledged to "roll back any new protectionist measure that may have arisen, including
new export restrictions and WTO-inconsistent measures to stimulate exports."¶ Talk is cheap. Global Trade Alert, a monitoring
service run by Simon Evenett at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, points out that the G-20 countries themselves have been
most responsible for the protectionist creep. Many trade measures enacted by G-20 members exploit loopholes in WTO rules.¶
Unfortunately, President Obama has provided no leadership in trying to keep world markets
open for trade. Out of fear of offending labor unions and other domestic constituencies, his administration long delayed
submitting free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama for congressional approval. Instead of seeking to
reinvigorate the languishing Doha round of trade negotiations at the WTO, it has been
almost completely passive and allowed world-trade policies to drift.¶ Congress has also done little
to help. Senate Republicans and Democrats teamed up late last month to maintain import restrictions for the sugar industry,
defeating an amendment from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) that would have gradually eliminated them. Keeping domestic sugar
prices at twice the world level helps a few sugar-cane and beet farmers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, while leading to
job losses in sugar-using industries, such as candy and confectionary manufacturing.¶ Meanwhile, Congress and the administration
continue to flirt with new "Buy American" provisions, drawing the ire of Canada and other trade partners. Yet economists Laura
Baughman and Joseph Francois calculated that if foreign retaliation led U.S. companies to lose just 1% of the potential sales
opportunities created by foreign stimulus programs, U.S. exporters would lose over 200,000 jobs. This would far exceed the 43,000
jobs supposedly created by the "Buy American" preferences included in the 2009 stimulus bill.¶ Any
serious march
backward toward protectionism would constitute a major failure of economic policy.
Experience has shown that, once imposed, trade restrictions are very difficult to
remove because vested interests then have a stake in perpetuating them.
Protectionism also breeds foreign retaliation , making barriers doubly difficult
to unwind. Now is no time to entertain dangerous illusions.
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
AT//Bilateral Trade Good
Not an answer – the WTO promotes global trade and helps to facilitate
bilateral trade
Even if they win that regional trade is good, absent multilateral institutions
trade fragmentation will nullify their benefits
Tarullo ‘7
[Dan. Prof Law @ Gtown. “The Case for Reviving the Doha Trade Round” www.americanprogress.org ]
The multilateral vs. bilateral agreement has been actively debated in the United States for over a decade. Yet even
those who
have championed bilateral agreements have generally done so against the backdrop of a
vigorous multilateral system, which prevents too much fragmentation in international
trade rules and practice. Should that system begin to deteriorate, the effects of
bilateralism could change substantially. From an American perspective, a world in which only
bilateral and regional trade agreements are concluded will not likely be a positive
change. In any multilateral negotiation, the United States will be no less than the single
most important participant. In all but the most unusual of circumstances, this status will assure
considerable influence over the outcome of the negotiation, at least if the United States
plays a constructive role. In bilateral or regional negotiations to which the United States
is not party, it will have only the most indirect influence over the terms of the resulting agreements. And,
by definition, it will not receive any rights created by those agreements. Whether the issue is non-tariff
barriers on agricultural exports or the protection of labor standards, American interests can be better pursued
through preservation of a complementary system of bilateral and multilateral
arrangements.
History shows that multilateral trade has worked better and bilateral
agreements are ineffective
Bhagwati ‘2
[Jagdish. Prof Econ @ Columbia. Free Trade Today, 2002. pg 118. ]
Even if most observers now deplore the systemic chaos, can we still harbor the hope that PTAs are only part of a dynamic process,
defining a time-path, that leads towards the shared goal of multilateral free trade? As I put it a decade ago in the 1990 Harry
Johnson Lecture in London, are bilaterals building blocks for free trade, or stumbling blocks? This
question came up especially when the United States, which had avoided PTAs and exclusively favored multilateral trade negotiations
and treaties, abandoned that position in the early 1980s and began a policy of embracing PTAs under Article 24. The rationale then
was that at the November 1982 GATT Ministerial, Europeans refused to start a new round to reduce trade barriers. The huge
protectionist threat in Congress forced the hand of the Reagan administration, which opened a regional PTA trade initiative with
Canada. The
United States decided that, since there was no driving the multilateral
highway, it could only travel by walking the regional, preferential country road. So the
decision was made to walk on two legs: one temporarily asleep in Geneva at the GATT, the other active in the PTA framework. What
has happened since, as I have already documented, is that instead of walking on two legs, we
have wound up on all
fours. Many of the different bilaterals today bear little resemblance to one another: each
has features that reflect the politics and the economic circumstance of the pair of
countries in question. As the Japanese vice minister for finance said in Davos in January 2001, “We in Japan have finally
been forced into pursuing bilateral agreements to free trade, but we must admit to a genuine worry that, in terms of Professor
Bhagwati’s language of building and stumbling blocks, the bilateral
agreements worldwide are blocks of
varying size and shape. It is hard to see how they can be used to build multilateral free
trade.”28
Collapse of the WTO abandons positive trade agreements – new FTAs won’t
solve the problem
Bhagwati ‘5
MEXICAN RENEWABLES NEGATIVE
7-WEEK JUNIORS
MICHIGAN 2013
CFJPV
[Jagdish. Prof Econ @ Columbia. “From Seattle to Hong Kong” Foreign Affairs, 2005. ln]
Should we ring the alarm bell by saying that if Doha is not successful by mid-2007, we will have abandoned the multilateral trading
system to a cruel fate of neglect and role shrinkage? There
is a widespread view that preferential trade
agreements, the bilateral and regionals, will break out. But frankly, this is an absurd view. Can
anyone seriously hold that, thanks to a blinkered trade leadership in the United States and the EU and now much of Asia, these are
If the multiplication of FTAs is truly admitted to be an evil, as
by now it is in many circles, why are politicians and bureaucrats allowed to get away
with their game of enacting bilaterals while pretending to be virtuous in light of all
evidence and argumentation? Why are these unnuanced, misguided, and destructive trade leaders not roundly
not already multiplying at full speed?
condemned in the elite media?