1NC
OFF
Legalize means production, distribution, sale, and use must be legal for all or
most people
Caulkins et al 12 (Jonathan, H. Guyford Stever Professorship of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon,
Angela Hawken (Author), Beau Kilmer (Author), Mark Kleiman, 7-13-12, “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know”
Print [Fill in Pg. Numbers])
What does it mean to legalize a drug?
Legalization is the opposite of prohibition . It avoids the costs of prohibition—loss of liberty, criminal enterprise, and
the need for enforcement—at the risk of increased drug abuse.
Legalization means treating a drug (not necessarily all drugs) more or less the way we treat other
commodities: production, distribution, retail sale, possession, and use would all be legal for all
or most people (e.g., for adults but not for minors).
The aff only legalizes outdoor grows- violates nearly all because most is indoor
now
Vote neg
a. Limits- they explode the research burden by allowing any subset of production,
distribution, sale, possession or use for any group
b. Ground- they spike out of disads to nationwide legalization
OFF
Obama PC secures an Iran deal now—failure causes prolif and war
Ryan Costello, policy fellow, “Stakes Are High for Iran Nuclear Negotations,” National Iranian American Concil, 3—30—15,
http://www.niacouncil.org/stakes-are-high-for-iran-nuclear-negotiations/, accessed 4-2-15.
This week, the U.S. has a chance to lead an international coalition into an agreement that would guard against any attempt by Iran
to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, the decades since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 are littered with missed opportunities to
resolve differences between the U.S. and Iran, including on the nuclear issue. With
political capital expended to keep
the negotiations afloat, particularly in Washington, and the list of issues to be resolved shrinking , these negotiations
have steadily risen in importance. As a result, failure or the rash rejection of a breakthrough by Congress or Iranian hardliners
could result in irreparable damage to the diplomatic track, with profound consequences for an already chaotic
region. We may never see a pair of U.S. and Iranian Presidents more willing to expend the political
capital necessary to reach a nuclear deal. President Obama famously distinguished himself on the campaign trail in 2008
by vowing to sit down with any world leader without preconditions, including Iran, and has turned an Iran nuclear deal into what
could be the chief foreign policy goal of his second term. Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. diplomats have also
spent countless hours doggedly pursuing a deal that balances between the political imperatives of Washington and Tehran. In Iran,
President Rouhani campaigned on a platform of moderation and outreach to the West. Rouhani was the lead nuclear negotiator for
Iran between 2003-2005, which resulted in Iran freezing its enrichment and implementing the IAEA’s Additional Protocol. Rouhani’s
foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also has a successful track record of negotiating with the West, playing a critical role in the
effort to form a new government for Afghanistan at the Bonn conference in 2001. Over the past year and a half of intense
negotiations, Rouhani and Zarif have kept Iran’s skeptical Supreme Leader united behind their efforts to reach a deal, preventing
counterproductive divides in Iran’s political elite. Now, with the political scales tilted heavily in favor of
diplomacy, failure could eliminate diplomatic prospects for the foreseeable future. Escalation will
be the name of the game if negotiations fail, as lead U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman articulated in October. Congress
would pass sanctions and President Obama might not put up much of a fight. Iran would expand its nuclear program
and limit the access of international inspectors. The sanctions regime would fray or potentially collapse, diminishing
U.S. leverage over Iran. Tacit cooperation in Iraq to counter ISIS militants could end, with dangerous
consequences. If diplomacy fails, President Obama would likely resist the reinvigorated calls from neoconservative circles to
attack Iran, but he has less than two years remaining in office. Prominent Republicans weighing Presidential runs have
already staked out a hardline position by warning Iran that they would undo any potential multilateral nuclear agreement
“with the stroke of a pen.” Democrats, as well, could be scarred by failure and rush toward a hawkish
position. Whereas a multilateral agreement would constrain the next President from returning to the
escalation route, an advancing Iranian nuclear program and the lack of diplomatic prospects would tempt many of
Obama’s potential successors to consider the military option, regardless of the consequences. Those who have
dreamed of attacking Tehran ever since the fall of Baghdad are banking on such an opportunity to renew their case for yet another
disastrous war. It has been ten years since the European 3 (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) had a golden opportunity to
constrain Iran’s nuclear program. Those talks fell apart largely due to the George W. Bush administration’s insistence that any
agreement result in Iran eliminating its entire centrifuge program. As a result, Iran went from hundreds to 20,000 centrifuges as
economic pressure escalated but failed to achieve any strategic goal. Now, diplomacy has once again halted the Iranian
program’s advance and could lead to a historic breakthrough that reshapes the U.S.-Iran relationship,
cuts off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon and averts a disastrous war . If an agreement falls through,
however, getting through another ten years without a war, an Iranian nuclear weapon, or both would likely prove more challenging
than reaching the diplomatic inflection point that the parties now face in Lausanne.
Plan wrecks PC with the Dems
Nagourney, journalist, “Despite Support in Party, Democratic Governors Resist Legalizing Marijuana,” NEW YORK
TIMES, 4—5—14, www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/us/politics/despite-support-in-party-democratic-governors-resist-legalizingAdam
marijuana.html?_r=0, accessed 9-20-14.
California voters strongly favor legalizing marijuana. The state Democratic Party adopted a platform last month urging California to
follow Colorado and Washington in ending marijuana prohibition. The state’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, has called for
legalizing the drug. But not Gov. Jerry Brown. “I think we ought to kind of watch and see how things go in Colorado,” Mr. Brown, a
Democrat, said curtly when asked the question as he was presenting his state budget this year. At a time of rapidly evolving
attitudes toward marijuana legalization — a slight majority of Americans now support legalizing the drug — Democratic
governors across the country, Mr. Brown among them, find themselves uncomfortably at odds with their own
base. Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these governors are
standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of
law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from Republicans. While 17 more states — most of
them leaning Democratic — have seen bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational
marijuana, no
sitting governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of
legalization . Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to
the idea. “Quite frankly, I don’t think we are ready, or want to go down that road,” Dannel P. Malloy, the Democratic governor of
Connecticut, which has legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, said in an
interview. “Perhaps the best way to handle this is to watch those experiments that are underway. I don’t think it’s necessary, and I
don’t think it’s appropriate.” The hesitance expressed by these governors reflects not only governing
concerns but also, several analysts said, a historically rooted political wariness of being portrayed as
soft on crime by Republicans. In particular, Mr. Brown, who is 75, lived through the culture wars of the 1960s, when
Democrats suffered from being seen as permissive on issues like this. “Either they don’t care about it as passionately or they feel
embarrassed or vulnerable. They fear the judgment,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, an
organization that favors decriminalization of marijuana. “The fear of being soft on drugs, soft on marijuana, soft on crime is
woven into the DNA of American politicians, especially Democrats .” He described that sentiment as, “Do
not let yourself be outflanked by Republicans when it comes to being tough on crime and tough on drugs. You will lose.” In
Washington and Colorado, the Democratic governors had opposed legalization from the start, though
each made clear that he would follow voters’ wishes in setting up the first legal recreational-marijuana marketplaces in the nation. “If
it was up to me, being in the middle of it, and having read all this research and having some concern, I’d tell people just to exercise
caution,” Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado said in a recent interview. In Colorado, where recreational marijuana went on sale
Jan. 1, revenue figures released in February suggested that taxes on drug sales could bring in more than $100 million a year for the
state, a figure that made other states take note. Washington has yet to let its first marijuana stores open — that is expected to
happen later this spring — but Gov. Jay Inslee has made his position clear. “As a grandfather, I have the same concerns every
grandfather has about misuse of any drug, including alcohol and marijuana,” he said in a telephone interview, adding, “All of us want
to see our kids make smart decisions and not allow any drug to become injurious in our life. “I recognized the really rational decision
that people made that criminalization efforts were not a successful public policy,” Mr. Inslee continued. “But frankly, I really don’t
want to send a message to our kids that this is a route that is without risk.” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York has said he
would oppose outright legalization of marijuana but would support legalizing, to some extent, medical marijuana in the state, and
might be open to decriminalizing the drug. In New Hampshire, Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, invoked her state’s struggle
with heroin abuse in arguing against weakening marijuana laws. “Legalizing marijuana won’t help us address our substance use
challenge,” she said in her state of the state address this year. “Experience and data suggests it will do just the opposite.” Even in
California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana and where marijuana advocates are moving to put a legalization initiative
on the ballot in 2016, Mr. Brown has flashed a yellow light. “All of a sudden, if there’s advertising and legitimacy, how
many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation?” Mr. Brown said in an interview on “Meet the Press” last
month. “The world’s pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the
potheads might be able to put together.” The resistance comes as public opinion on the issue is moving more
rapidly than anyone might have anticipated. Nationally, 51 percent of adults support legalizing the drug, according to a New York
Times/CBS News poll conducted in February, including 60 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents and 72 percent of
young adults. Even 44 percent of Tea Party members said they wanted the drug legalized. In California, 60 percent of likely voters
said they supported marijuana legalization in a poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California last year. In many ways, the
shift in public sentiment toward the legalization of marijuana tracks the rapid change in views on same-sex marriage, again led by
young adults and Democrats. But there is one key difference: Many elected Democratic officials have come to support same-sex
marriage, and analysts said Democrats could pay a political cost for opposing it. “Very different than gay marriage,” Kevin A. Sabet,
an opponent of legalization and a co-founder of Project SAM, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in an email. “People have strong
feelings on gay marriage. It’s a civil/human rights/religious issue for both sides. Not so with pot.” There is no obvious political
upside to supporting legalization, analysts said, and politicians, as a rule, tend to be risk averse. “You don’t
hold these positions without having a sense of your own place in history,” said former Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, who
joined Mr. Sabet in founding Project SAM, which strives to reduce marijuana use by emphasizing health risks. “They can honestly
see that this is not a good move, that it’s going to have huge consequences, not all of which can be foretold.”
That results in a veto-proof majority—it kills a deal
Greg Sargent, journalist, an Edward Levine, legislative analyst, U.S Senate, “Will Senate Democrats Really Help Kill an Obama
Nuclear Deal with Iran?” WASHINGTON POST, 3—30—15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/30/willsenate-democrats-really-help-kill-an-obama-nuclear-deal-with-iran/, accessed 4-1-15.
But even if the framework of a deal is reached in the short term — the immediate goal of the talks — there is a real possibility, the White House
believes, that Congress could kill a final deal even before it is agreed upon, with the willing participation of Senate Democrats. Republicans are widely
expected to oppose the deal, whatever is in it. But even some Democrats who may support the deal could end up helping to scuttle it. Here’s how.
In
mid-April, the Senate may vote on the Bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — a bill that is co-sponsored
by Republican Bob Corker and at least eight Senate Dems, which puts it in striking distance of a veto-proof majority .
The measure would require the president to submit any final deal with Iran to Congress within five days, and prohibit the suspension of sanctions on
Iran for another 60 days, during which Congress could vote to approve or disapprove the deal. A vote of disapproval would prevent the lifting of
sanctions and thus cut off the ability of the U.S. to meet its end of the bargain. Even if Congress ultimately approved it, the 60-day wait would delay
implementation of the deal. The idea behind the Corker measure is to give Congress more oversight over the process — a laudable goal. But it’s
unclear whether this bill is even needed to accomplish that: After a final deal is reached, Congress could theoretically vote to block it at any point it
The only practical impact of voting for this bill in mid-April might
be to kill the deal before it’s even signed, by signaling possible Congressional opposition before it is finalized in a
few months. Indeed, voting for this now might allow members of Congress to kill a compromise — without actually voting against any
wished, even without passing the Corker measure first.
specific deal — under the guise of voting for more Congressional oversight. To understand why, I spoke to Edward Levine, a legislative analyst on the
Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees for over 30 years who has done some of the most in-depth analysis of the proposal out there. A lightly
edited and condensed version of our conversation follows. THE PLUM LINE: What would the Corker bill actually do? EDWARD LEVINE: The Corker
bill sets up a situation in which any final agreement with Iran has to be reported to Congress very quickly, which would deny Congress the benefits it
usually has when considering something like a treaty, including a legal analysis and a verification assessment that often take several weeks to do. This
would encourage Congress to take action before it really knew the details. And Congress is encouraged to have a vote on the agreement within 60
days, during which the administration would not be allowed to lift sanctions. That would push Congress to act quickly, before it really knew the details.
PLUM LINE: Why does that 60-day period pose a danger to a final deal? Would the passage of this in mid-April itself undermine the prospects for the
anything that suggests that Congress will not allow the
U.S. to live up to its obligations makes it more difficult to get Iran to agree to anything in the first place.
final deal? LEVINE: From the standpoint of U.S. negotiators,
The primary danger is that hard-line decision-makers in Tehran will say, “to heck with this, we can’t trust the Americans to keep to their deal, so at a
minimum we should demand more concessions in the talks, or we should just walk away.” If they are convinced the U.S. will never lift its sanctions,
then what’s it in for them? The Supreme Leader has the final say on whether there will be an agreement. The hard-liners are telling him, “we don’t like
this deal. We don’t trust the other side to make good on sanctions relief. Unless you get all the sanctions lifted right up front, they are going to doublecross you.” PLUM LINE: Supporters of the bill argue that all it does is give Congress more oversight over this process. But whether or not it passes this
bill, couldn’t Congress at any point, or at any moment, vote down any final deal? LEVINE: If they have the votes, yes. If Congress has the votes to
override a veto, it could pass whatever it wants to pass. PLUM LINE: I would like to see more Congressional involvement in foreign policy. But it’s
unclear to me whether this bill is necessary to accomplish that in this case. LEVINE: It is not necessary. Congress doesn’t need this bill to stop the
deal. If an agreement is reached with Iran, anyone in Congress can introduce a bill saying the president is hereby barred from implementing it. PLUM
LINE: Isn’t it actually politically easier for a Democrat to support the Corker bill, in the name of enhancing Congressional oversight, than it would be to
vote against an actual final agreement? LEVINE: Assuming that the agreement is a good one, you’re correct. PLUM LINE: Is there a more constructive
way that Congress could vote to enhance its own oversight without voting for these provisions, which appear likely to scuttle an agreement even before
Congress votes on the agreement itself? LEVINE: Yes. There are several versions of that floating around. You could set up a process that does not
have an initial timeline that forces Congress to consider the agreement before they had full information on it. If you are willing to accept the possibility
that the administration could lift some sanctions now, and then a few months down the road, Congress, having gotten fuller information, could decide to
reimpose some sanctions, then you avoid the need to act precipitously. PLUM LINE: Are there any other ways this bill could kill a final deal? LEVINE:
One big way is by raising the possibility that Congress would reimpose nuclear sanctions even if Iran obeyed a nuclear deal completely. The Corker bill
would also require the president to certify every 90 days that Iran has not directly supported a terrorist act that caused harm to an American or an
American business. There would then be the option to introduce a bill reimposing all the lifted sanctions, and that bill would proceed with expedited
procedures. For Iranian hard-liners, this means that even if the deal is a good one, and even Iran obeys it completely, Congress reserves the right to
not let the U.S. implement sanctions relief. Now, Iran’s support of terrorism is an important issue; we sanction Iran for that, too. But these negotiations
have never had anything to do with terrorism. They have to do with a nuclear agreement, to forestall Iran from developing nuclear weapons. PLUM
LINE: Putting aside the Corker bill, Congress would have to vote at some point on lifting the sanctions, right? How does that all work? LEVINE: We
have a wide range of sanctions laws against Iran. As a rule those laws allow the president to suspend or waive sanctions for some period of time, but
not permanently. If the U.S. wants to permanently end sanctions against Iran on nuclear grounds, then this has to come back to Congress. PLUM
LINE: If Senate
final
Democrats support the Corker bill, is there a real danger that it could kill the possibility of any
deal with Iran? LEVINE: Yes. Absolutely. Not intentionally, perhaps, but the danger is there.
Nuclear war
Philip Stevens 13, associate editor and chief political commentator for the Financial Times, Nov 14 2013, “The four big truths
that are shaping the Iran talks,” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf32-00144feabdc0.html
The who-said-what game about last weekend’s talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The six-power negotiations with
Tehran to curb Iran’s nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and France on the terms
of an acceptable deal should not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The organising facts shaping the negotiations have not
changed. The first of these is that Tehran’s acquisition of a bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle
East and for wider international
security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race that would see
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear club . The nuclear non-proliferation
treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could draw Israel into launching a pre-emptive
nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war disciplines of deterrence. The second
ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject
of debate. Different intelligence agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks actually know and in part
on what their political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead programme is one of the known unknowns
that have often wreaked havoc in this part of the world. Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed,
suggesting Tehran is still two years or so away from a weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has
not taken a definitive decision to step over the line. What Iran has been seeking is what diplomats call a breakout capability – the
capacity to dash to a bomb before the international community could effectively mobilise against it. The third fact – and this one is
hard for many to swallow – is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the air strikes long favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s
prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a watertight insurance policy. It should be possible to construct a deal that acts as a
plausible restraint – and extends the timeframe for any breakout – but no amount of restrictions or intrusive monitoring can offer a
certain guarantee against Tehran’s future intentions. By the same token, bombing Iran’s nuclear sites could certainly
delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr Netanyahu is not proposing
not end it. You cannot bomb knowledge and technical
expertise. To try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe only when,
like North Korea, it has a weapon. So when Barack Obama says the US will never allow Iran to get the bomb he is indulging in,
albeit understandable, wishful thinking. The best the international community can hope for is that, in return
for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran will make a judgment that it is better off sticking with a threshold
capability. To put this another way, if Tehran does step back from the nuclear brink it will be because of
its own calculation of the balance of advantage. The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now has a
leadership that, faced with the severe and growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk. There is
permanent war against Iran, air strikes would
nothing to say that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less hard-headed than previous Iranian leaders, but he does seem ready
to weigh the options.
OFF
Brownfield doctrine is mobilizing support for international reform now
John Collins, Phd Candidate, International History, London School of Economics, “The State Department’s Move to a More
Diplomatic Policy on Drugs Is a Rational Approach to a Difficult Question,” London School of Economics, 12—1—14,
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/12/01/the-u-s-new-more-flexible-diplomatic-doctrine-on-drugs-is-a-rational-approach-to-adifficult-question/, accessed 1-2-15
The US State Department recently restated a major shift in US drug diplomacy. At its core is the idea of
allowing greater variation in international policies and the opportunity to develop new national innovations. Ambassador William
Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, recently summed up
the idea: Things have changed since 1961. We must have enough flexibility to allow us to incorporate those changes into our
policies … to tolerate different national drug policies, to accept the fact that some countries will have very strict drug approaches;
other countries will legalize entire categories of drugs. This new ‘Brownfield Doctrine’ has provoked significant international policy
discussion and debate. What is the Brownfield Doctrine? The Brownfield Doctrine is a framework for thinking
about how to readjust international drug policy in the short term . It’s based on shifting
enforcement priorities and allowing policy innovation via flexible interpretation of certain
antiquated provisions of the international drug conventions. It’s derived from US constitutional principles around ‘purposive’
interpretations of legal texts rather than maintaining strict legalistic or ‘originalist’ interpretations. Ambassador Brownfield described
this, similar to the US constitution, as viewing the treaties as ‘living breathing documents’ which should be interpreted via their
preambulatory principles of protecting the ‘health and welfare of mankind’ instead of pedantic readings of outdated clauses. It is
based on four points: Defend the integrity of the core of the conventions. Allow flexible interpretation of treaties. Allow different
national/regional strategies. Tackle organised crime. The international response The response has been tentative and mixed.
Member states of drug conventions are pushing ahead with it in many respects. For example the
recent O rganization of A merican S tates Special General Assembly on Drugs invoked principles
derived from the doctrine. It has become particularly controversial within some circles because
it’s a unilateral framework put forward by the former chief proselytizer and bully on international drug policy
– the United States. Regardless of who authored it, the four-point approach is on balance a sensible path
forward for the immediate future and allows breathing room for innovation and changes in policy,
which could become stalled in messy discussions around treaty reform. If a Latin American or a European
country had authored the framework it would likely have received a warmer response; it just so happens to be from the US.
Legalization sets a precedent for “selective application” – that spills over to the
entire treaty regime
David R. Bewley-Taylor 12, Professor of International Relations and Public Policy at Swansea University Wales, and
founding Director of the Global Drug Policy Observatory, 2012, International Drug Control, Consensus Fractured, p. 315
Another strategy would be for Parties to simply ignore the treaties ¶ or certain parts of them. In this
way,
they could institute any policies deemed to be necessary at the national level, including for
example the regulation of the cannabis market and the introduction of a licensing system for
domestic producers. Disregarding all or selected components of the treaties, however, raises
serious issues beyond the realm of drug control. The possibility of nations unilaterally ignoring
drug control treaty commitments could threaten the stability of the entire treaty system . As a
consequence states may be wary of simply opting¶ out. Drawing on provisions within the 1969 Vienna Convention on the¶ Law of
Treaties, some international lawyers argue that all treaties can¶ naturally cease to be binding when a fundamental change of circum¶ stances has occurred since the time of signing or when an 'error' of¶ fact or situation at the time of conclusion has later been
identified by¶ a party."" Both are lines of reasoning pursued in 1971 by Leinwand in¶ relation to removing cannabis from the Single
Convention.¶ Bearing in mind the dramatic changes in circumstances in the nature, ¶ extent and understanding of the 'world drug
problem' since the 1960s,¶ the fundamental change of circumstances approach could be applied to¶ the drug conventions or parts
thereof. It has been noted how this doc-¶ trine of rebus sic stantibus has largely fallen into misuse, probably due to¶ the general
availability of the option to denounce. That said, the case¶ for both this and 'error' at time of founding may be useful rationales for¶
reform-minded states to note when pursuing the denunciation option.¶ Once again the selective application of such
principles alone would call¶ into question the validity of many and varied treaties . This remains an
area of concern for many, particularly European, states that in general maintain a high regard for
international law.
Norm-based coop key to great power peace—extinction
Graeme P. Herd, Head, International Security Programme, Geneva Center for Security Policy, “Great Powers: Toward a
‘Cooperative Competitive’ Future World Order Paradigm?” GREAT POWERS AND STRATEGIC STABILITY IN THE 21ST
CENTURY, 2010, ed. G.P. Herd, p. 197-198.
Given the absence of immediate hegemonic challengers to the US (or a global strategic catastrophe that could trigger US
precipitous decline), and the need to cooperate to address pressing strategic threats - the real question is what will be the
nature of relations between these Great Powers? Will global order be characterized as a predictable
interdependent one-world system, in which shared strategic threats create interest-based incentives and functional
benefits which drive cooperation between Great Powers? This pathway would be evidenced by the emergence of a
global security agenda based on nascent similarity across national policy agendas. In addition. Great Powers
would seek to cooperate by strengthening multilateral partnerships in institutions (such as the UN, G20 and
regional variants), regimes (e.g., arms control, climate and trade), and shared global norms, including international
law. Alternatively, Great Powers may rely less on institutions, regimes and shared norms, and more on
geopolitical-bloc formation within their near neighborhoods.
Under such circumstances, a re-division of the world into a competing mercantilist nineteenth-century regional
order emerges 17 World order would be characterized more by hierarchy and balance of power and zero-sum
principles than by interdependence. Relative power shifts that allow a return to multipolarity - with three or more evenly
increasing their order-producing managerial role through
matched powers - occur gradually. The transition from a bipolar in the Cold War to a unipolar moment in the post-Cold War has
been crowned, according to Haass, by an era of non-polarity, where power is diffuse — "a world dominated not by one or two or
even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power"18 Multilateralism is on
the rise, characterized by a combination of stales and international organizations, both influential and talking shops, formal and
informal ("multilateralism light"). A dual system of global governance has evolved. An embryonic division of labor emerges, as
groups with no formal rules or permanent structures coordinate policies and immediate reactions to crises, while formal treaty-based
institutions then legitimize the results.'9 As powerfully advocated by Wolfgang Schauble: Global cooperation is the only
way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these
tasks on its own, nor can the entire international community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work
together to find appropriate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.20 Highlighting the emergence of
what he terms an "interpolar" world - defined as "multipolarity in an age of interdependence" — Grevi suggests that managing
existential interdependence in an unstable multipolar world is the key.21 Such complex interdependence
generates shared interest in cooperative solutions, meanwhile driving convergence, consensus and
accommodation between Great Powers.22 As a result, the multilateral system is being adjusted to reflect the realities
of a global age - the rise of emerging powers and relative decline of the West: "The new priority is to maintain a complex balance
between multiple states."23 The G20 meeting in London in April 2009 suggested that great and rising powers will reform global
financial architecture so that it regulates and supervises global markets in a more participative, transparent and responsive manner:
all countries have contributed to the crisis; all will be involved in the solution.24
OFF
Illicit pot transactions drive global bitcoin now – the aff reverses that by letting
banks in
Krieger 14 (Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg, News Website, “How Bitcoin Could Serve the Marijuana Industry as Banks
Remain Too Scared to Enter”, https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/01/13/how-bitcoin-could-serve-the-marijuana-industry-as-banksremain-too-scared-to-enter/, January 13, 2014)
The reason venture capitalists have become so intrigued with Bitcoin over the past year or so is because it is what the industry
refers to as a “disruptive technology.” Some of the key tenets of a disruptive technology are that it allows people and businesses
within a certain industry (or industries) to do things cheaper, faster, and better than before by a significant, if not revolutionary
margin. Bitcoin easily checks all these boxes. Even more than that, it also frees humanity from the vengeful whims, or simply the
bureaucratic inefficiencies, of the state apparatus. Case in point, when Wikileaks was unable to access the traditional banking
system due to a state sponsored blockade, they were still able to obtain funds through Bitcoin. In fact, that specific example, is the
primary reason that I officially got behind Bitcoin in late summer 2012. I made this point clear in my debut article on the topic titled:
Bitcoin: A Way to Fight Back Against the Financial Terrorists? Which brings me to the topic of today’s post. Medical marijuana
is already legal in 20 states plus the District of Columbia. It is also completely legal for
recreational use in two states; Colorado where I reside, as well as Washington State. Nevertheless, big daddy
government still thinks it knows best and continues to classify the relatively benign substance as
a schedule one drug under federal law. As such, the banking system, (including state banks) is
simply to afraid to get involved. Enter Bitcoin . Well at least that is what I suspect will happen. As of now, it has
been anecdotally reported that one dispensary has made Bitcoin payments an option, but I haven’t seen any clarification as to which
one. I
see this as a fantastic opportunity for both the Bitcoin community as well as the marijuana
industry to come together to solve a major problem. It could be a huge win-win for both. The main
question on my mind at this point is whether or not the main Bitcoin payment processing companies Coinbase and BitPay will agree
to play along… *Note: Since the publication of this post a reader pointed out that since the Bitcoin payment processors do utilize the
banking system, it doesn’t exactly solve the problem. This is a fair point, but leads me along another thought process. It may
indeed end up being a blessing in disguise as it sets up the marijuana industry as the perfect
testing ground for use of BTC as an actual currency . Ie, potentially paying suppliers and employees in Bitcoin,
perhaps only partially at first. This is going to be fascinating to watch. First let’s examine the problem. A recent article from the New
York Times highlighted it. Here are some key excerpts. The New York Times writes: Legal marijuana merchants like Mr. Kunkel —
mainly medical marijuana outlets but also, starting this year, shops that sell recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington —
are grappling with a pressing predicament: Their businesses are conducted almost entirely in cash because it is exceedingly difficult
for them to open and maintain bank accounts, and thus accept credit cards. As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are
reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities
might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and
regulations.
Bitcoin acceptance is modelled by Africa- key to stability- resolving alternative
currency volatility key
Kaye, 2013
(Leon Kaye, Editor of GreenGoPost.com and frequently writes about business sustainability strategy. Leon also contributes to
Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911, “Alternative Currency
Bitcoin Poised to Grow in Africa and Beyond,” July 19, 2013. <http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/07/alternative-currency-bitcoinpoised-grow-africa-beyond/> Accessed: 3/12/15 RJS)
Bitcoin is surging in popularity across the globe Bitcoin, the alternative digital currency, has caught on around
the world, from Argentina to sub-Saharan Africa. Completely free of any privately-held financial
institution or government central bank, users with access to the bitcoin exchange the currency via
an encrypted peer-to-peer software system over the web or by mobile telephony. The system has
its hitches. First, the currency’s exchange rate was volatile for much of the year. Bitcoin’s
instability, therefore, has attracted its fair share of critics; others have slammed the system as a
means to fund illegal drugs and gambling (true of any currency, of course). Nevertheless, more
businesses, merchants and individuals embrace the currency. Some pubs in Britain accept bitcoins; Argentines weary of inflation
and the country’s dodgy banking system are warming up to the currency, too. In Africa, one in three Kenyans and one in nine
Tanzanians have a “bitcoin wallet.” Now Safaricom’s M-Pesa, operators of a mobile phone payment platform in Kenya that has
transformed the country’s financial system, announced it will integrate a bitcoin service within its system. So what does this
mean for the “unbanked” population in Africa, South Asia and around the world? M-Pesa is just
one example of how emerging technology hubs such as Nairobi, Accra and Johannesburg have
helped nudge much of Africa’s economic transformation. Seven of the world’s 10 fastest growing
economies are in Africa, so multinationals and local companies see the continent as ripe for
investment. Nevertheless, many Africans from South Africa to Nigeria still lack access to basic
banking services. But with over 650 million mobile phone subscribers in Africa, various services
across the continent allow deposits, withdrawals and transfers for as little as $US1. But not
everyone trusts his or her country’s local currency , and most mobile banking services either do
not allow cross-border wire transfers or do so at a prohibitive cost. In steps Kipochi, the bitcoin
wallet that in part solves this problem and does so with very low transaction fees. Users can send
remittances more cost effectively, and easily: Kipochi users simply use their mobile phone numbers in lieu of a bank account
number. M-Pesa’s agility in handling very small payments makes it a natural for users of Kipochi, which divides bitcoins into millibits,
one-thousandths of the currency, or about eight cents.
Instability causes global war
Glick 7, Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Condi’s African
holiday,http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2007/12/condis-african-holiday.php?pf=yes
Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place . Small wars, which rage continuously, can
easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the
conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can
potentially give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors
and global powers.
The Horn of
OFF
The United States should
-prohibit marijuana in the United States in accordance with the Single Convention
on Narcotic Drugs pending treaty review
-propose an amendment to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that allows
amendment parties to experiment with conditional marijuana legalization in
accordance with the ultimate aims of the treaty, to be made binding upon the U.S.
in the event of amendment acceptance.
- initiate criminal prosecution against United States government officials
responsible for torture and modify existing US policies to the extent required for
treaty adherence
-T engage in substantial reforestation efforts and fund the planting of trees
abroad.
-The US should institute electricity distribution rate caps and substantialy
subsidize electricity rates
- implement a phased, revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend on all domestic
production and importation of coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
- legalize industrial hemp.
Amendment passes AND reinvigorates I-Law
Wells C. Bennett, fellow, Brookings Institution and John Walsh, Washington Office on Latin America, “Marijuana Legalization
Poses a Dilemma for International Drug Treaties,” interviewed by Jonathan Rauch, FIXGOV, Brookings Institution, 10—16—14,
www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/16-marijuana-enforcement-modernize-international-drug-treaties-rauch, accessed
10-22-14.
You argue that the
U nited S tates, starting now, should proactively rule in drug-treaty changes as a
possibility, instead of ruling them out. What do you mean by that? So far, in public anyway, the United States has described the
drug treaties as living documents that can be updated through interpretation. Now, what’s missing from that is a suggestion that the
drug treaties might be changed structurally through provisions established within the treaties themselves. There are real
advantages that go with, say, a treaty amendment process. Your paper emphasizes that revising the
marijuana treaties could actually strengthen i nternational law. How so? There are two ways to go about
ensuring that i nternational law accommodates domestic policy change. One is to engage in a unilateral
interpretive exercise. The other is, where possible, to use channels that have been set up in i nternational law
itself. There are times when the former route is appropriate, but it carries certain risks, and one of those risks is
undercutting an international legal regime on which the U nited S tates increasingly depends. The
other approach, though it involves costs and challenges of its own, has the benefit of operating within
i nternational law itself. Going that route pays tribute to i nternational law. But why now? Why not wait? Because
you’re always setting a precedent . There are costs to not doing it now . Moreover, the U nited S tates has
been justly described as the biggest advocate for and defender of the drug treaties . In the past, when it
perceived deficiencies in the drug control regimes, it pushed for changes using procedural avenues created by the drug control
system itself. So there’s
a precedent set by the U nited S tates acting within this regime and using the
rules that it sets forth. What kinds of changes should we be starting to think about? Nothing aggressive or radical, certainly.
But ideally you would want to codify at the international level the kind of domestic flexibility that the Justice
Department is claiming. For example, you might consider a treaty amendment making clear that a national government could allow
federal subunits to liberalize their marijuana policies in a rigorous and regulated way, but still allowing or even requiring the national
government to intervene if liberalization at that level goes awry. Flexibility just for marijuana? Not other illegal
drugs? Right. In fact, that’s an advantage to making these changes using mechanisms within the
treaties: when you negotiate for them in that way, you can provide greater clarity about what
you’re allowing and not allowing. The U nited S tates is understandably anxious about setting bad
precedents with respect to much more dangerous substances, things that would cause the whole
drug control framework to unravel. The amendment procedure accounts for that in a better fashion
than does a unilateral approach. Is it realistic to talk about adjusting the treaties? Would our partners consider
it? Would the Senate approve it? Yes, I think it is realistic. Reaching a consensus at the international level
would be difficult. Obtaining Senate approval would also be difficult. But difficult does not mean impossible . As
an issue, marijuana summons unique support from both sides of the aisle domestically. On the
international level, the U nited S tates has successfully changed the treaties when it has pushed to
do so. So the difficulty of the project shouldn’t take it off the table. If we and our partners made treaty reform work for marijuana,
would that ramify beyond drug policy ? At a minimum, success in treaty reform could reaffirm the
U nited S tates’ commitment to acting within international legal structures, and in that regard give us
credibility in all kinds of international forums. Any time you’re trying to persuade parties to a
treaty to go your way, it helps to be able to point to other treaty areas and say you acted as
scrupulously as possible.
Subsidizing electricty prices solves
Prentis 15, Evidence on U.S. Electricity Prices: Regulated Utility vs. Restructured States Eric L. Prentis Department of
Economics, Finance & DIS, University of St. Thomas, Houston, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy Vol. 5, No. 1,
2015, pp.253-262, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy Vol. 5, No. 1, 2015, pp.253-262
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania severely limit their electricity market restructuring during this 1970-2011 study period, and
consequently, are not included in states that have effectively restructured their electricity markets . Illinois sets a lower than
market electricity price cap through 2006. When the Illinois electricity price cap is scheduled to expire in 2007—
residential and commercial rates threaten to increase 50%—forcing the Illinois legislature to subsidize electricity
rates by one billion dollars, through 2011. Ohio, since her electric utility restructuring, has lowered electricity pricing below
market rates and then capped them, which is only being lifted beginning in 2012. Michigan’s electric utilities are not required to sell
their generating power plants, and consequently, rely on wholesale power markets for only a small portion of their customers’ power
needs. Pennsylvania is slowly transitioning into a restructured electricity market while keeping electricity
prices in check, by government dictate. Pennsylvania institutes electricity distribution rate caps,
which incrementally expire by 2011. All but one of Pennsylvania’s utilities retain their electricity generation plants, and generation
rate caps—based on “stranded costs” recovery settlements—remain in effect for the majority of Pennsylvania’s electricity
consumers.
Carbon tax could be implemented immediately – solves warming and restores US
negotiating credibility ensuring international action
Avi-Yonah& Uhlmann ’9 (Reuven S. Avi-Yonah is the Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and the Director of the
International Tax LLM Program at the University of Michigan Law School; David M. Uhlmann is the Jeffrey F. Liss Professor from
Practice and the Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School, “Combating
Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade”, Feb, 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J.
3, lexis, )
A more efficient and effective market-based approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
would be a carbon tax imposed on [*7] all coal, natural gas, and oil produced domestically or
imported into the United States. A carbon tax would enable the market to account for the societal costs of carbon
dioxide emissions and thereby promote emission reductions, just like a cap and trade system. A carbon tax would
be easier to implement and enforce, however, and simpler to adjust if the resulting market-based
changes were either too weak or too strong. A carbon tax also would produce revenue that could be used to fund
research and development of alternative energy and tax credits to offset any regressive effects of the carbon tax. Because a
carbon tax could be implemented and become effective almost immediately, it would be a
much quicker method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than a cap and trade system. In addition,
because a carbon tax could be effective in advance of any international treaty regarding
greenhouse gas emissions, a carbon tax would provide the United States much needed
credibility in the negotiations over international carbon dioxide limits. A carbon tax could then
supplement an international cap and trade system, combine with emission caps in an international hybrid "cap and tax" approach, or
become the focal point for the next international treaty to address global climate change.
CP will be modeled globally – solves warming
Handley ’9 (James Handley, chemical engineer and attorney who previously worked in the private sector and for the
Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, “Imagine: A Harmonized, Global CO2 Tax”, Carbon Tax Center,
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/03/11/imagine-a-harmonized-global-co2-tax/, )
“For more than 20 years, I have supported a CO2 tax, offset by an equal reduction in taxes elsewhere. However, a capand-trade system is also essential and actually offers a better prospect for a global agreement, in part because it is
difficult to imagine a harmonized global CO2 tax. Moreover, I have long recognized that our political system has special
difficulty in considering a CO2 tax even if it is revenue neutral.” — Al Gore, quoted in New York Times, House Bill for a
Carbon Tax to Cut Emissions Faces a Steep Climb, March 7.
Let’s examine Mr. Gore’s points:
Harmonization: Mr. Gore has raised a crucial concern: Any carbon-reduction policies the U.S. enacts
must quickly go global. Acting alone or counter to other nations’ efforts will not suffice.
containership_pbo31_1.jpgIn their seminal report last February, “Policy Options for Reduction of CO2 Emissions,” Peter
Orszag (now Budget Director) and Terry Dinan of the Congressional Budget Office meticulously compared cap-andtrade with carbon tax options. They concluded that a carbon tax would reduce emissions five times more
efficiently, primarily because of price volatility under a fixed cap.
CBO had no difficulty “imagining a harmonized global carbon tax.” Chapter 3 of the Orszag-Dinan
report, “International Consistency Considerations,” describes straightforward ways to harmonize carbon taxes. If nations
choose different carbon tax rates, border tax adjustments permitted under World Trade Organization rules authorize
higher-taxing nations to enact tariffs to equalize tax rates on imported products to the same levels applied to similar
domestically-produced products.
Indeed, Rep. John Larson’s new carbon tax bill employs precisely this strategy. In effect, the U.S. would collect
and retain the revenue generated by equalizing carbon taxes on products imported from
countries that haven’t enacted their own or whose carbon tax rate is lower than ours. That will
provide a powerful incentive for our trading partners to follow our lead.
Warming adv
Co2 good SHORT 1NC (:30
Co2 key to biodiversity and food
Ferrara 14 (Peter, **Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy @
Heartland, senior fellow at the Social Security Institute, White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan,
Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush**, “The Period Of No Global Warming Will
Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming,” 2/24, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-periodof-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/, CMR)
CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet . Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct
photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food
chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased
agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any
warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report
states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’
the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”
In addition,
Co2 solves ice age- extinction
Marsh ‘12 (Gerald E. Marsh, Retired Physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the
Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration, “The Coming of
a New Ice Age,” http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm, 2012)
CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the
real danger facing humanity is not global
warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age . What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a
relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and
that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the
Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know. Even if all the temperature increase over
the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit —
an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. While an enduring temperature rise of the same size
over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt. Entering
a new ice age , however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization . One has only to
look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions
would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as
a whole was much colder. The last “little” Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by
unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements
in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere
foreshadowing of the miseries to come. By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and entire
villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history
would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the
continued flowering of modern civilization. There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth’s climate
entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about
100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial periods, like the one we are now living in
became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earth’s history, it was far warmer than it is today.
Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these
had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth’s long history. Five hundred
million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did
increased carbon
dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we have not reached the
level required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach. So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on
carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than twice what they are today. It is possible that moderately
carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology
community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the
NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be
one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth’s climate. Will
current interglacial period indefinitely.
this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age? We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current
prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-thewisp.
**Adaptation solves but mitigation trades off
Ridley 14 (Matt, BA and DPhil degrees from Oxford University, he worked for the Economist for nine
years as science editor, Washington correspondent and American editor, before becoming a selfemployed writer and businessman, fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of
Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “We
have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone,”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176121/armageddon-averted/)
Nigel Lawson was right after all. Ever since the Centre for Policy Studies lecture in 2006 that launched the former chancellor on his late career as a critic of global warming
Until now, the
official line has been largely to ignore adaptation and focus instead on ‘mitigation’ — the misleading term for
preventing carbon dioxide emissions. That has now changed . The received wisdom on global warming, published by the I ntergovernmental P anel on
C limate C hange, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the
document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate
change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten
times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all. The distinction is crucial. So far, the debate has followed a certain bovine logic: that global warming is
policy, Lord Lawson has been stressing the need to adapt to climate change, rather than throw public money at futile attempts to prevent it.
happening, so we need to slow it down by hugely expensive decarbonisation strategies — green taxes, wind farms. And what good will this do? Is it possible to stop global
just how much can be
achieved by mitigation — is one not often addressed . There is an alternative: accepting that the planet
is warming, and seeing if we can adjust accordingly. Adaptation means investing in flood defences, so that
airports such as Schiphol can continue to operate below existing (and future) sea level, and air conditioning, so that cities such as Houston and Singapore can
continue to grow despite existing (and future) high temperatures. It means plant breeding, so that maize can be grown in a greater range of existing (and future)
climates, better infrastructure, so that Mexico or India can survive existing (and future) cyclones, more world trade, so that Ethiopia can get grain
warming in its tracks? Or would all these green policies be the equivalent of trying to blow away a hurricane? This question —
from Australia during existing (and future) droughts. Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in repeatedly emphasising the need to adapt to climate change
in this way, has been something of a lone voice in the government. But he can now count on the support of the mighty IPCC, a United Nations body that employs hundreds of
scientists to put together the scientific equivalent of a bible on the topic every six years or so. Whereas the last report had two pages on adaptation, this one has four chapters.
Professor Chris Field is the chairman of Working Group 2 of the IPCC, the part devoted to the effects of climate change rather than the cause. ‘The really big breakthrough in
this report,’ he says, ‘is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change.’ His co-chair Vicente Barros adds: ‘Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both
for the present and for the future … adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks’. After so many years, the penny is beginning to drop. In his book An Appeal to
IPCC report in 2007 specifically assumed that
humans would not adapt. ‘Possible impacts,’ the report said, ‘do not take into account any changes or developments in
adaptive capacity.’ That is to say, if the world gets warmer, sea levels rise and rainfall patterns change, farmers, developers and consumers will do absolutely
nothing to change their habits over the course of an entire century. It is a ludicrous assumption . But this assumption was central,
Lawson pointed out, to the estimated future cost of climate change the IPCC reported. A notorious example was the report’s conclusion that, ‘assuming no adaptation’,
Reason, Lawson devoted a chapter to the importance of adaptation, in which he pointed out that the last
crop yields might fall by 70 per cent by the end of the century — a conclusion based, a footnote revealed, on a single study of peanut farming in one part of India. Lawson
adaptation had six obvious benefits as a strategy, which mitigation did not share. It required no
international treaty, but would work if adopted unilaterally; it could be applied locally; it would produce results
quickly; it could capture any benefits of warming while avoiding risks; it addressed existing problems
that were merely exacerbated by warming; and it would bring benefits even if global warming
proves to have been exaggerated. Ask yourself, if you were a resident of the Somerset Levels, whether you would prefer a government policy of adapting to
pointed out that
anything the weather might throw at you, whether it was exacerbated by climate change or not, or spending nearly £50 billion (by 2020) on low-carbon technologies that might in
a few decades’ time, if adopted by the whole world, reduce the exacerbation of floods, but not the floods themselves. It is remarkable how far this latest report moves towards
Lawson’s position. Professor Field, who seems to be an eminently sensible chap, clearly strove to emphasise adaptation, if only because the chance of an international
agreement on emissions looks ever less likely. If you go through the report chapter by chapter (not that many people seem to have bothered), amid the usual warnings of
potential danger, there are many sensible, if jargon-filled, discussions of exactly the points Lawson made. Chapter 17 concedes that ‘adaptation strategies … can yield welfare
in some
cases mitigation may impede adaptation (e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations)’. A crucial point, this: that
preventing the poor from getting access to cheap electricity from coal might make them more vulnerable to climate
change. So green policies may compound the problem they seek to solve.
benefits even in the event of a constant climate, such as more efficient use of water and more robust crop varieties’. Chapter 20 even acknowledges that ‘
Envt: General 1NC (:35
Regulatory regimes spur circumvention
Pundita 14 8/27 (Pundita, “Legal Marijuana Farming's Phantom Profits and Why The Real Profits Are For Crooks” 8/27/2014
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2014/08/legal-marijuana-farmings-phantom.html)
In response to every study and news report revealing more about the environmental damage done by commercial marijuana ("pot")
cultivation, in answer to every report about criminal involvement in the industry, advocates of pot have one reply: Legalize it. By
this they mean legalize the cultivation of pot at the federal level of U.S. government. This on the argument that once the
federal government puts its weight behind regulating commercial pot growing it will result in
better enforcement of regulations and knock criminals out of the pot growing business. That last on
the assumption that under a legal regime the price of pot would decline to the point where legal
growers could match or even beat the price charged by organized crime. Yet the entire argument is
wrong. This is first because it ignores retail business economics 101. The chaos that erupted in California, indicated in
the quote I provided above, could have been predicted by any Walmart executive. Second, the pot legalization argument
can't seem to distinguish between agriculture for human consumption and the manufacture of
chachkas. Pot agriculture intersects with no less than four heavily regulated retail areas in the USA. This
is because pot is used as a medication, added to processed foodstuffs, and cultivated
commercially both indoors and outdoors. Those last two items also fall under every kind of
American environmental regulation one can name . Add to this the fact that while virtually all the regulations also
apply to other types of agriculture for human consumption in the USA, there are features of pot agriculture that place
a unique regulatory burden on it. All this means the regulatory regime covering just the agricultural
aspects of marijuana is only slightly larger than the planet Saturn. The cost of complying with this
regime is in the stratosphere. How, then, have any licensed commercial pot growers been able to make a profit up to this
point? Because the U.S. states that license the growers have never enforced any more than a fraction
of the regulations and even then only in haphazard fashion. And even with the will to enforce
compliance, the cost of doing so is fabulously expensive. This is because commericial pot agriculture has
two unique aspects: 1. The dual nature of commercial pot cultivation -- indoor and outdoor -- places it
under two large and vastly different sets of regulations. 2. Pot's cultivation sites are ubiquitous. If
you want to inspect, say, commercial corn farms in your state, it's pretty hard to miss a corn field. But if you want to inspect
commercial marijuana, first you have to find where it's grown. This can be anywhere -- inside a private
home, a warehouse in a town's commercial district, in a forest or back yard, or interspersed with other crops in a field. Piling those
two factors on top of a regulatory regime larger than Saturn means that enforcement would gobble up
all the revenue pot-licensing states realize from taxing pot sales, and then some. Yet by skimping on
regulation the states have in effect been subsidizing commercial pot agriculture. This has created
the illusion that there are profits in the industry that don't actually exist. It's this illusion that investment
funds, venture capitalists, pot legalization advocates, and economists have been pitching when they laud the big profits in legal
marijuana farming. There are big
profits all, right. The fine print is that the profits can only be made illegally -- by
both the regulators and pot farmers cutting regulatory corners.
Pot emissions small
Emissions from marijuana is drop in the bucket---alt causes are overwhelming
James Gerken 12, Huffington Post Staff, “Cannabis Carbon Footprint: Marijuana Industry's Environmental Impact,” 8-27-12,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cannabis-carbon-footprint-environment_n_1832035.html, DOA: 12-30-14, y2k
According to a 2011 report, indoor
marijuana growing may account for one percent of the entire country's
electricity consumption. The independent report, by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher Evan Mills,
Ph.D., notes that this energy use costs about $6 billion annually. The report also claims that the carbon dioxide pollution
from this electricity use " plus associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars." The full
report details the exact sources of energy consumption during marijuana cultivation. Mills writes: Specific energy uses include highintensity lighting, dehumidification to remove water vapor, space heating during non-illuminated periods and drying, irrigation water
preheating, generation of CO2 by burning fossil fuel, and ventilation and air-conditioning to remove waste heat. Substantial energy
inefficiencies arise from air cleaning, noise and odor suppression, and inefficient electric generators used to avoid conspicuous
Still , the annual energy use from indoor marijuana cultivation pales in comparison to
other industries and activities . Mills' report explains that "the approximately 22 billion k ilo w att- h ours/year
estimated for indoor Cannabis production is about one-third that of US data centers or one-sixth that of
US household refrigerators ."
utility bills.
Energy Efficiency
Growers can’t be energy efficient
Gina S. Warren 14, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law, 9/24/14, “Regulating Pot to Save thee Polar Bear:
Energy and Climate Impacts of the Marijuana Industry,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501126, DOA: 12-3014, y2k
Developing state and local government licensing schemes to require indoor marijuana cultivators to utilize
non- g reen h ouse g as producing energy sources will certainly be met with some obstacles. First, it will
be difficult for most utility companies to supply the required zero carbon electricity . Utilities are
generally under state mandates to supply a certain percentage (usually around 20%) of their electricity from
qualifying renewable energy sources.197 Most , however, do not generate all of their electricity from
renewable sources . This leads to the second obstacle: distributed generation. If utilities cannot supply the
electricity, marijuana growers would need to install on-site distributed generation or connect to a
community project such as is available in Boulder (to connect to the community solar farm). 198 While distributed
generation has many positive attributes, 199 it can be more expensive , leaving open the argument that legitimate
businesses will go elsewhere or will regress back into the shadows .200 Third, mandates that ultimately
require local energy generation could run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause.201 This particular situation, however, would
create a unique and interesting case.
1NC
Sequestion empirically denied by other countries
Warming 1NC (:45
Timeframe is 200 years and adaptation solves
Mendelsohn 9 – Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves
attention, society’s immediate behavior has anextremely low probabilityof leading tocatastrophic
consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the
next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require
a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there
will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small
regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to
unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not
at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range
climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.
No extinction
Carter et al 14 (Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Robert
M. Carter, Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs and Dr. S. Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project, CLIMATE
CHANGE RECONSIDERED II: BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 2014, p. 569.
Real-world observations reveal plants have many ways of adjusting to changes in climate in
addition to their ability to spread from places of rising warmth to cooler habitats, and these
observations suggest the planet’s current assemblage of plants is likely to be around a good deal
longer than many theoretical models have predicted. One of the great horror stories associated
with predictions of CO2-induced global warming is of warming so fast and furious that many
species of plants will not be able to migrate towards cooler regions—poleward in latitude, or
upward in elevation—quickly enough to avoid extinction. Realworld observations of plants show
they have many ways of adjusting to changes in climate in addition to their ability to move from
places of rising warmth to cooler habitats. These observations suggest the planet’s current assemblage
of plants is likely to be around longer than many theoretical models have predicted.
Under-yielding species appear to be buffered from extinction because growth enhancements of
smaller plants tend to diminish the relative biomass advantages of larger plants in crowded
conditions, and when species are rare in a local area, they have a higher survival rate than when
they are common, resulting in the enrichment of rare species and increasing diversity with age
and size class in complex ecosystems. In addition, diversity should increase as a group of
individuals ages, because more common species are selectively removed by pathogens and
predators, especially those commonly associated with them.
Also, individuals of a species compete more intensively with conspecifics than with individuals of other species, and diversity may
increase if an individual benefits nearby non-conspecifics, as such facilitation makes interspecific interactions more positive than
intraspecific interactions and thus provides an advantage to locally rare species. Similarly, common trees growing closer
together are more prone to deadly infections, and they may also face stiffer competition for
certain resources, whereas rarer trees, by depending on slightly different sets of resources, may
not have this problem.
It’s too late
Andreas Souvaliotis 12 (3-20, “Is It Too Late to Change Climate Change?” http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andreassouvaliotis/climate-change_b_1365449.html
The alarm bells were going off 20 years ago at the Rio Summit but few of us were listening. Six years ago, Al Gore raised the
volume much higher with his film and we started paying a lot more attention, but we still didn't do much about it. And now
the evidence is mounting that we might, in fact, be too far gone already. Climate change is
happening much faster than we anticipated; feedback loops are kicking in everywhere , totally
dwarfing any of our own greenhouse gas contributions. Skyrocketing property damage from climate
volatility is obliterating livelihoods, panicking insurance companies, and draining government funds. And the
OECD just released a frightening study this week, suggesting that our constant debate, dithering, and lack of real
response are now setting us up for a severe economic and lifestyle nosedive in the coming decades. Maybe
some of the cynics are right: No matter how much we curb our emissions now, the damage is
already done and the climate will continue to destabilize . Maybe that whole "mitigation" concept was
pure fantasy and we were a few decades too late. But should we just give up, enjoy the irresponsible partying a little bit
longer, and then simply brace ourselves for whatever comes next -- or should we refocus our attention and energy on the
things we can still affect?
UVB--1NC
No impact and not anthro
Ridley 8/17/12 [Matt Ridley, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity
Evolves, “Apocalypse Not: Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Worry About End Times,”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/]
The threat to the ozone layer came next. In
the 1970s scientists discovered a decline in the concentration of
ozone over Antarctica during several springs, and the Armageddon megaphone was dusted off yet again. The
blame was pinned on chlorofluorocarbons, used in refrigerators and aerosol cans, reacting with sunlight. The
disappearance of frogs and an alleged rise of melanoma in people were both attributed to ozone depletion.
So too was a supposed rash of blindness in animals: Al Gore wrote in 1992 about blind salmon and rabbits, while The New York
Times reported “an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts” in Patagonia. But
all these
accounts proved incorrect . The frogs were dying of a fungal disease spread by people; the sheep
had viral pinkeye; the mortality rate from melanoma actually leveled off during the growth of the ozone hole;
and as for the blind salmon and rabbits, they were never heard of again.¶There was aninternational agreement to
cease using CFCs by 1996. But the predicted recovery of the ozone layer never happened : The hole
stopped growing before the ban took effect, then failed to shrink afterward. The ozone hole still grows every Antarctic
spring, to roughly the same extent each year. Nobody quite knows why. Some scientists think it is simply taking
longer than expected for the chemicals to disintegrate; a few believe that the cause of the hole was misdiagnosed
in the first place. Either way, the ozone hole cannot yet be claimed as a looming catastrophe , let alone one
averted by political action.
Elec adv
US Econ Up 1NC
US econ will grow
Lucia Mutikani 4-1 Apr 1 2015 at 6:15 AM
Updated Apr 1 2015 at 6:15 AM “US consumer confidence, house prices offer
hope for economy” http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-consumer-confidence-house-prices-offer-hope-for-economy-201503311mcdgo
U.S. consumer confidence rebounded strongly in March amid optimism over the labour market
while house prices increased in January, hopeful signs that a recent sharp slowdown in economic
activity was probably a blip .¶ A combination of harsh winter weather, a now-settled labour dispute
at the country's busy West Coast ports, softer global demand and a strong dollar dampened
growth early in the first quarter.¶ The moderation in activity is a replay of early 2014, when an unseasonably cold winter
caused a contraction in output, which was followed by a sharp rebound in growth. ¶ "Rising confidence and home prices
adds to the belief that the first-quarter slowdown will be temporary ," said Joel Naroff, chief
economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania.¶ The Conference Board said on Tuesday its
index of consumer attitudes rose to 101.3 this month from 98.8 in February. That was well above economists'
expectations for a reading of 96.¶ While consumers were less optimistic about the short-term outlook, they had greater
confidence in the labour market, with the share of those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead increasing
significantly.¶ The proportion of consumers expecting income growth also rose solidly, which should help to underpin consumer
spending.¶ Consumption, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, has been soft in the last three months,
despite households receiving a massive windfall from lower gasoline prices. Some of the weakness has been blamed on harsh
weather that kept shoppers at home.¶ " Consumers
have emerged from the winter blues . If they spend anywhere as
great as they feel right now, then this economy is going to roar over the next few months ," said Chris Rupkey,
chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York. ¶ The dollar rose against a basket of currencies, while U.S. stocks fell
after a sharp rally on Monday. Prices for U.S. Treasury debt rose.¶ First-quarter growth estimates range between a 0.8 per cent and
1.2 per cent annual pace. The economy expanded at a 2.2 per cent rate in the fourth quarter.¶ Some
economists believe that weak first-quarter growth could cause the Federal Reserve to delay an interest rate increase to later this
year.¶ Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker, however, said on Tuesday that the U.S. central bank would have a "strong" case to
tighten monetary policy in June, adding that transitory factors had weighed on growth in the first quarter. ¶ A second report showed
single-family home prices rose in January from a year earlier, in part boosted by a shortage of properties on the market.¶ The
S&P/Case Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas gained 4.6 per cent in January on a year-over-year basis after rising 4.4
per cent in December.¶ Housing has been sluggish amid a dearth of properties, as insufficient equity keeps potential sellers from
entering the market. The reacceleration in home prices could see more houses put up for sale. ¶ "This report signaled healthy home
price growth - strong enough to make current owners consider listing their homes, but slow enough to keep those homes within
buyers' reach," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. ¶ "This is an important
development ahead of the spring selling season, and should provide upside support for inventory
growth in the first half of the year."
Grid 1NC (:15
Grid is resilient and sustainable
Clark, MA candidate – Intelligence Studies @ American Military University, senior analyst – Chenega Federal Systems,
4/28/’12 (Paul, “The Risk of Disruption or Destruction of Critical U.S. Infrastructure by an Offensive Cyber Attack,” American
Military University)
In 2003, a simple physical breakdown occurred – trees shorted a power line and caused a fault – that had
a cascading effect and caused a power blackout across the Northeast (Lewis 2010). This singular occurrence has
been used as evidence that the electrical grid is fragile and subject to severe disruption through
cyber-attack, a disruption that could cost billions of dollars, brings business to a halt, and could even endanger lives – if
compounded by other catastrophic events (Brennan 2012). A power disruption the size of the
2003 blackout, the worst in
is a worst case scenario and used as an example of the¶ fragility of the
U.S. energy grid. This perceived fragility is not real when viewed in the context¶ of the
robustness of the electrical grid.¶ When asked about cyber-attacks against the electrical grid in April of 2012,
the¶ intelligence chief of U.S. Cyber Command Rear Admiral Samuel Cox stated that an attack was¶
unlikely to succeed because of the “ huge amounts of resiliency built into the [electrical]
system ¶ that makes that kind of catastrophic thing very difficult ” (Capaccio 2012). This optimistic
view¶ is supported by an electrical grid that has proven to be robust in the face of large
natural¶ catastrophes. Complex systems like the electrical grid in the U.S. are prone to failures
and the¶ U.S. grid fails frequently. Despite efforts to reduce the risk out power outages, the risk is always ¶ present.
Power outages that affect more than 50,000 people have occurred steadily over the last¶ 20 years at a
American¶ history at that time (Minkel 2008),
rate of 12% annually and the frequency of large catastrophes remains relatively¶ high and outages the size of the 2003
blackout are predicted to occur every 25 years (Minkel¶ 2008). In a complex system that is always at risk of disruption, the
effect is mitigated by policies¶ and procedures that are meant to restore services as quickly
as possible. The most visible of these policies is the interstate Emergency Management
Assistance Compact, a legally binding¶ agreement allowing combined resources to be quickly deployed
in response to a catastrophic¶ disaster such as power outages following a severe hurricane (Kapucu, Augustin
and Garayev¶ 2009).¶ The electrical grid suffers service interruptions regularly, it is a large and complex
system¶ supporting the largest economy in the world, and yet commerce does not collapse (Lewis 2010).¶ Despite
blizzards, earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes that cause blackouts, the economy is¶ affected but does
not collapse and even after massive damage like that caused by Hurricane¶ Katrina, national security is
not affected because U.S. military capability is not degraded (Lewis¶ 2010).¶ Cyber-security is an everincreasing concern in an increasingly electronic and¶ interconnected world. Cyber-security is a high priority
“economic and national security¶ challenge” (National Security Council n.d.) because cyber-attacks are
expected to become the¶ top national security threat (Robert S. Mueller 2012). In response to the threat Congress
is¶ crafting legislation to enhance cyber-security (Brito and Watkins 2012) and the Department of¶
Homeland Security budget for cyber-security has been significantly increased (U.S. Senate¶ Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 2012).
Econ--1NC
No impact to econ
Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World
Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict
and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis
would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that
the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East,
border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global
The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has
concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in
2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have
military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not
triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with
the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date
generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been
expected."43
public disorder.
Manuf Up 1NC
Manufacturing and econ up – dollar appreciation offset by low energy prices
MAPI Foundation, studies economics of manufacturing, research affiliate of the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and
Innovation. “MAPI U.S. Industrial Outlook: Strong Dollar Offsets Low Energy Prices” Thu, 03/26/2015 - 2:53pm
http://www.inddist.com/news/2015/03/mapi-us-industrial-outlook-strong-dollar-offsets-low-energy-prices
manufacturing outlook for 2015 and 2016 calls for a minor acceleration from the 2014 growth rate, according
to the MAPI Foundation's U.S. Industrial Outlook, a quarterly report that analyzes 27 major industries. The MAPI Foundation is the
research affiliate of the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation. ¶ Manufacturing industrial production increased at a
3.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2014 and posted 3.6 percent growth for the year as whole — over a percentage point
higher than the 2.4 percent gain in the overall economy.¶ The MAPI Foundation forecasts manufacturing
production growth of 3.7 percent in 2015 and 3.6 percent in 2016. The 2015 forecast is an increase from
3.5 percent and the 2016 forecast is a decrease from 3.9 percent in the December 2014 report. Manufacturing will
continue to grow faster than the overall economy, which the MAPI Foundation anticipates will advance by
3.0 percent in 2015 and 2.7 percent in 2016.¶ "The good news is that low energy prices lower manufacturing
costs and allow consumers to buy more non-energy goods and services," wrote MAPI Foundation Chief
Economist Daniel J. Meckstroth, Ph.D. "The offset is that low prices will depress the energy infrastructure
buildup and the strong dollar will raise the trade deficit in manufacturing.¶ "The shifting forces
offset and leave overall manufacturing production growing close to the same pace as last year —
though thankfully, still faster than the pace of growth in the overall economy ," he noted.¶ With an
improving employment outlook — meaning more workers with incomes — Meckstroth predicts solid consumer
spending and purchases of big-ticket items such as motor vehicles, houses, and appliances. Business
investment should ramp up as well; Meckstroth noted that firms have cash and are profitable, utilization rates are high,
and credit is available.¶ The report offers economic forecasts for 23 industries. The MAPI Foundation anticipates
that 21 will show gains in 2015, 1 will remain flat, and only 1—mining and oil and gas field machinery — will decline. The top
industry performer will be housing starts with growth of 16 percent.¶ The outlook remains bright in 2016, with
growth likely in 22 industries, led by housing starts at 14 percent. Mining and oil and gas field machinery is expected to
plummet by 19 percent, as lower oil prices will discourage most shale drilling which will affect oil field investment. ¶ According to the
report, non-high-tech manufacturing production (which accounts for 95 percent of the total) is anticipated to
increase 3.4 percent in 2015 and 3.1 percent in 2016. High-tech industrial production (computers and electronic
products) is projected to expand by 6.1 percent in 2015 and 9.1 percent in 2016.¶ During the report period
(November 2014 through January 2015), 23 of the 27 industries Meckstroth monitors had inflation-adjusted new orders or
production at or above the level of one year prior, while 3 declined and 1 was flat, consistent with the previous report. ¶ Meckstroth
reported that 13 industries are in the accelerating growth (recovery) phase of the business cycle, 10
are in the decelerating growth (expansion) phase, 3 are in the accelerating decline (either early recession or mid-recession) phase,
and 1 (paper production) is in the decelerating decline (late recession or very mild recession) phase.
Manufacturing 1NC
Manufacturing not key to deterrence or econ
Wessel 12 (David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street, “Manufacturing Industry Gained Momentum In 2011,” 119-12, http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145437593/are-more-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-being-created)
WESSEL: Well, that's a good question. So basically, factories
have added more than 300,000 jobs in the past
But it would take two million more
jobs to get manufacturing back to where it was in 2007 before the recession. Factories are
managing to produce more without hiring a lot more workers, because they're getting more productive;
technology, reorganization, making people work harder, making them work smarter . It's all made
two years, and that's pretty good news - certainly better than losing jobs.
for a remarkable surge of productivity. Factories get 40 percent more output out of every out of work today, compared to what
they got 10 years ago. MONTAGNE: Still though, if sales keep growing, would factories not hire more? Maybe not as many
workers as they had before, but more, and couldn't that be one part of the answer, at least, to the jobs problem? WESSEL:
Well, it would definitely be one part, but it's a small part. For
all the romance about manufacturing, we are
no longer a manufacturing economy when it comes to jobs. Only nine percent of the jobs in
America today are in manufacturing. It just isn't big enough to put Americans back to work. Even if factory
employment doubled, which isn't going to happen, that wouldn't be enough new jobs to put
all the 13 million unemployed people back to work. So yes, it's a plus. But no, it's not enough to solve our
unemployment problem.
Deterrence 1NC
Deterrence fails
Kober 10 - a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (Stanley, June 13, “The Deterrence Illusion”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11898) Jacome
The world at the beginning of the 21st century bears an eerie — and disquieting — resemblance to Europe at the beginning of
the last century. That was also an era of globalisation. New technologies for transportation and communication were
transforming the world. Europeans had lived so long in peace that war seemed irrational. And they were right, up to a point.
The first world war was the product of a mode of rational thinking that went badly off course. The peace of Europe was
based on security assurances. Germany was the protector of Austria-Hungary, and Russia was the protector of
Serbia. The prospect of escalation was supposed to prevent war, and it did — until, finally, it
didn't. The Russians, who should have been deterred — they had suffered a terrible defeat at
the hands of Japan just a few years before — decided they had to come to the support of
their fellow Slavs. As countries honoured their commitments, a system that was designed to
prevent war instead widened it. We have also been living in an age of globalisation, especially since the end of the
cold war, but it too is increasingly being challenged. And just like the situation at the beginning of the last century,
deterrence is not working. Mu
ch is made, for example, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) invoking Article V — the famous "three
musketeers" pledge that an attack on one member is to be considered as an attack on all — following the terrorist attacks of
September 11. But the United States is the most powerful member of NATO by far. Indeed, in 2001, it was
widely considered to be a hegemon, a hyperpower. Other countries wanted to be in NATO because they felt an American
guarantee would provide security. And yet it was the US that was attacked. This failure of deterrence has
not received the attention it deserves. It is, after all, not unique. The North Vietnamese were not
deterred by the American guarantee to South Vietnam. Similarly, Hezbollah was not deterred
in Lebanon in the 1980s, and American forces were assaulted in Somalia. What has been
going wrong? The successful deterrence of the superpowers during the cold war led to the belief that if
such powerful countries could be deterred, then lesser powers should fall into line when confronted
with an overwhelmingly powerful adversary. It is plausible, but it may be too rational. For all their ideological
differences, the US and the Soviet Union observed red lines during the cold war. There were crises
— Berlin, Cuba, to name a couple — but these did not touch on emotional issues or vital interests, so that compromise and
retreat were possible. Indeed, what we may have missed in the west is the importance of retreat in
Soviet ideology. "Victory is impossible unless [the revolutionary parties] have learned both
how to attack and how to retreat properly," Lenin wrote in Left-Wing Communism: An
Infantile Disorder. When the Soviets retreated, the US took the credit. Deterrence worked. But
what if retreat was part of the plan all along? What if, in other words, the Soviet Union was the
exception rather than the rule? That question is more urgent because, in the post-cold war world, the US has
expanded its security guarantees, even as its enemies show they are not impressed. The Iraqi insurgents were not
intimidated by President Bush's challenge to "bring 'em on". The Taliban have made an
extraordinary comeback from oblivion and show no respect for American power. North Korea is
demonstrating increasing belligerence. And yet the US keeps emphasising security through
alliances. "We believe that there are certain commitments, as we saw in a bipartisan basis to NATO, that need to be
embedded in the DNA of American foreign policy," secretary of state Hillary Clinton affirmed in introducing the new National
Security Strategy. But that was the reason the US was in Vietnam. It had a bipartisan commitment to South Vietnam under the
Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation, reaffirmed through the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which passed Congress with only two
dissenting votes. It didn't work, and found its commitments were not embedded in its DNA. Americans turned against the war,
Secretary Clinton among them. The great powers could not guarantee peace in Europe a century ago,
and the US could not guarantee it in Asia a half-century ago.
NMD 1NC
Countermeasures block
Philip E. Coyle, World Security Institute, Testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, CQCT, 4—16—08.
Decoys and countermeasures are the Achilles Heel of missile defense, are the Achilles Heel of the missile
defense systems being deployed in Alaska and California, and also of the U.S. missile defense system
proposed for Europe. To use a popular analogy, shooting down an enemy missile going 17,000 mph out in space is
like trying to hit a hole-in-one in golf when the hole is going 17,000 mph. If an enemy uses decoys and countermeasures,
missile defense is shooting a hole-in-one when the hole is going 17,000 mph and the green is covered with black circles the
same size as the hole. The defender doesn't know which target to aim for. In 1999 and in 2000, the U.S.
Intelligence community provided assessments that North Korea or Iran would soon know, if
they didn’t already, how to field decoys and countermeasures . A September 16, 1999 report by Robert
Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, stated: “Penetration Aids and Countermeasures
We assess that countries developing ballistic missiles would also develop various responses to
US theater and national defenses. Russia and China each have developed numerous
countermeasures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technologies. Many countries, such
as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq probably would rely initially on available technology - including
separating RVs, spin-stabilized RVs, RV reorientation, radar absorbing material (RAM),
booster fragmentation, low-power jammers, chaff, and simple (balloon) decoys - to develop
penetration aids and countermeasures. These countries could develop countermeasures
based on these technologies by the time they flight test their missiles.” [5] This assessment is
not surprising since decoy and countermeasure techniques are described in the public
literature and on the internet. As Mr. Walpole noted, decoys can include objects that provide a close representation
of the attacking enemy missile or its warhead encased in a reentry vehicle. For example, a simple balloon in the shape of a
cone – the shape of a re-entry vehicle – would travel out in space as fast as the RV itself and be confusing to the defender. An
enemy missile could carry many of these balloons that are inflated at the time of stage separation and travel along with the reentry vehicle and other objects, such as the “bus” that first housed all these objects, and debris from stage separation. The
debris from stage separation itself could act as a kind of decoy as that debris might reflect, turn, or tumble in a manner
resembling the target reentry vehicle.
2NC
CP
A2 “Perm / Link Turn”
Building international political support for change can only occur gradually, not
abruptly – reaching a common position requires maintaining diplomatic
credibility within the existing treaty regime
Bewley-Taylor, 13 - Department of Political and Cultural Studies, College of Arts and Humanities, Swansea University,
UK (David, “Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions:
Harnessing like-mindedness” International Journal of Drug Policy 24 (2013) 60– 68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.001)
LMGs = Like Minded Groups of nations
Further complexity arises from the issue of sequencing . While, as Young suggests, the generation of like-mindedness
can be a protracted affair across a variety of regimes, the construction of any meaningful LMG with the goal of revising the UN drug
control conventions is likely to be more prolonged and fluid than in other issue areas. T he significant divergence of
views among members of the global drug prohibition regime suggests that any formal change to
the regime will come about in an incremental fashion rather than via a Kuhnian-like paradigm shift. This
has much to do with the somewhat unique nature of drug policy itself. Approaches to domestic drug policy, and hence attitudes
towards the current international control framework, are prone to change. National policies, to use the terminology of MacCoun and
Reuter (2001, p. 308), undergo both relaxations and tightenings.
Moreover, these processes occur at different rates depending upon specific national circumstances. Indeed, while recent years
witnessed a clearly identifiable growth of pragmatic national policies, every soft defecting state has moved to ‘relax’
legislation or practice at its own pace. Both knowledge transfer and example-setting have played a role in influencing
the direction of policy.
Nevertheless, policy shifts have been triggered predominantly by unique national, even local, circumstances. Work on bridging the
gap between research and policy ably demonstrates that change in drug policy is a complex process involving
many variables. Simon Lenton’s adaptation of John Kingdon’s classic multiple streams model shows how only when the
‘Problem’, ‘Policy’, and crucially ‘Politics’ , streams coincide with an infrequent window of
opportunity will the conditions be ripe for a change in policy (Lenton, 2007). As Kingdon and others point out,
policy changes can be regarded as rare punctuations in long periods of equilibrium where little happens (Baumgartner & Jones,
2009; Kingdon, 2003). Within the area of domestic drug policy, ‘The combination of high uncertainty about the outcome of a change,
the partial irreversibility of any bad outcomes, and a pervasive tendency for decision makers to favor the status quo . . . pose steep
barriers’ to change (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001, p. 373). In terms of tightenings, local circumstances also determine the timing of
policy shifts; although these tend to take place with greater speed. For instance, the political utility of being seen as ‘tough on drugs’
has resulted in the rollback of liberal approaches to cannabis possession in a number of states as administrations, or even
individuals within governmental posts with a drug policy remit, have altered. A case in point is the rereclassification of cannabis in
the UK in 2008 (Stevens, 2011, pp. 77–83).
Such a situation has the potential to cause complications in not only the initial creation of a coalition of states working against or
without the cooperation of a hegemonic state like the USA, but also – crucially – its subsequent maintenance during what, bearing in
mind the diverging perspectives on the issue within the international community, would no doubt be a lengthy period of activity. The
creation of any effective LMG is dependent on the willingness of a sufficient number of national
administrations to expend diplomatic energy in the pursuit of the desired outcome within the
international arena. Within the field of UN drug policy reform, achieving a critical mass of nations will be entirely dependent on
the state of national drug policy among potential group members. In other words, the construction of a group of likeminded nations will only take place when an adequate collection of states have all reached a point
where decision makers feel that, conscious of the potential costs of such a move, the only way to better
address the drug issue within their own borders is to alter aspects of the international drug
control treaties. Reaching a necessary commonality of position and hence of interest across a group of
nations is likely to be both prolonged and unpredictable.
The plan requires U.S. withdrawal from the Single Convention---full-scale
legalization precludes the option of proposing reform within the treaty’s structure
John J. Donohue 11, professor of law at Stanford Law School, et al., September 2011, “Rethinking America’s Illegal Drug
Policy,” http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12096.pdf
International Law. Another complication for legalization is international law . While many researchers attempt to
make international comparisons in studying drugs, one area of drug control policy that receives scant attention is the United
Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 which binds all UN member nations to maintain
prohibition of drugs, including cannabis specifically (Levine and Reinarman 2006, 61). While the Single Convention
on Narcotic Drugs requires that countries maintain prohibition of manufacture, sales, and import, it does not require a punitive
regime of the type currently found in the United States. Article 36 of the Single Convention, “Penal Provision,” specifically allows for
treatment programs to either enhance or serve as a substitute for punishment.81 The Economist reports that countries like the
Netherlands are able to allow for some innovation in controlling marijuana use through the convention’s commentary, which states
that its goal is “improvement of the efficacy of national criminal justice systems in the field of drug trafficking” (“A Toker’s Guide”
2009). Thus, reforms working within the framework of the existing treaty are possible, though fullscale legalization would require either a country’s withdrawal from the treaty or revision thereof.
Perhaps partly due to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, even countries with more liberal narcotics policies
than the United States lack full- fledged drug legalization and at most allow for depenalization of
marijuana and/ or widespread needle exchange programs. As discussed above, in the Netherlands, a country long known
for its tolerance of marijuana smoking, the importation and commercial production of cannabis remains
illegal (Levine and Reinarman 2006, 64). When considering its own drug reform, Portugal declined to adopt outright
legalization likely in part because of its treaty obligations under the 1961 Single Convention (Cato Institute 2009).
Solves I-Law 2NC
The CP builds in uniqueness and obviates all their thumpers about Washington,
Colorado, Uruguay, etc---all the pressures on the international drug regime make
the CP’s strategy of reform within the Convention structure absolutely vital to
preserve international law---the plan is the last nail in the coffin
Dave Bewley-Taylor, Professor, International Relation, Swansea University, Tom Blockman and Martin Jelsma, THE RISE
AND DECLINE OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION: THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS IN THE UN DRUG CONTROL SYSTEM AND
OPTIONS FOR REFORM, Transnational Institute, 3—14, p. 70-71.
The political reality of regulated cannabis markets in Uruguay, Washington and Colorado operating
at odds with the conventions makes it unavoidable to discuss options for treaty reform or
approaches that countries may adopt to adjust their relationship with the regime . As explained in detail
in the final chapter in this report, there are no easy options; they all entail procedural complications and political
obstacles. Possible routes to move beyond the existing framework and create more flexibility at the national
level include: the rescheduling of cannabis by means of a WHO review; treaty amendments;
modifications inter se by a group of like-minded countries; and the individual denunciation of the
Single Convention followed by re-accession and a reservation, as recently accomplished by Bolivia
in relation to the coca leaf. The chosen path for reform would be dependent upon a careful
calculation around the nexus of procedure, politics and geopolitics . The current system favours
the status quo with efforts to substantially alter its current form easily blocked by states opposing
change. That group remains sizeable and powerful , even in light of the U.S. federal government’s awkward
position after the Colorado and Washington referenda. A coordinated initiative by a group of like-minded
countries agreeing to assess possible routes and deciding on a road map seems the most likely
scenario for change and the possibility for states to develop legally regulated markets for
cannabis while remaining within the confines of international law. Such an approach might
even lead to the ambitious plan to design a new “single” convention. Such an option would address far more than the cannabis
issue and could help reconcile various inconsistencies within the current regime such as those related to scheduling. It could
improve UN system-wide coherence relative to other UN treaty obligations, including human rights and the rights of indigenous
peoples. A new convention could borrow from other UN treaties and institute much-needed inbuilt review and monitoring
mechanisms. Cannabis might be removed from the drug control apparatus altogether and placed within an instrument modelled on
the WHO Tobacco Convention. Another option would be to encourage the UN General Assembly to use its authority to adopt treaty
amendments, all the more interesting in light of the upcoming UNGASS on drugs in 2016.
CT Solv: Warming 2NC
Best way to reduce emissions – spurs renewable transition and energy efficiency
– other countries will model
Komanoff 12 – economist and directs the New York City-based Carbon Tax Center (Charles, 12/10 “The Time Has Never
Been More Right for a Carbon Tax”, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-carbon-tax-a-good-idea/the-time-has-never-beenmore-right-for-a-carbon-tax, )
Recurring and worsening climate disasters make painfully clear that the world has just a few
decades, if that, toleave carbon-based energy behind. But no modern economy can do that
unless prices of fuels tell the truth abouttheclimate damage they cause. This is best done by
aggressively taxing the carbon content of coal, oil, and natural gas, with the levies placed
"upstream" where the fuels are taken from the ground.¶That's a carbon tax: straightforward,
transparent, no gimmicks, no loopholes. Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax creates no new
markets; rather, it embeds price signals in existing fuel markets that will spur innovation and
reward the rapid uptake of clean energy.
Moreover, making the tax revenue-neutral will prevent it from adding to the size of
government.¶ With the anti-science far right losing traction in Washington, and with the
nation reeling from "extreme weather" events like the 2011-2012 droughts and the recent
Superstorm Sandy, Americans appear ready for climate action. Fortuitously, a carbon tax is
perfectly suited to handle an overlooked but key piece of the "fiscal cliff"—the impending
expiration of the two-year payroll tax "holiday."¶ The Carbon Tax Center estimates that a
carbon tax pegged at just $18 per ton of carbon dioxide would generate $95 billion a year—
enough to pay to extend the payroll tax holiday beyond its December 31 expiration and
thereby help keep the fragile economic recovery from imploding. That tax is relatively small
(equivalent to 17 cents on a gallon of gas and just under a penny per kilowatt-hour of
electricity), so its climate impact would be modest. But the reductions in carbon emissions
will cascade if the tax is ramped up, year by year; indeed, the mere expectation of rising
prices for coal, oil, and gas will go far to drive an across-the-board transition torenewable and
efficient energy.¶ To protect energy-intensive industries, carbon tax legislation should
include "border tax adjustments" on imports, pegged to their untaxed carbon contents. These
tariffs will incentivize our trading partners to impose their own carbon taxes so that the tax
revenues flow to them, not the U.S. Treasury.¶ A carbon tax is so necessary and manageable
that its adoption isn't a matter of "if" but of "when." The time has never been more right. It's
up to Congress and the president to seize it.
A carbon-tax is the only way to reduce emissions – corrects incentives and
creates spill-over effects
Carbon Tax Center ‘12(“Why a Carbon Tax?”, Carbon Tax Center: Pricing Carbon Efficiently and Equitably, updated
June 29 and retrieved on July 27, , http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase, )
The rationale for a carbon tax is simple: the levels of CO2 already in the Earth’s atmosphere and being added daily are
destabilizing established climate patterns and threatening the ecosystems on which we and other living beings depend.
Very large and rapid reductions in the United States’ and other nations’ carbon emissions are essential
to avoid runaway climate change and avert resulting severe weather events, inundation of coastal areas,
spread of diseases, failure of agriculture and water supply, infrastructure destruction, forced migrations, political
upheavals and international conflict. A carbon tax must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon
emissions. Currently, the prices of gasoline, electricity and fuels in general include none of the
costs associated with devastating climate change. This omission suppresses incentives to
develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars
and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), lowcarbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling,
recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to
their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every link in the chain of decision and
action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new
product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and
taxation. A carbon tax won’t stop global climate change by itself — other, synergistic actions are required as well. But
without a carbon tax, even the most aggressive regulatory regime (e.g., high-mileage cars) and
“enlightened” subsidies (e.g., tax credits for efficiency and renewables) will fall woefully short of the
necessary reductions in carbon burning and emissions.
Most effective strategy to solve warming – ensures emissions reductions in all
sectors
Litman ’10 (Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, author of Online TDM Encyclopedia,
chairperson of the TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee, the VTPI, “Tax What You Burn, Not What You Earn”,
June 4, page 4, http://www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf, )
Such taxesare particularly beneficial because they have greater effectiveness and scope than most
other energy conservation and emission reduction strategies, as illustrated in Figure 3. Cap-and-trade
programs generally only reduce large industry emissions. LEED standards only reduce buildings-related emissions.
Incentives to purchase more efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, such as CAFE standards and feebates, reduce
emissions per vehicle-mile but by reducing per-mile vehicle operating costs they tend to increase total vehicle traffic (a
rebound effect) which increases problems such as congestion, facility costs, accidents and sprawl (Litman 2005).
Although improving mobility options, such as nonmotorized travel and public transit, individually provide relatively
modest energy savings, such strategies provide additional benefits such as congestion reductions, facility cost savings
and reduced accidents. Carbon taxes supportalmost all types of emission reductions (excepting
reductions in non-fossil-fuel emissions, such as cement production and landfill methane), and by reducing total
vehicle traffic, provide greater total benefits than most other strategies. Carbon taxes are
efficient and flexible because they support many energy conservation and emission reduction
strategies, allowing households and businesses to choose the combination that works best
for them, including more fuel efficient vehicles, more accessible locations and destinations,
more efficient modes, more resource-efficient goods (such as recycled products), building
weatherization, and shifts to alternative fuels(Toman, Griffin, Lempert 2008). Most households and
businesses can implement some of these strategies, depending on their abilities and preferences. Carbon taxes
help achieve various economic, social and environmental objectives (congestion reductions, facility cost savings,
accident reductions, reduced sprawl, improved mobility for non-drivers, etc.), rather than just energy conservation and
emission reductions, and so help achieve true sustainable development (Litman and Burwell 2006).
BITCOIN
L 2NC
The marijuana industry is shifting to Bitcoin now due to a lack of access to
traditional banking
Fuller 14 (Cameron Fuller, International Business News, “Could Bitcoin Provide Relief For Marijuana Dispensaries Stuck With
Cash?”, http://www.ibtimes.com/could-bitcoin-provide-relief-marijuana-dispensaries-stuck-cash-1542184, January 15, 2014)
Colorado marijuana dispensaries have been facing a problem for the last two weeks. What do they do
with the millions of dollars they are taking in from now legal sales? As of Jan. 1, marijuana became legal to
sell in the Centennial State, and since that date dispensaries have been the financial successes that pot proponents said they would
be. But as the New York Times reported earlier this week, banks have been reluctant to accept the funds from
weed sales, despite their legality, because of federal laws that classify marijuana as a Schedule I drug clashing with
state laws that have made it legal for adults 21 and older. As banks are queasy about getting into the murky
waters of legal drug money, bitcoin may offer a solution to the dispensary’s jam. As in a scene from a big
budget heist movie, dispensary owners are becoming nerve-addled paranoids as they drive with briefcases and sacks full of cash to
pay their taxes. These legitimate businessmen are being forced to fear thieves, carjackers, and petty criminals looking for a huge
payout. But by converting their cash into bitcoin, or accepting the digital currency outright,
dispensaries are given the opportunity to secure their earnings in a way that isn’t currently offered to them. It
at least one dispensary so far is already accepting bitcoins as a form of payment.
Bitcoin has taken off in the last year, and many bitcoin investors are working diligently to move
the cryptocurrency away from its illicit and shadowy past. Last October, the FBI seized and shut
down the Silk Road, a digital black market that used bitcoins as the unofficial currency. This was hailed by
advocates who were trying to legitimize bitcoin as a real currency. With the shutdown in full
effect, bitcoin started to rise in value. Whether that rise is directly linked to the move away from illegal activities or if it is
purely coincidental is all speculation. Whatever the cause, bitcoins skyrocketed and since late December the value has
somewhat stabilized, which offers a great opportunity for any business. However, right now there isn’t a way to transfer
significant amounts of money into bitcoins without a bank account. But new bitcoin ATMs may be able to
provide a solution to that problem. A relatively new development to the bitcoin scene, bitcoin ATMs are finding their way to
has been reported that
the common people. Vancouver, Canada, got the first bitcoin ATM late last year and New York City is set to debut the first one in the
United States. But if Colorado dispensary owners adopted the technology, it could provide them a
level of security they need and now lack.
Incorporation of cryptocurrency in the legal marijuana industry facilitates cultural
acceptance of Bitcoin which overcomes current barriers
Gilbert 11/6 (David Gilbert, International Business Times, “Bitcoin: The Legal Marijuana Industry's Banking Solution”,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-legal-marijuana-industrys-banking-solution-1473518, November 6, 2014)
Gavin Andresen Bitcoin Foundation Marijuana Industry Bitcoin Foundation's Gavin Andresen speaking on stage at the Web Summit
in Dublin about how cryptocurrency
could be the solution to the legal marijuana industry's problems
with banks Bitcoin could be the answer to the problem of marijuana growers in the US not being able to open bank accounts.
Speaking at the Web Summit conference in Dublin, Gavin Andresen from the Bitcoin Foundation said that one of potential
uses for the cryptocurrency would be helping legal marijuana growers store their profits. While
many states in the US have legalised the growing and distribution of marijuana, most banks won't allow
those making money from it to open accounts due to regulatory worries. Credit card companies are equally
reticent to get involved, so rather than storing large stockpiles of cash, bitcoin could provide a perfect
solution. "Legal marijuana industries could possibly be one of the big industries for bitcoin, " Andresen
says. "It gives marijuana growers a way of charging customers that doesn't involve cash ." The Bitcoin
Foundation chief scientist said he was even aware of people who are actively working on this issue. Bitcoin is newfangled stuff
Andresen said that a year ago "regulatory clarity" was the number one issue facing bitcoin businesses, but today that has changed
and "right now I think the most important issue for bitcoin businesses is actually interfacing with the banking systems around the
world." Andersen said banks are slow to embrace "newfangled stuff" such as bitcoin. Asked just how big bitcoin could be, Andresen
said that " no
one really knows how big it will be " adding that the biggest misconception about the
cryptocurrency is that it is some "deep, dark, mysterious thing for illicit markets."
Africa Econ Up 1NC
African growth up
OECD Development Centre – Kigali, 19 May 2014 “African countries need to tap global markets more effectively to strengthen
their economies, says the African Economic Outlook 2014”
http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/fileadmin/uploads/aeo/2014/PDF/AEO_PRESS_RELEASE_ENGL.pdf
Development Programme (UNDP), this year’s report shows that
Africa has weathered internal and external shocks
and is poised to achieve healthy economic growth rates . The continent’s growth is projected to
accelerate to 4.8 percent in 2014 and 5 to 6 percent in 2015, levels which have not been seen since the global
economic crisis of 2009. Africa’s economic growth is more broad-based, argues the report, driven by
domestic demand, infrastructure and increased continental trade in manufactured goods. “In
order to sustain the economic growth and ensure that it creates opportunities for all, African
countries should continue to rebuild shock absorbers and exercise prudent macro management.
Any slackening on macro management will undermine futur
e economic growth,” said Mthuli Ncube, Chief Economist and Vice-President of the African Development Bank. “In the
medium- to long-term, the opportunity for participating in global value chains, should be viewed as part of the strategy for achieving
strong, sustained and inclusive growth,” he added. The report argues that more effective participation in regional and global value
chains - the range of activities in different countries that bring a product from conception to delivery to the consumer – could serve
as a springboard for Africa in economic diversification, domestic resource mobilisation and investments in critical infrastructure. In
order to do so, however, the continent needs to avoid getting stuck in low value-added activities. For instance, Africa’s exports to the
rest of the world grew faster than those of any other region in 2012, but they remain dominated by primary commodities and
accounted for only 3.5 percent of world merchandise exports in 2012. Avoiding that trap involves investing in new and more
productive sectors, building skills, creating jobs and acquiring new technology, knowledge and market information. These
interventions require sound public policies, as well as entrepreneurs that are willing and capable of helping achieve these gains. The
report uses the example of South Africa, which achieved a remarkable turnaround in its automotive industry by removing obstacles
and providing incentives for component producers and assembly lines. It also shows that the development of agribusiness value
chains in countries such as Ghana, Kenya and Ethiopia has contributed to economic growth and job creation. “ African
economies have a great potential to build on their demographic dynamism, rapid urbanisation and
natural-resources assets. The challenge now for many of them is to ensure that greater insertion
into global value chains is achieved and has a positive impact on people’s lives,” said Mario Pezzini,
Director of the OECD Development Centre. “Public policies need to be articulated in a targeted strategy that promotes more
equitable economic and social transformation and an environmentally sound development,” he added.The African Economic
Outlook shows that there has been remarkable progress in human development, with lower poverty levels, rising incomes and
improving rates of school enrollment and health coverage. Further achieving real human development gains
requires empowering people and ensuring environmental sustainability, so that economic growth
can yield benefits for all. In order for value chains to effectively integrate the poor and marginalized,
often including women, targeted public policies and inclusive business models should facilitate access
to productive assets such as land and financing, enhance productivity, and improve the resilience
of small producers.
Growth up
By Marco Pani IMF African Department “Strong Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa, but Pockets of Difficulty” October 20, 10-2014 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/car102014a.htm
Strong growth in the majority of sub-Saharan Africa’s economies should underpin a robust
regional expansion in 2014 and 2015, the IMF said in its regional outlook.
In most countries, growth benefits from a combination of infrastructure investment, expanding
services, and robust agricultural production. Growth momentum remains particularly strong in
Nigeria, the region’s largest economy, and in the region’s low income countries. Recent revisions
of national accounts data, notably in Nigeria, have also revealed that the economies of the region
are more diversified than previously thought, highlighting in particular the large role played by
services .¶ The IMF’s latest Regional Economic Outlook for sub-Saharan Africa projects regional
GDP growth to pick up from about 5 percent in 2013-14 to 5¾ percent in 2015. This overall positive
outlook is however overshadowed by pockets of acute difficulty in a few countries. In Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the Ebola
outbreak is exacting a heavy human and economic toll. In addition, the security situation continues to be difficult in some countries,
including the Central African Republic and South Sudan.
Btc Good: Econ
Bitcoin key to a new economic era- solves impending debt credit collapseindependently solves manufacturing
Hays ’14 (Demelza Hays, Demelza Hays lost her mother when she was 12 years of age and her father had to hold down two
jobs to keep their family together. Such circumstances could easily have sent her life into a downward spiral. Instead, Hays has
soared to the great heights, achieving recognition from the University of South Florida Alumni Association as the summer 2012
graduating class’ Outstanding Graduate, She was involved in the Emerging Leaders Institute, the Stampede of Service, the USF
Case Competition and the the Honors College Research Colloquium. She was one of the three winners of the College of Business
Elevator Competition, was named to the College of Business’ “25 Under 25,” and was honored with the Golden Bull Award that
distinguishes USF's top 20 students. She also served as an intern for Congresswoman Kathy Castor. Hays spent her senior year
conducting research on the correlation between a woman’s status and the health of her children with USF Professor Benedicte
Apouey in the Department of Economics, “Will Bitcoin Save the Rust Belt?”, https://demelza.liberty.me/2014/10/23/will-bitcoin-savethe-rust-belt/, October 23, 2014)
Why are several of the OECD countries deindustrializing? Can Bitcoin bring back manufacturing?
As more individuals adopt Bitcoin, the price of oil will decrease and stabilize. Furthermore,
competition from crypto-currencies will put pressure on central banks to control fiat currency
inflation. Together, these two benefits will revitalize the industrial sector by enabling firms to
profit again from manufacturing. Some economists argue that deindustrialization is a natural phenomenon and that the loss of
manufacturing is a consequence of capitalism (Rowthorn, Wells 1987). In the 1970s, theorists such as Bell (1974), described deindustrialization as the
natural development of a society. Beginning with an economy dependent on agriculture, the gradual transition to an industrial economy allowed for
higher standards of living due to the increasing productivity of manufacturing. The higher per-capita in- comes increased demand for more luxurious
goods, though the spending effect. Domestic demand for manufacturers stimulated further growth in manufacturing, which further increased incomes in
a cyclical trend. However, once each household had a washer-machine, a television, and a car, the demand for manufactured goods plateaus. The
original growth spurt in demand for new machines that made daily tasks simpler was substituted with a more subdued demand for replacements. Once
the household had all of the appliances available, the consumers spending habits changed to reflect an increase in expenditure on services. Paul
Krugman argued that manufacturing centers in the emerging countries may also be increasing due to increasing local demand. The agglomeration of
manufacturing in the US, now known as the “Rust Belt”, developed due to large local economies of scale, low transportation costs, and a large share of
firms not tied to natural resources (Krugman 1991). According to Krugman, as demand weakens in the OECD countries for manufactured goods, and
demand increases in the emerging markets due to increasing average incomes, a shift of production is not surprising. Recently,
transportation costs have increased due to the price of oil, placing additional pressure on firms to
locate closer to their new economies of scale. Manufactured goods are often traded
internationally so the prices are set globally. When energy prices spike, profits from
manufacturing decrease, making investment in services even more attractive in countries that
import a large portion of their energy consumption. Countries that use domestic energy, such as
China, will have lower and more stable factor input prices enabling manufacturers to produce the
same goods for a lower cost than their competition in the North. The current boom in services in
the US has resembled a Dutch- disease with regard to the loss of resources previously devoted to
industry. However, the boom in services is due to the anti-saving and anti-entrepreneurial policies that have proliferated throughout the OECD
countries during the past century. The increased trade with emerging markets has shed a light on the myriad of distortions inflicting markets in the
Although, the manufacturing sector would have naturally collapsed on its own, globalization
is forcing the OECD countries to come to terms with reality in a shorter time span. The countries
in the North could still compete for international manufacturing jobs if profits were not being
expropriated from entrepreneurs through taxation and inflation . In the short run, highly skilled
and highly paid manufacturing workers will disseminate to other trades or leave the workforce as
the jobs run dry. In the long run, these policies will force capital to flee the Western world, which
will severely damage our production capacity . The annual increase in the standard of living our
forefathers enjoyed will stagnate because the service sector and the agricultural sector provide
less opportunity for “learning by doing” and thus do not exhibit comparable efficiency gains. The
neoclassical Solow model of convergence will hold but not because capital abundant countries exhibit increasing diminishing returns. Rather,
crony-capitalism in the developed countries is incentivizing individuals with talent and capital to
migrate to other regions. With the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability, the FED and, more recently, the ECB have
targeted interest rates to supposedly curb inflation or manage unemployment. Unfortunately, many of their distortionary
policies have had unintended consequences. The ideology of many central banks in the OECD
countries is as follows: by lowering interest rates, more firms can borrow loans at a cheaper rate,
so they will. They will use these funds to expand operations leading to greater employment. The newly hired workers will use their earnings to
consume thereby increasing demand, leading to more economic expansion and employment. Unfortunately, this Keynesian theory
North.
is wrong because firms do not borrow more simply because the interest rate is lower. An
artificially low interest rate only changes the structure of production by pulling resources away
from lower stage producer goods in favor or later stage producer goods. Hayekian Triangle
Second, newly hired workers will only consume all of their hard earned wages if they anticipate
hyperinflation. Instead, many workers will save portions of their income, which is critical for
economic growth because entrepreneurs with ideas will not be very successful without capital.
How can Bitcoin help? Adoption of Bitcoin will stabilize and lower the price oil and put pressure
on central banks not to inflate the currency, which will enable firms to profit again from
manufacturing. Countries that produce oil face a trade off between harvesting oil and investing
the proceeds in alternative assets or leaving th
e oil in the ground in expectation of higher future gains (Azam 2014). The oil producing countries
in OPEC, such as Saudi Arabia, face a Dutch disease syndrome in the sense that their economies
lack developed manufacturing and service sectors as all domestic investment in targeted at oil
production. The owners of the oil reserves are interested in psychic profit maximization just like all individuals. Using a simple two-state game
theoretical model combined with the Hotelling model can illustrate how the Southern oil kings make decisions concerning their reserves. The oil owners
have two options: extract oil and invest it in a developed country or leave the reserves in the ground and extract the oil in the future and invest it in the
North. Their decision hinges on the monetary policy of the FED and ECB because they determine the interest rate at which government debt can be
borrowed. If the interest rate is high, the oil kings have incentive to extract oil and invest in the North. If the interest rate is low, the converse holds.
During the high interest days of Volcker, the price of oil was relatively low because oil producers were extracting oil and investing in the North,
therefore increasing the supply. Today’s
zero-interest rate policy has incentivized oil exporters in the South
to keep their reserves in the ground, leading to a reduction in supply, and subsequent increase in
the prices. Unlike gold and housing, oil is a factor input for production. When a factor input
increases in price, then production always falls, especially, when the good is traded globally. The
400% increase in the prices of oil during 2001-2008 has lead to a decrease in total factor
productivity by 12% in the North (Azam 2014). Spot prices for oil on the Bretton and Cushing, Oklahoma indexes during the
period 1986 through 2012. Therefore, the monetary policy of the FED and ECB are a direct cause of the
deindustrialization inflicting the OECD countries. Aside from the increase in oil prices, the zerointerest rate policy of the FED and ECB may cause even more harm to manufacturing. If the Fed
lowers interest rates by buying treasury bonds off the open market, the amount of money in the
economy increases causing inflation. The zero-interest rate policy and expansion of the money
base has caused the safest investment vehicles such as corporate bonds, savings deposits, and
treasury bonds to become risky. Instead, private investors, firms, and governments have moved
to inflation resistant alternatives such as real estate and commodities such as gold and oil (Rickards
2014). The former is very vulnerable to inflation, while the latter has historically retained its purchasing power during times of inflation and crisis. The
traditionally safe havens for savers allow the capital stock in the country to grow. In contrast, hoarding oil and gold does not increase the capital stock
In fact, as more and more money is invested in commodities, the supply
of capital decreases, which raises the lending rate for firms. The money, which is not invested in
commodities, will be spent faster due to the expectation of future devaluation, thus increasing the
society’s net rate of consumption and decreasing the net rate of saving. Panel data on Japan, France, UK, and
available to firms who want to expand.
US during 1981 - 2012. The vertical axis is the number of workers in the manufacturing sector and the vertical axis is the domestic real interest rate
adjusted for inflation using the GDP deflator for each country. Panel data on Japan, France, UK, and US during 1981 – 2012. The vertical axis is the
number of workers in the manufacturing sector and the vertical axis is the domestic real interest rate adjusted for inflation using the GDP deflator for
each country. In addition, the
effects of an inflationary tax on the depreciation allowance for firms’ result in
even less incentive to invest in manufacturing (Buchanan 1977). In 2002, Reisman illustrated
Buchanan’s theory, and argued the double-digit inflation of the 1970s paved the way for the “Rust
Belt” in U.S. manufacturing cities. To summarize his example, under stable prices, an industrialist who invests in a $1 million
machine can deduct an annual depreciation allowance on his taxes of $100,000 for ten years, at which time he will need to buy an additional $1 million
machine. Assume that without inflation, the firm has a take-home profit of $15,000 after expenses, dividend payments, and taxes, which can be
reinvested in the company or elsewhere. In comparison, if the quantity of money increases during the ten years, he effectively has no take home profit
available to be reinvested. This is because when the industrialist needs to purchase a new machine after ten years, the new cost will be inflated and
Effectively, the tax rate on
income increase as the firm is taxed on its profits and the money set-aside for the necessary
increase in replacement costs due to inflation. Overall, manufacturers find increasing difficulty in
expanding or retaining operations as inflation increases. Furthermore, artificially low interest
rates allow the government to go further into debt increasing the likelihood that a crisis of
difference in price will need to be financed by the aggregation of his annual profits over the past ten years.
confidence will ensue, which will have a devastating impact on production. By removing large
amounts of treasury bonds on the market through bond purchases, the FED is effectively
monetizing the debt. The face value on each bond still on the market rises, pushing down the
interest rate and allowing the government to borrow at a lower rate. Subsequently, government
debt is allowed to grow even larger, leading to a greater risk of a crisis of confidence and
financial repression (Reinhart and Rogoff 2009). Bitcoin allows individuals to protect their wealth from
expropriation from the government through taxation and inflation . By removing the government
monopoly on currency, central banks will eventually have to stop manipulating the interest rate
or else the demand for fiat currency will decrease . Once the interest rate is determined by the
market, the oil owners will not be able to profit from leaving their oil in the ground. Ceteris
paribus, the price of oil will decrease subsequently increasing industrial profits. Bureaucrats will
have to choose between limiting their influence on the market or losing their jobs completely.
Bitcoin will force the government to transition into being a firm that competes in the free market
or else it will be forced to completely dissolve. Either way, we all win!
Warming adv
Forests Up
Forests up
Bailey 14
Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of Liberation Biology, Reason Magazine, August 1, 2014,
“Predictions of a Man-Made Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Exaggerated”, http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/01/predictions-of-aman-made-sixth-mass-ext
Since most species live in forests, chiefly tropical forests, we should take a look at global forest cover trends. Happily, the
deforestation rate is slowing . The Food and Agriculture Organization's State of the World's Forests 2012 report notes that
the global rate of deforestation slowed from 0.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2000 to 0.14 percent
between 2005 and 2010. Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 130 million hectares were cut, but 78
million hectares returned to forests. So globally, forests declined on average by 5.2 million hectares per year—at
which rate, the report notes, " It will take 775 years to lose all of the world's forests ." It adds, "This would
seem to provide enough time for actions to slow or stop global deforestation ." And indeed, researchers in 2006
found that more and more countries are passing through a "forest transition" in which their forest
area starts expanding. Roger Sedjo, a forest ecologist at Resources for the Future, predicts that by 2050
most of the world's industrial wood will be grown on forest plantations covering only 5 to 10 percent of
the extent of today's global forests.
Elec prices
--Electricity Prices
Natural gas checks electricity costs
Hanson, CFA and energy strategist for Morningstar, and Simko, CFA and director of energy equity research for
Morningstar, 3-13-15 (Mark and Stephen, “Lower for Longer: A New Normal for U.S. Natural Gas Prices,”
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=688773, accessed 3-14-15, CMM)
In the face of continued growth of low-cost supply, we are reducing our midcycle price estimate
for U.S. natural gas by 25%, to $4 per thousand cubic feet. While demand tailwinds from exports and industrial
consumption will help balance the domestic gas market, ongoing cost pressures from efficiency gains and
excess services capacity--as well as the crowding out of higher-cost production by world-class
resources like the Marcellus Shale and associated volumes from oil-rich areas like the Eagle Ford
and Permian--justify our revised outlook. Even under our lower price deck, however, undervalued, cost-advantaged
investment opportunities remain. Our top picks among natural gas-focused exploration and production firms are Cabot Oil & Gas
(COG), Range Resources (RRC), Antero Resources (AR), and Southwestern Energy (SWN). U.S. Natural Gas Supply Domestic
natural gas production has been on a tear over the past several years--up 25% since 2009 to more
than 70 billion cubic feet per day--thanks to ongoing development of highly productive areas like
the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania as well as associated gas volumes from oil-rich plays like the
Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas. While production growth is likely to slow in the near term as upstream firms hit the
brakes on oil-directed drilling, the wealth of low-cost drilling inventory in areas like the Marcellus and
Utica--aided by an eventual recovery in oil prices and a ramp-up in associated gas production-points to continued growth in volumes through the end of this decade and beyond. Our forecast
calls for a compound annual growth rate of 4% through 2020, with production reaching almost 90
bcf/d. We estimate most of this incremental production--primarily from the Marcellus, Utica, and oil-rich areas like
Texas, Colorado, and North Dakota--can be brought on line at prices lower than $4/mcf. Given its high initial
production rates, relatively shallow declines, and vast areal extent, we expect the Marcellus will be the biggest driver of U.S. natural
gas growth over the next several years, accounting for 14 of the 19 bcf/d in incremental volumes we forecast through 2020. Breakeven levels in the Marcellus--which spans both dry-gas and liquids-rich areas--range from $0 to $4/mcf, with an average of around
$2.50. Accordingly, development is unlikely to slow--at least in the "core" parts of the play controlled by firms like Antero, Cabot, and
Range Resources--even under meaningfully lower natural gas prices (and almost entirely independent of the price of oil). By 2020,
we estimate the Marcellus will account for more than 30% of domestic gas volumes, up from less than 5% in 2010. Incredibly, this
level of growth can probably be achieved with fewer than 100 rigs running across the play over the next several years (again, thanks
to the highly productive nature of these wells). Associated gas from oil-directed activity in four areas--the Permian, Eagle Ford,
Niobrara, and Bakken--represents the second-biggest contributor to U.S. gas growth going forward, adding a combined 6 bcf/d in
incremental volumes through 2020. Despite being essentially zero cost as a byproduct of oil production, associated gas volumes are
likely to decline modestly starting in 2016 before picking back up, given our expectation for a sharp pullback in drilling activity across
these areas in the near term. Other unconventional plays like the Utica Shale (Ohio) and Haynesville Shale (Louisiana) will also be
meaningful contributors to domestic gas volumes over the coming years, although to a lesser extent than the Marcellus or oil-rich
areas like the Eagle Ford. We forecast approximately 2 bcf/d of incremental gas production from each of the Utica and Haynesville
through 2020, thanks to an aggressive development push in the emerging low-cost Utica and ongoing efficiency gains in the
Haynesville that have significantly improved the economics in certain areas of this formerly high-cost play. Offsetting volume growth
in the aforementioned areas will be natural declines in more mature unconventional plays (like the Barnett and Fayetteville) and
legacy conventional areas like Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Although drilling will continue to take place across these geographies-with the more economic areas breaking even at $3-$4/mcf--few producers have indicated a willingness to invest in these regions at
levels required to meaningfully increase volumes, given the wealth of lower-cost gas and oil-rich opportunities available elsewhere in
the United States. Combined, we expect these legacy areas will decline by 5 bcf/d cumulatively through 2020 (an average of 3% per
year), shrinking from 50% of domestic production to just over 30% by the end of the decade. U.S. Natural Gas Demand The
emergence of unconventional gas supplies from areas like the Marcellus Shale has put domestic
consumers of gas in an enviable competitive position, offering several years' worth of low-cost
inputs to power generation, export opportunities, and industrial processes. Having analyzed the key
demand dri
vers, we believe natural gas consumption in the U.S. could grow almost 30%, or more than 20 bcf/d,
through 2020, thanks to coal-to-gas displacement and replacement, LNG exports, pipeline shipments to Mexico, and a resurgence
in the domestic petrochemical complex. Power Generation The deregulated power market in the U.S. has grown significantly since
the late 1990s, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission facilitated the creation of regional transmission organizations with
the goal of having generators compete to provide the lowest-cost wholesale power. RTOs now account for more than 50% of total
U.S. capacity. Generators participating in RTOs are not guaranteed a return on capital like their regulated counterparts and are
therefore very sensitive to power market cycles and prices. This market-based system benefits firms that build or retrofit existing
power plants with lower-cost fuel and/or technology. As
the price of natural gas has fallen and is expected to
stay at historically low levels , firms in market-based RTOs have responded by retiring their
existing coal generators and taking advantage of new combined-cycle technologies that burn
natural gas much more efficiently. We forecast natural gas consumption for power generation by focusing on three key
variables: gas generator capacity additions that replace older coal-fired units, utilization levels of these new generators, and the
impact of wind and solar capacity additions. We see gas demand from electric generation increasing by almost 3 bcf/d from 2014 to
2016 as combined-cycle generators replace retiring coal plants. As natural gas prices increase with consumption, however, gas-tocoal switching will occur more often, leveling off demand through 2020. Also, U.S. wind and solar installations should continue to
increase throughout our forecast period, further capping natural gas demand in the power generation space. Pipeline Exports As
U.S. gas production ramps up, producers continue to explore ways to move their cost-advantaged volumes to undersupplied
markets, including the construction of transnational pipelines to Mexico and Canada. Given planned infrastructure buildout to these
two countries--alongside a reduced need for gas from Canada thanks to increased supply from areas like the Marcellus--we expect
the U.S. to become a net pipeline exporter of natural gas by 2018. Capacity to move gas from the U.S. to Mexico currently sits at 4
bcf/d but should increase to more than 11 bcf/d by 2018. Downstream bottlenecks (that is, the buildout of infrastructure to move gas
within Mexico itself) will limit utilization levels on these cross-border pipelines in the near term, although once cleared, utilization
should become much more a function of Mexican end-market demand. Thanks to a series of energy reforms signed into law in the
summer of 2014--which encourage foreign investment in exploration and development activity and will drive construction of gas
generators to meet rising electricity demand--consumption in Mexico should continue to increase throughout our forecast period.
Limited increases in Mexican gas production as well as decreased dependence on LNG imports over the next several years should
translate into ongoing demand for natural gas sourced from the U.S. Historically, Canada has been comfortably "long" natural gas,
with the majority of excess supply exported to the U.S. With the rise of unconventional gas production in areas like the Marcellus,
however, imports from Canada to the U.S. have steadily decreased in recent years. We expect this trend to continue throughout our
forecast period, although we note that seasonal Canadian gas supplies will still be required to meet high winter demand levels in the
U.S. From 2014 to 2020, we forecast net imports from Canada to decline from around 5 bcf/d to just over 3 bcf/d. Liquefied Natural
Gas Exports More than 25 U.S.-based LNG projects--representing north of 30 bcf/d of capacity--have applied for export approvals
from the Department of Energy and FERC. Even if approvals are granted, however, most of these projects won't be able to strike
economically feasible contracts with buyers, given how saturated the global LNG market is likely to remain over the next several
years. Compounding the oversupply issue is the fact that Japan--the largest buyer of LNG in the world--is set to begin turning on
many of its idled nuclear plants to help jump-start its economy. Accordingly, our forecast for U.S. LNG exports through 2020
includes only those projects that have in place what are known as off-take agreements--which effectively mitigate price risk and
render less relevant the current state of global LNG supply and demand--and for which we are reasonably confident in their ability to
meet construction timelines. The majority of the risk in these projects, then, lies in their execution (in particular the construction of
liquefaction trains and the pipelines upstream of the facility and the dredging of canals for cargo ships). We include four projects in
our domestic LNG forecast--Sabine Pass (first cargoes go out in 2016), Cove Point (2017), Corpus Christi (2018), and Cameron
(2019)--which will shift the U.S. from a net LNG importer as of 2014 to a meaningful net exporter by the end of our forecast period.
Industrial Demand Industrial demand refers to natural gas used for heat, power, or chemical feedstock by manufacturing
establishments or those engaged in mining or other mineral extraction, as well as consumers in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.
Because we believe petrochemical demand is set to drive industrial consumption of natural gas, we use forecast increases in
capacity for ethylene cracking and methanol and ammonia facilities to drive our forecast for industrial gas demand. U.S. steam
crackers utilizing natural gas as a feedstock to produce petrochemicals have a significant advantage in the world market, as
European and Asian competitors primarily use higher-cost oil derivatives to produce these products. Despite the recent collapse in
oil prices, the prospect of several more years--if not decades--of cheap domestic gas has catalyzed the expansion, construction,
relocation, or restart of more than 40 ethylene, methanol, and ammonia facilities. Factoring in this incremental capacity and the
natural gas volumes required to produce these products, we estimate incremental gas demand of 2.7 bcf/d by 2020, which drives
total industrial demand for natural gas higher by 10% over this period, to more than 23 bcf/d. Residential and Commercial Demand
Residential and commercial consumption represents approximately 30% of total gas demand in the U.S., primarily driven by space
heating needs. Accordingly, there are significant seasonal swings in residential and commercial gas demand, which drives seasonal
gas pricing. Growth in this sector has been relatively flat over the past several years, although a number of large cities (including
New York) concerned about emissions have implemented programs to encourage residential and commercial customers to switch
to natural gas as a fuel source, which should lead to modest incremental demand in this sector going forward. U.S. Natural Gas
Price Forecast Despite our expectation for continued growth in U.S. gas demand over the next several
years, there is more than enough low-cost supply from areas like the Marcellus, Utica, and various
oil-rich plays to justify a reduction in our midcycle natural gas price forecast to $4/mcf (Henry Hub)
from $5.40/mcf. Our revised midcycle price is informed on the supply side by a rigorous, regionby-region analysis of underlying well performance, resource potential, and cost trends, and on the
demand side by an in-depth examination of how end users are likely to respond to the abundance
of low-cost gas resources available to them. Our natural gas outlook references a concurrent analysis of the global
oil market, wherein we examine the rise of U.S. unconventional oil and its impact on industrywide activity levels, prices, and costs
(for example, excess capacity in the face of a fall-off in oil-directed activity should lead to a reduction in costs for both oil and gas
producers).
Elec prices
A2 Blackouts: Alt Causes
Multiple alt causes to blackouts – trees, storms, wildfires, terrorism, cyber attacks
– makes their impact inevitable – their author <green highlighting>
Plumer 14 (Brad, Senior Editor @ Vox + reporter focusing on energy and environmental issues @ Wash Post, "It's way too
easy to cause a massive blackout in the US," http://www.vox.com/2014/4/14/5604992/us-power-grid-vulnerability)
If you wanted to knock out America's electric infrastructure and leave everyone in the dark for a
few weeks, it might not be that difficult. A STRIKE ON JUST NINE SUBSTATIONS COULD CAUSE A COAST-TOCOAST BLACKOUT Back in March, the Wall Street Journal reported that a terrorist attack on just nine of the country's 55,000
electric substations could cause a coast-to-coast blackout — especially on a hot summer's day. This followed an eye-catching report
on how a mysterious sniper had damaged a substation in California in 2013 — threatening to black out Silicon Valley. Experts
have been warning about these vulnerabilities in the power grid for years, but the Journal stories seem to
have finally jolted people to attention. Last week, the Senate held a big hearing to figure out just how exposed the nation's power
grid really is. Trouble is, there wasn't a clear answer. Experts, regulators, and industry officials often have different theories on what
makes the grid vulnerable — which makes it hard to agree on a solution. Still, it's an important topic — in the worst case, an
extended blackout could cost many billions of dollars , plus death and destruction. So here's a broad
overview of what the US power grid is and why it's so vulnerable: What's the power grid again? It's the system that brings electricity
to homes, buildings, and factories. That includes all the high-voltage power lines that transport electricity from distant power plants
to populated areas. There are also electrical substations with transformers to "step down" that high-voltage electricity so it can be
carried in the wires you see around the city and used safely in your home. Plus a bunch of monitoring systems. Is the US power grid
prone to blackouts? That's fair to say. Problems with the power grid cost the US economy an estimated $150 billion per year. And
large blackouts seem to be getting more common over time. LARGE BLACKOUTS APPEAR TO BE GETTING MORE FREQUENT
Between 2000 and 2004, there were 149 power outages that affected 50,000 people or more. Between 2005 and 2009, that had
risen to 349, according to Massoud Amin of the University of Minnesota. Outages can happen for lots of reasons — an overheated
Truly massive blackouts, however, are often triggered when a
tree or a storm or a wildfire knocks out power lines and then causes failures to ripple elsewhere.
That's what happened in the 2003 Northeast blackout that left 50 million people without power.
transmission line or problem at the power plant.
Other l
arge blackouts are caused by equipment failures or operator errors — like the big 2011 blackout in southern California. Given all
there's a lot of interest in the question of how easy it would be for, say, a terrorist to cause a
blackout intentionally. Could a person intentionally cause a blackout? Possibly . There are a few
that,
options: Small-scale attacks: Back in April 2013, a sniper opened fire on an electric substation near Silicon Valley, knocking out 17
transformers in a mere 19 minutes. (This incident remained little-known for nearly a year until Foreign Policy reported it.) A major
blackout was only avoided thanks to quick-thinking utility workers, who rerouted power. SOME EXPERTS THINK A FEW MEN
WITH AK-47S COULD DO MORE DAMAGE THAN CYBERATTACKS Attacks like this could do some genuine damage. There are
substations around the country — if they got taken out, it could
potentially lead to widespread failures . The extreme case could be quite bad: in March, the Journal reported that an
dozens of critical (and relatively unprotected)
attack on just nine of the nation's 55,000 electric substations could lead to coast-to-coast blackouts. (The paper didn't specify which
substations.) That was according to a secret analysis from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worst-case
even regional blackouts could cause billions of dollars in damage . Cyberattacks: The
other big fear is that a hacker, say, could disrupt the grid by taking over the computer systems
that monitor and supervise it, known as SCADA systems . So far, there hasn't been a case of a cyberattack
scenario, but
causing a blackout in North America. But utilities already have to fend off thousands of attempted attacks each month (though most
of these are efforts to steal customers' financial information, not cause a blackout). Some grid experts, like former Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission chair Jon Wellinghoff, think cyberattacks are somewhat less of a problem than physical attacks or security
breaches. Many utility officials, meanwhile, think the industry should be spending at least as much money guarding against
cyberattacks as they do against natural disasters. What's the doomsday scenario? Back in 2012, the National Research Council
worried that a well-coordinated attack on the grid "could deny large regions of the country access to bulk system power for weeks or
even months. … If such large extended outages were to occur during times of extreme weather, they could also result in hundreds
or even thousands of deaths due to heat stress or extended exposure to extreme cold." How would that work? It's worth walking
through the mechanics of how a truly massive blackout — like the 2003 Northeast blackout that left 50 million people
without power — can happen. REALLY BIG BLACKOUTS ARE OFTEN CAUSED BY CASCADING FAILURES IN THE GRID
Power grids are, by their nature, extremely complex. It's hard to store electricity for any extended period. That
means that the output from power plants has to be equal to the use of electricity at all times. Otherwise, power lines can get
overloaded or generators underloaded, causing damage to the equipment. Usually, the grid has protective devices that
switch off a piece of equipment if there's a problem. So if, say, a sagging power line hits a tree — causing it to overheat — that line
If they start overheating and
have to switch off, you can get … cascading failures . So power grid operators have to constantly monitor the
will get disconnected. The problem is that all the other lines now have to carry excess current.
system to make sure that power generation and power use are matched up and that a single fault can't cause the entire grid to fail.
They're usually very good at this. But it's a difficult task — and if, the grid is already running at capacity or a major
it can be hard to prevent "cascading failures ." The National Research Council
was worried about an attack causing this sort of cascading effect.
piece of equipment falters,
1NR
Their Card
Global outdoor cultivation of cannabis counteracts increasing levels of UV-B radiation –
impact is extinction
von Hartmann 11 (Paul, Founder of Project Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics, "Cannabis Agriculture vs. “Global
Broiling” : An Inconvenient Solution," http://the-last-marijuana-trial.com/cannabis-agriculture-vs-global-broiling-prioritizing-crisesimplementing-solutions/)
Humankind’s disregard for the ancient operating systems of the Natural Order have imposed fundamental imbalances on Earth’s environment
over a very brief span of evolutionary time. In just half a century, major insults inflicted on our life-sustaining atmosphere
have resulted in increasing levels of ultraviolet-B wavelengths of solar radiation (UV-B) reaching the surface of the planet (a.k.a.
“global broiling”). UV-B intensities and global temperature increase are directly related, with increased UV-B resulting in increased warming.
Temperature increase in-turn results indirectly in increased UV-B. Measurements taken by the National Science Foundation Ultraviolet
Monitoring Network since 1988 show an alarming increase in UV-B levels. Comparing UV-B levels between 1990 and 2010 at sea level in San
Diego, California, for example, there was an 118% increase in the number of days with UV-B readings rated as “Very High” (11 days 10+ in
1990; 24 days in 2010). At the South Pole, readings as high as 65.78 have been recorded (01/05/2001). High elevations are even more exposed.
When the UV index is over 9, UV-B is extremely strong, and you will sunburn in less than 15 minutes. UV-B exposure causes
genetic mutation, impaired immune response and abnormal cell growth in plants and animals. Increasing
incidence of cancers, cataracts, falling agricultural production, declining forest health and catastrophic decline in the
world’s “indicator species” (i.e. krill, bees, bats, birds, coral reefs, amphibians…) indicate profound systemic
imbalance, profoundly attributable to increasing UV-B radiation. The effects of “enhanced” levels of UV-B
on solar-sensitive krill and other creatures in the Antarctic, fundamentally undermines the basis of the entire
food chain of the world’s oceans . Fifty percent of the crops studied produce less food under conditions of elevated solar radiation. In
humans it can take two decades for the effects of a single incident of elevated UV-B exposure to manifest into terminal symptoms. Growing
awareness and understanding of the effects of the role played by the boreal regions makes accelerating loss of the northern forests an immediate,
primary concern. As UV-B levels continue to increase, the vast boreal forests of the world (that previously served to sequester and store
atmospheric carbon) are warming, rapidly turning from “carbon sink” to “carbon source.” The boreal (Taiga) forest is a vast ecosystem encircling
the cold Northern Hemisphere. The forest covers 6.4 million square miles (11 percent of the world’s land surface area) from Siberia to Alaska,
Canada, Northern Europe and Northern Asia. Since 1950 about half of the boreal forests have been lost to logging, oil & gas extraction,
hydroelectricity flooding and insect pest infestation. Increased instability in the Middle East, advanced technology for working in freezing
conditions and the increasingly unaccountable desperation to extract fossil fuels are expanding natural resource exploitation into areas and
methods once considered impossible, too environmentally destructive, or too unprofitable to pillage. Boreal forests consist mainly of pine, spruce
and fir trees. In addition to sequestering and storing atmospheric carbon, the trees exude a fragrant concoction of volatile, aromatherapeutic
compounds known as “aerosols” — including in particular, “monoterpenes.” Monoterpenes rise from the forests into the
stratosphere, where they reflect solar radiation away from the planet and seed formation of bright, persistent
clouds. The clouds produce a dilute monoterpene-enhanced rain.[3] Before they rain from the sky monoterpenes serve as a solar
shield, cooling the planet. With multiple therapeutic properties, monoterpenes may also serve as a water purifying, anti-viral agent
protecting all of the creatures of the Earth in other ways as they circulate through the capillary networks of our aquatic, mycelially integrated
ecosystem. Since the 1950s about half of the world’s boreal forests have died from insect and human predation (logging, primarily to make toilet
paper, newsprint, and magazines). The current rate of logging has been estimated to be five acres per minute, all day, every day. The remaining
forests are being further decimated by unprecedented insect infestations, attributable to continuous breeding cycles made possible by increasing
global temperatures. Additional carbon dioxide and methane will be liberated from warmed soils as accumulated plant matter thaws and
decomposes. This release of greenhouse gasses will exacerbate global warming even further. It seems certain that under present conditions, the
slow-growing coniferous forests will never recover. Increasing UV-B is an ubiquitous, immediate threat to individual
health and the functional integrity of the ecosystem. Due to the deadly nature of elevated UV-B radiation, credible science
appears to indicate that we are faced with imminent global extinction unless all possible remedies are applied in time to
have an effect. Increased levels of UV-B don’t increase monoterpene production. As the temperatures and radiation levels
increase, monoterpene production declines. We truly have nothing to fear but the atmosphere itself. Unless we are
successful in addressing elevated UV-B radiation, it won’t matter much what other problems we do manage
to solve . All possible solutions must be identified and effectively implemented if we are to avoid synergistic collapse of environment,
economics and social structures upon which our lives depend. Expansion of the arable base and global, organic/biodynamic
agricultural production of monoterpenes is a global priority. Among other beneficial characteristics, the Cannabis
plant is exceptional in producing copious quantities of 58 monoterpenes . Cannabis agriculture has the unique
and essential potential of producing more monoterpenes, in less time, in more soil and climate conditions, with
greater ecological and economic benefit than any other agricultural resource on Earth. “Hemp” is also capable of
sequestering nine tons of carbon per acre in a growing season. Cannabis is an ancient, highly adaptable, globally distributed, agronomically
beneficial, pioneer crop that is uniquely “strategic” to regional production of essential energy, food, paper, cloth, resins, therapeutics and building
resources. In addition to being the world’s most useful, nutritious and safely therapeutic “herb bearing seed” Cannabis is potentially the most
rapidly, globally distributed plant on Earth. In just three growing seasons, Cannabis can adapt to virtually every soil and climate
condition on Earth, with the exception of the radical extremes. Cannabis is the only crop whose seed produces three essential fatty acids
(EFAs) in proper proportion for long-term consumption. Hemp is also the only plant that produces a complete source of vegetable nutrition and
sustainable biofuels from the same harvest. This eliminates the perceived trade-off between bioenergy production and food security & nutrition. It
is all too apparent that the integrity of Earth’s environment is quietly unraveling under increasing UV-B radiation.
Accelerating loss of atmospheric monoterpenes is an unpredictable, under-regarded loose cannon on the deck of Spaceship Earth. Expansion of
the arable base, timely production of atmospheric monoterpenes, and the rates of carbon sequestration we are able to achieve, will largely
determine our survival or extinction. An
expansive global campaign of Cannabis agriculture is urgently needed to
compensate for the decline in monoterpenes’ “radiative effect ,” from the death of the boreal forests. In the context of
compounding, accelerating crises we face in the 21st Century, it appears that ‘time’ is the limiting factor in the equation of survival. Organic
Cannabis farming appears to be humankind’s mankind’s surest strategy for simultaneous resolution of climate, food
security and sustainable energy production. If humans plant Cannabis intensively this spring, there may yet be enough time remaining for
agricultural remedies to have an effect. As the forests are cut, dry up, get eaten and die, protection from the Sun, afforded by the homeostatic
concentrations of monoterpenes established over thousands of years, is being lost at an accelerating rate. At the same time carbon, methane,
chlorine, methyl bromide and other atmospheric “weapons of mass destruction” are quietly eroding the ozone layer, the precipitous decline in
monoterpenes is leaving the planet further exposed to unprecedented levels of UV-B. Prioritization of crises and consideration of all solutions, to
identify the most effective sequence of remedial measures, must be implemented immediately to effect timely resolution of interrelated
imbalances. The irrational prohibition of ‘marijuana’ has intransigently obstructed timely, objective consideration of Cannabis agriculture,
manufacture and trade as a proportionate global response for addressing multiple conditions of irreversible imbalance. If humankind doesn’t
overcome institutionalized obstructions to solving the problem of increasing UV-B soon, then it won’t matter much what other problems we do
solve. Regardless of perceived limitations attributed to so-called “political realities”, the unavoidable fact is that what’s needed is
an immediate, massive global planting of Cannabis . Because ‘time’ is the limiting factor in the equation for healing the planet,
the Spring 2011 is the most critical planting season in human history. If humans don’t make the best use of every growing season we may have
left to heal Earth’s atmosphere, then we risk the sudden, synergistic collapse of environment, economics and social structures upon which the
quality of life on this planet depends. Humankind faces a simple choice which must be decided before the Spring planting season of 2011.
Either our species recognizes Cannabis as both unique and essential, and we use Cannabis as a pioneer crop
to expand the arable base, planting hemp everywhere that it can possibly grow; Or the Earth will be “broiled” to eventual
extinction , under elevated, increasing intensities of UV-B radiation. Time is the only thing we can’t make more of. Every
spring that passes is gone forever. Time is the ‘limiting factor’ in the equation of survival. An immediate, polar shift in fundamental values is
called for. Cannabis isn’t “illegal” — it’s essential to our survival. Ending Cannabis prohibition can be achieved most expeditiously by
reclaiming our “god-given” freedom to farm, through the legal supremacy of our Constitutionally protected “religious freedom” in nationwide
public exercise of “essential civilian demand” for a “strategic” “herb bearing seed” “of first necessity,” applying jury nullification of blatantly
unobjective court proceedings. In Hawaii, an opportunity currently exists to end prohibition by applying the truth about Cannabis to free THC
Ministry Reverend Roger Christie. Extrajudicially imprisoned-without-trial and shamelessly, repeatedly denied bail since July 2010, Reverend
Chrisite’s exoneration and his immediate release from prison is an epic opportunity for legally ending Cannabis prohibition by urgent global
necessity. Because of what is at stake, Reverend Christie’s is truly “The Trial for the Century.” Will our species overcome the arrogant inertia of
a corrupted plutarchy controlling courts that are punishing us to mass extinction? Or will people wake up to the truth and wisdom of abandoning a
viciously counter-productive “war on drugs” in time to reintroduce the world’s most “Gaiatherapeutic” agricultural resource? As people continue
to discover that Cannabis agriculture is the most effective remedy to the most fundamental problems we face ,
nothing can stop the eventual implementation of sound, historically and scientifically proven agricultural policy. Recognizing ‘time’ as the
limiting factor in the equation of survival, the real question is “How bad do things have to get, before all solutions are considered?”
OV 2NC
Controls escalation--Strong treaties make great power war impossible
Heath Pickering 14, MA, International Relations, Melbourne School of Government, 2/4/14, “Why Do States Mostly Obey
International Law?,” http://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/04/why-do-states-mostly-obey-international-law/
All states in the contemporary world, including great powers , are compelled to justify their
behaviour according to legal rules and accepted norms. This essay will analyse the extent to which states
comply and the reasons for their compliance. Essentially, the extent to which states follow their international obligations has
developed over the past 400 years. From a historical perspective, international obligations and accepted norms were founded
following two key developments in European history. In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War by
acknowledging the sovereign authority of various European princes.[1] This event marked the advent of traditional international law,
based on principles of territoriality and state autonomy. Then in 1945, again following major wars initiated in Europe, states began to
integrate on a global scale.[2] The UN Charter became the international framework for which norms of sovereignty and nonintervention were enshrined. Now, as a result of modern technology, communication, transport, and more, the evolving process of
Globalisation, “The internationalization of the world”,[3] has provided an opportunity for international law and
accepted norms to reach every corner of the globe.¶ However, the development of international law and accepted
norms has not compelled states to comply all the time. Instead, the trend over the past 400 years has shown that states have
been mostly compelled to justify their behavior according to legal rules and accepted norms . The
emphasis on mostly should be stressed. Even though the UN Charter does not permit violating sovereignty through the use of
aggression, the extent to which states follow their international obligations varies. Louis Henkin’s book, How Nations Behave,
articulates the extent of compliance.[4] He said, “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of
international law and almost all of their obligations almost all the time”.[5] As such, the trend in
is that war remains possible , but it is much less acceptable now than it
was a century or even half a century ago.[6] The benefit of the trend is that almost full compliance is said to lead
states into a pattern of obedience and predictable behaviour.[7] Therefore, conflict only arises
when countries fail to comply .¶ States attempt to manage the friction with ongoing compliance
through the principle of pacta sunt servanda – the adherence to agreements.[8] Over time, such agreements to norms
contemporary international relations
and treaties have diminished sovereignty, increased international institutions, given rise to non-state actors, and rapidly developed
the contemporary customary and treaty based rules system.[9] The evolution of the dispute-settlement procedures of the World
Trade Organisation (WTO), the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the establishment of numerous global
treaties illustrate states agreeing voluntarily to give up a portion of their sovereignty.
Highly probable and brink is now-- Global great power relations are fragile-cooperation’s key to avoid global wars that cause extinction
Chas W. Freeman 14, served in the United States Foreign Service, the State and Defense Departments in many different
capacities over the course of thirty years, past president of the Middle East Policy Council, co-chair of the U.S. China Policy
Foundation and a Lifetime Director of the Atlantic Council, 9/13/14, “A New Set of Great Power Relationships,”
http://chasfreeman.net/a-new-set-of-great-power-relationships/
We live in a time of great strategic fluidity . Borders are shifting. Lines of control are blurring. Long-established
spheres of influence are fading away. Some states are decaying and dissolving as others germinate and take root. The
global economic order is precarious. New economic and geopolitical fault lines are emerging .
The great powers of North and South America are barely on speaking terms. Europe is again riven by geopolitical
antagonisms. Ukraine should be a prosperous, independent borderland between the European Union and Russia. It has
instead become a cockpit of strategic contention. The United States and Russia have relapsed into
hostility. The post-Ottoman borders of West Asia and North Africa are being erased. Neither Europeans, nor Russians, nor
Americans can now protect or direct their longstanding clients in the Middle East. Brazil, China, and India are peacefully competing
for the favor of Africa. But, in the Indo-Pacific, China and Japan are at daggers drawn and striving to ostracize
each other. Sino-American relations seem to be following US-Russian relations into mutual
exasperation and intransigence.
No one surveying this scene could disagree that the world would benefit from recrafting the relationships
between its great powers. As President Xi Jinping has proposed, new types of relations might enable the
great powers to manage their interactions to the common advantage while lowering the risk of
armed conflict . This is, after all, the nuclear age . A war could end in the annihilation of all who take
part in it . Short of that, unbridled animosity and contention between great powers and their allies and friends have high
opportunity costs and foster the tensions inherent in military posturing, arms races, instability, and impoverishment.
U.S. treaty adherence turns and contains every impact-- terror, prolif, disease,
environment, warming, and others
Lawrence C. Moss, J.D. and member, UNA-USA’s Task Force on Human Rights, RENEWING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2010, http://www.academia.edu/2593461/Renewing_America_s_Commitment_to_International_Law,
accessed 11-3-14.
US adherence to the international treaty regime is essential to America’s ability to induce other
nations to join in the cooperative action necessary to address the great many global problems
that are far beyond our ability to solve alone. Crime, terrorism , weapons proliferation, epidemic
disease, human trafficking, economic dislocations, climate change and other environmental
degradation require strong norms of adherence to agreed rules for controlling them. The US cannot
choose to reject so many widely accepted rules without weakening the entire international legal structure on which our security
depends. The international legal order is not merely a soft‐power alternative to harder unilateral
means, but in many areas it is the only real power we have to address the many transnational
problems we face in this century. A comprehensive effort to ratify outstanding treaties and demonstrate America’s renewed
commitment to a rules‐based international order is not an exercise to win the approval of international lawyers, but it is a vital part of
securing American interests.
A2 “States Viol”
State-level legalization doesn’t violate the treaty
Keith Humphreys 13, Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Mental Health Policy, Stanford University, 11/25/13, “Can the
United Nations Block U.S. Marijuana Legalization?,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-humphreys/can-the-united-nationsbl_b_3977683.html
1. Is the U.S. currently in violation of the UN treaties it signed agreeing to make marijuana illegal? No .
The U.S. federal government is a signatory to the treaty, but the States of Washington and Colorado are
not. Countries with federated systems of government like the U.S. and Germany can only make
international commitments regarding their national-level policies . Constitutionally, U.S. states are
simply not required to make marijuana illegal as it is in federal law. Hence, the U.S. made no such
commitment on behalf of the 50 states in signing the UN drug control treaties.
Some UN officials believe that the spirit of the international treaties requires the U.S. federal
government to attempt to override state-level marijuana legalization. But in terms of the letter of
the treaties , Attorney General Holder's refusal to challenge Washington and Colorado's marijuana
policies is within bounds .
A2 “Uruguay”
No impact to Uruguay or state legalization---the U.S. will maintain its traditional
stance as long as marijuana’s federally illegal
Ted Hesson 14, immigration editor at Fusion, where he covers immigration and drug policy from Washington, D.C., 3/5/14,
“Will Uruguay Trigger a Global Marijuana Revolution?,” http://fusion.net/justice/story/legalizing-marijuana-uruguay-trigger-globalrevolution-295940
Walsh says that he doesn’t expect U.S. officials to scream and shout when Uruguay legalizes pot,
mainly because any condemnation would be hypocritical. Indeed, a statement from the U.S. Department of State
reflected a middle-of-the-road approach . “The United States is committed to upholding its obligations
under U.N. drug control conventions ,” said spokesperson Pooja Jhunjhunwala. Jhunjhunwala added that the
treaties “allow a measure of flexibility” and have “shown the capacity to permit variations in
national law and policy.” None of this amounts to a go-ahead for Uruguay’s legalization law. But it’s
much more tempered than the response from the United Nations. The U.N. International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) said that it
was “very concerned” with the idea that Uruguay could legalize marijuana. And the board hasn’t let the U.S. off the hook, either.
INCB President Raymond Yans condemned Colorado and Washington in November, and said that it’s “fully necessary” for the
board to engage in diplomatic relations with the American government “so that they take measures to stop this nonsense.” That’s a
bit of a hollow threat, however. The U.S. provides an estimated 22 percent of the total United Nations budget -- the largest of any
single nation -- and has traditionally wielded a heavy hand in global drug policy. The takeaway: Since the federal
government is allowing states to move forward with marijuana legalization, they don’t have much
choice but to allow countries to do the same. But don’t expect the U.S. to attempt to rewrite global
drug treaties until there’s a change in federal law .
Uruguay’s legalization is going to be rolled back
Ed Krayewski, associate editor, “Uruguay Marijuana Legalization May Not Last Past Next Year ,
Regulations Unsurprisingly Failing,” REASON, 10—17—14, http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/17/uruguay-marijuana-legalizationmay-not-l, accessed 10-21-14.
Earlier this year Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize marijuana, setting up regulations largely far stricter than
those in Colorado and Washington, where marijuana was also legalized. Uruguay’s regulations placed limits on how much
marijuana could be bought and where and required registration for marijuana users. Just 378 people registered as of last
month, and why would there be more? Uruguay’s president, Jose Mujica, who supported legalization even while
warning of the illness marijuana use can lead to, is nevertheless term-limited. The front runner to succeed him, cancer doctor
Tabare Vazquez, also his predecessor, is excited about using the registry to “better know who uses drugs
and be able to intervene earlier to rehabilitate that person ." Meanwhile, the other candidate, centerright Luis Lacalle Pou, is
opposed to legalization. Uruguay’s marijuana legalization experiment may not last
much longer than Mujica’s term.
L 2NC (1:00
Plan signals an a la carte approach to treaty compliance – spills over to the entire
system
German Lopez 14 10-2, Writing Fellow, Vox, 10/2/14, “How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?,”
http://www.vox.com/cards/war-on-drugs-marijuana-cocaine-heroin-meth/war-on-drugs-international-treaties
Still, Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued
that ignoring or
pulling out of the international drug conventions could seriously damage America's standing
around the world . "Pacta sunt servanda ('agreements must be kept') is the most fundamental principle
of international law and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an 'a-la-carte'
approach to treaties they have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore
others without losing the moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties ," Jelsma
wrote in an email. "So our preference is to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to
resolve them."
To resolve such issues, many critics of the war on drugs hope to reform international drug laws in
2016 during the next General Assembly Special Session on drugs.
"There is tension with the tax-and-regulate approach to marijuana in some jurisdictions," Malinowska-Sempruch said. "But it's all
part of a process and that's why we hope the UN debate in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we
can settle some of these questions and, if necessary, modernize the system ."
**Technical compliance is key to the entire UN
Heather Hasse, International Drug Policy Consortium and the Harm Reduction Coalition, “The 2016 Drugs UNGASS: What Does
It Mean for Drug Reform?” 10—14—14, http://drogasenmovimiento.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/13-10-14-the-2016-drugs-ungasse28093what-does-it-mean-for-drug-reform_.pdf.
But why? With all of the progress made in reform around the world lately, many - especially in the US - are asking if the UN
is even relevant to domestic drug reform at this point. With the recent marijuana laws passed in Colorado and
Washington and the proposed legislation in Uruguay - not to mention decriminalization measures enacted in Portugal and a growing
number of other countries - reform seems inevitable. At some point, the argument goes, the UN system will simply
be overtaken by "real world" reform on the ground. Why even bother with advocacy at the UN? This is not an
easy question to answer; however, 1 truly believe that to be effective, reform efforts must be made at every level - locally, nationally,
and globally. It may be true that reform efforts in the US and around the world have made significant progress in the last 10 years.
But there is still a long way to go - marijuana is still not completely legal anywhere in the world (despite state laws to the contrary,
marijuana still remains illegal under federal law throughout the US), and many human rights abuses continue to be carried out
against drug users throughout the world in the name of drug control. Meanwhile, the international drug control treaties
- the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and its progeny - remain
in place and, in fact, enjoy nearly universal
adherence by 184 member states. That so many countries comply – at least technically , if not in “spirit” –
with the international drug treaty system, shows just how highly the international community
regards the system. As well it should – the UN system is invaluable and even vital in many areas,
including climate change, HIV/AIDS reduction, and, most recently, the Syrian chemical weapons crisis
(and don’t forget that the international drug treaty system also governs the flow of licit medication). While it is not unheard of for a
country to disregard a treaty, a system in which countries pick and choose which treaty provisions suit
them and ignore the rest is, shall we say, less than ideal. But beyond the idea of simple respect for
international law, there are practical aspects of reform to consider. The drug problem is a global
one , involving not only consuming countries but producing and transit countries as well. Without global cooperation,
any changes will at best be limited (marijuana reform in Washington and Colorado hardly affects
the issue of human rights abuses in Singapore or the limitations on harm reduction measures in Russia). At
worst, reform efforts enacted ad hoc around the world could be contradictory and incompatible --‐ as
might be the result if, for example, Colombia and the US opted for a regulated market without the cooperation of Costa Rica or
Honduras, both transit countries.
A2 “Torture/Prisons”
Torture and prisons don’t thump BY LAUREN WALKER, reporter, national security and foreign affairs, studied international relations at The George Washington
University and the London School of Economics. 11/13/14 AT 5:30 PM U.S. Defends Alleged Abuses of Torture Treaty to U.N.
Body
http://www.newsweek.com/us-defends-alleged-abuses-torture-treaty-un-body-284355
the U.S. government defended its
compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in front of the United Nations Committee against
Torture.¶ The violations in question range from allegations of CIA rendition (sending prisoners to
secret facilities) and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay prison to practices at domestic prisons
and police brutality, as highlighted by events in Ferguson this summer, which were criticized by groups
The international community watched closely this week as representatives from
such as Amnesty International.¶ CAT signatories are required to submit reports on their adherence to the international treaty every
four years. After reviewing these reports, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, a body of 10 independent
experts, invites government officials from a country to expand on its report. On the first day of the review,
the experts ask questions; on the second, the state’s representatives are able to respond. ¶ The in-person review of U.S. practices,
which took place on Wednesday and Thursday, marked the first since President Obama took office in 2009. ¶ Obama issued an
executive order banning the use of torture in 2009 shortly after taking office. The U.N. review investigated whether
the Obama administration stuck to its promise to end the controversial Bush-era enhanced interrogation techniques and how well
the administration has upheld the CAT’s terms since.¶ A day before the review began, the committee took testimony ranging from
experts on the death penalty and activists against torture to a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and the parents of Michael Brown. ¶
Representatives for the U.S. included U.S. Brigadier General Richard Gross, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser at the State
Department Mary McLeod, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Bitkower, to name a few. ¶ Here are some notable
moments from the two days of review:¶ Where does the U.S. think it is restricted by its CAT obligations?¶ Alessio Bruni, one of the
committee’s experts, asked the U.S. representatives to elaborate on whether the government believes the prohibition on torture
applies to its officials “abroad without geographic limitation.” But in answering the question, the U.S. reiterated its vague
position.¶ Representatives responded that the CIA no longer operates secret detention facilities and
clarified that the U.S. understands the CAT obligations to only apply “where the U.S. acts as a
governmental authority,” by which they meant on U.S. soil, in Cuba, and on ships and aircraft.¶ This answer, however,
leaves a key concern of the panel unresolved: whether the Obama administration has fully abandoned the previous one’s
interpretation of CAT to exclude U.S. officials’ actions abroad. ¶ What parts of CAT does the U.S. adhere to abroad?¶ The experts
cited instances in which the U.S. violated CAT abroad, and asked for clarification “as to whether the U.S. considers all aspects of
the convention to be applicable.Ӧ Bruni wondered how the U.S. was able to reconcile the force-feeding of Guantanamo prisoners
with the terms of the treaty, and how it could claim it was not operating secret facilities when it fails to register detainees, calling
registration “a first step to prevent torture since his or her identity and location are a sort of deterrent against any form of ill
treatment, which needs secrecy to be carried out with total impunity.Ӧ Representative for the U.S., Brigadier General
Richard Gross, said that force-feeding, which U.S. officials exclusively referred to as “enteral feeding,” was only used
as a last resort to address medical issues such as malnutrition and was evidence of the U.S.
holding to its value of preserving life in a humane manner. He added that indefinite detention of prisoners at
Guantanamo is justified according to the l aws o f a rmed c onflict. He said that since the U.S. is in conflict
with armed groups like Al-Qaeda, the U.S. can legally hold detainees (without charge) until the end
of hostilities.¶ Another U.S. representative told the committee that the U.S. does not have a unified policy
regarding the registration of detainees, but “appropriate records” are kept and “ comprehensive
safeguards ” are in place. The delegation made no mention of detainees of national security or intelligence agencies—the
committee’s prime concern.¶ Has anyone been prosecuted for torture?¶ Since the U.S. last reported to the committee in 2006, more
evidence of violations have been reported by the media or alleged by human rights groups. But the U.S. has done little to
demonstrate that it is holding the top officials who gave the orders to torture accountable. Groups like the Advocates for U.S. Torture
Prosecutions say that the United States is shielding those responsible, which is in direct violation of its CAT obligations. ¶ “It’s is at
the heart of everything,” Deborah Popowski, a clinical instructor at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and
a member of Advocates for U.S. Torture Prosecutions said in an interview with Newsweek. ¶ Referring to what she called the “legal
framework the U.S. government built to shield itself from liability” (a mixture of legal opinions that distort laws governing torture and
the use of the Military Commissions Act to retroactively redefine war crimes to impede prosecution), she added that by “choosing to
immunize those responsible, [the U.S. government] legitimizes their actions and the legacy lives on, the precedent is set.” ¶ Former
Guantanamo detainee Murat Kurnaz added in an article for The Nation that failure to prosecute “has set a worldwide standard of
condoning torture.Ӧ Experts asked for evidence that the U.S. is investigating and prosecuting senior officials. Gross stated
that the military is always required to investigate allegations of violations of the law and that
there have been thousands of investigations into the mistreatment of detainees since 2001. He
claimed that hundreds have been prosecuted for their misconduct —a number often repeated but never fully
substantiated. Representative for the U.S. and Principal Deputy Legal Adviser at the State Department Mary McLeod said the U.S.
“will prosecute where appropriate.”¶ Will any proof of torture be released?¶ “Is the government going to disclose [the force-feeding]
videotapes or is the government’s view that security consideration to extinguish the right to complain about torture and ill treatment
and to obtain redress?” Bruni asked.¶ One representative said that the U.S. was ordered on October 3 to publicly disclose the videos
and has until December 2 to appeal the ruling. She asserted that U.S.’s reluctance to release the force-feeding video tapes is not an
attempt to hide evidence confirming the allegation that the practice is akin to torture. Rather, she claimed, releasing the videos
would reveal building design and procedures for detainee movement which should remain classified for purposes of national
security.¶ Do U.S. domestic prison conditions align with CAT?¶ The review also delved into domestic issues.¶ The committee
brought up the U.S. prison system and inquired as to how current practices can be justified in light of the country’s CAT
obligations. Among the concerns were the use of solitary confinement, the treatment of minors and those with mental health
disorders in particular, the lack of accountability for prison officials who have been accused of sexual abuse, and the sentencing of
those who have committed nonviolent offenses to life without parole.¶ U.S. representative Deputy Assistant Attorney General David
Bitkower said that solitary confinement is not imposed with the intention of inflicting psychological
harm on inmates. The U.S. could not provide a number of inmates in solitary confinement.
A2 “Failure to Ratify X”
It’s far worse to violate a treaty we’ve already agreed to than it is to not ratify in
the first place---means the link vastly outweighs their uniqueness args
David A. Koplow, Professor, Law, Georgetown University, “Indisputable Violations: What Happens When the United States
Unambiguously Breaches a Treaty?” THE FLETCHER FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS, v. 37 n.1, Winter 2013, p. 70-71.
International law affords a state multiple options when confronting a proposed treaty that it
largely agrees with, but for which it doubts its ability to fully comply. The state may propose key
alterations during the treaty negotiations or, if the document has already been concluded, it may propound
amendments. Often, it can join the treaty with “reservations,” which create certain legally allowable unilateral exemptions.
Sometimes, the wise course is to delay joining the treaty until the state can be certain of its ability
to comply. If it has already joined, it might take advantage of a “withdrawal” clause to exit the accord. But in the interest of
international credibility of the state and the international mandate, what it should not do is to join
the treaty unconditionally, accept the full array of legal obligations, demand that other countries
extend to it the promised benefits , and then undeniably flout its responsibilities .
U: Multilat/Cred 2NC
U.S. foreign policy is effectively implementing multilateral cooperation and
upholding global rules now
Michael A. Cohen, fellow, Century Foundation, “Obama’s Understated Foreign Policy Gains,” NEW YORK TIMES, 7—9—14,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/obamas-understated-foreign-policy-gains.html?_r=0, accessed 11-3-14.
It’s been a pretty good couple of weeks for American foreign policy. No, seriously. On June 23, the last of
Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was loaded onto a Danish freighter to be destroyed. The following day,
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia asked his Parliament to rescind the permission that it had given him
to send troops into Ukraine. Meanwhile, there is still cautious optimism that a nuclear deal with Iran
is within reach. What do these have in common? They were achieved without a single American bomb being dropped and
they relied on a combination of diplomacy , economic sanctions and the coercive threat of military force. As policy makers and
pundits remain focused on Iraq and the perennial but distracting discussion about the use of force, these modest but significant
achievements have, perhaps predictably, been ignored. Yet they hold important lessons for how American power
can be most effectively deployed today
. Nine months ago, President Obama eschewed military means to punish Syria for its use of chemical weapons and instead
negotiated an agreement to remove them. Critics like Senator John McCain blasted it as a “loser” deal that would never work. By
refusing to back up a stated “red line” with military force, Mr. Obama had supposedly weakened American credibility. In Damascus,
however, the threat of military engagement by the United States was taken more seriously. And when given the choice
between American bombing or giving up his chemical weapons, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria
chose the latter. Four months ago, some pundits confidently declared that Mr. Putin had “won” in Crimea and
would ignore a Western response of toothless sanctions. But Russia has paid a serious price for its actions in Ukraine:
diplomatic isolation and an economic downturn spurred by capital outflows, declining foreign investment and international
opprobrium. Mr. Putin’s recent effort to tamp down tensions appears to be a response, in part, to the threat of further sanctions. In
trying to operate outside the global system, Mr. Putin found that resistance to international norms
came at an unacceptable cost. While it is far too early to declare success on the nuclear talks in Vienna, that the United
States and Iran are sitting down at the negotiating table is a historic diplomatic achievement. When Mr. Obama spoke during the
2008 election campaign of his willingness to talk with Iran’s leaders, it led to criticisms that he was naïve about global politics. But
his efforts as president to extend an olive branch, even as Iran continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions, enabled America to build
support for the multilateral economic sanctions that helped make the current negotiations possible. While one should be careful in
drawing expansive judgments from disparate examples like these, there are noteworthy commonalities. The most obvious is that
military force is not as effective as its proponents would have Americans believe. Had the United States bombed Syria or hit Iran’s
nuclear infrastructure, it would almost certainly not have been as successful as the nonmilitary approaches used. Yet, at the outset
of practically every international crisis, to bomb or not to bomb becomes the entire focus of debate. That false choice disregards the
many other tools at America’s disposal. It doesn’t mean that force should never be considered, but that it should be the option of last
resort. Force is a blunt instrument that produces unpredictable outcomes (for evidence, look no further than Iraq, Afghanistan and
Libya). What did work in these three situations was the patient diplomatic effort of building a global
consensus . The success of international sanctions against Iran and Russia respectively relied on the support of both allies and
rivals. Acting alone, the United States would never have achieved the same results. It wasn’t just Americans who were outraged by
the seizure of Crimea — so, too, were nations that had few interests in the region. The reason is simple: When countries invade
their neighbors with impunity, it puts every country at risk. A similar global consensus against chemical and nuclear
proliferation, backed by international treaties, also served as the foundation for American
diplomacy toward Iran and Syria. Critics will fairly argue that these outcomes hardly justify great celebration. Mr. Assad
has relinquished his chemical weapons, but the bloody civil war in Syria continues. Mr. Putin has backed off in eastern Ukraine, but
he’s keeping Crimea. Iran may agree to a nuclear deal, but it will remain a destabilizing power with the potential to upgrade its
nuclear capacity. This speaks to the limitations of American power. The United States cannot stop every conflict or change every
nefarious regime. Any foreign policy predicated on such ambitions will consistently fail. What the United States can do is set
modest and realistic goals: upholding global norms and rules , limiting conflicts and seeking achievable
diplomatic outcomes. With China flexing its muscles in the Far East, these lessons are more important than ever. But they
are not transferable to every international crisis. Sanctions don’t mean much, for example, to radical nonstate actors like the
jihadists of the Islamic State. And unilateral pressure from the United States cannot, for example, bring about the political reforms in
Iraq that are needed to stabilize the country. Sometimes, America has no good answer for disruptive events like these. All too often,
though, our foreign policy debates are defined by simplistic ideas: that force is a problem-solver, that America can go its own way
and that mere application of American leadership brings positive results. But the results with Syria, Russia and Iran
remind us that when American foreign policy is led by painstaking diplomacy, seeks multilateral
consensus and acts with an understanding of its own limitations, it can produce positive results.
More often than not, boring is better.
M: A2 “Treaties Fail” Top (:20/:40
longitudinal empirical analysis confirms
Beth Simmons, Department of Government, Harvard University, “Treaty Compliance and Violation,” ANNUAL REVIEW OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE v. 13, 2010, pp. 273-296.
The concept of audience costs has also been useful for understanding how formal
agree-ments can influence the duration of
peace. After years of war and mistrust, agreements to make peace are difficult to make credible. Treaties here again play an
important role by raising ex post international audience costs as well as by signaling intentions ex
ante. They can also reduce uncertainty about actions and in- tentions, thus helping to reduce belligerents’ incentives to rekindle their conflict. Fortna
(2003) suggests there is some empirical basis for viewing peace agreements in this way. She finds that stronger peace
agreements—by which she means ones that raise the costs of reneging by creating clear demilitarized zones, joint monitoring commissions, and
third-party guarantees—lead to more a durable peace. Similarly, Mattes (2008) examines the role of “conciliatory” agreements in the
resolution of territorial disputes and finds that those that re- duce uncertainty and raise costs ex post are likely to reduce the risk that disputing parties
will resort to militarized conflicts. But these cases raise the problem of the endogeneity of treaties. It is highly likely that governments design strong
and/or conciliatory agreements when they are especially motivated to settle the dispute. If so, is it the agreement or the underly- ing motivation to settle
that drives the findings? Agreements that constrain military opera- tions in the heat of battle present the most significant challenges for international
treaties. When independent state survival may be at stake, we have the most stringent test possi- ble for the power of treaty agreements to con- strain
state behavior. The laws of war fighting are a good example. They embody norms to protect civilians and cultural property, to re- quire decent
treatment of prisoners, to medi- cally treat wounded enemies, and so forth. Not only are there strong temptations to defect if banned practices might
mean a military advan- tage; there is also the problem that atrocities can be committed by individual soldiers despite the policy of their government.
The protection of civilians may be the most difficult problem of all. Valentino et al. (2006) test the proposition that international treaties on the laws of
war during the twentieth cen- tury (1900–2003) have had a significant impact on the rates at which the militaries of war- ring states intentionally kill
civilians. For each of 148 international conflicts of the past cen- tury, Valentino et al. coded whether the par- ties had ratified the 1899 Hague
Convention, the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1949 Geneva Convention, and the Geneva Convention Protocols of 1977. They found that the intentional killing of civilians was correlated with the strategy chosen to prosecute the war but was not influenced at all by ratification of the relevant treaty
for the time period under question. They conclude that “international law provides little protection for civilian populations in times of war. Whatever
pressures toward restraint these treaties may exert on their signatories appear to be overwhelmed by the strategic incentives that combatants face to
prevail and limit the costs of war to their own citizens” (Valentino et al. 2006, p. 373). However, much more could be done to understand the indirect
influence of these treaties on war fighting, including their possible influence on the choice of a strategy itself. If ratifiers are much less willing to lay
siege to an enemy, causing the starvation of its population, there is some risk that the effect of the legal norm is being masked by the choice of
An even more ambitious effort to un derstand the dynamics of the laws of war is Morrow’s (2007) study
of eight differ- ent subissue areas, including aerial bombard- ment, armistice/ceasefire, chemical and biolog- ical weapons, treatment of
strategy.
civilians, protection of cultural property, conduct on the high seas, treatment of prisoners of war, and treatment of the wounded. Using different data
and meth- ods, Morrow does to some extent corroborate the findings of Valentino et al. in that he finds the treatment of civilian populations to be especially problematic in wartime. This is not the end of the story, however. Morrow draws on signaling theory to argue, “Treaties
are a public
signal that a state accepts a standard by rati- fying it, and so will live up to the standard of that treaty if it goes to war. . . . Ratification by both
sides is necessary for them to understand that they intend to honor that standard to the best of their ability” (Morrow
2007, p. 561). Morrow is not explicit about why such a signal would be credible to an adversary, although he does suggest that in a democratic setting,
au- dience costs help to hold governments to their international commitments. The model he pro- poses allows for an indirect role for treaty ratification: Treaties clarify what is and what is not acceptable behavior, which allows adversaries in war more precisely to respond to violations in kind.
This reciprocity, in turn, is associated with higher levels of compliance with the laws of war. Morrow’s key finding is that a state is more likely to violate
the laws of war recipro- cally when it is clear the adversary has done so, when both have ratified the relevant treaty, or when both of these conditions
hold (a triple in- teraction term). Merely to have ratified a treaty does not produce better compliance, but by fa- cilitating reciprocity, he argues, the
treaty has made important
if indirect contributions to the somewhat more humane conduct of war. Arguments
for treaty compliance based on legal principles are by nature rare in the security area. As we have seen, theories of compliance or violation of
international agreements in the se- curity area tend to be based on arguments about reciprocity, the ability to send credible signals, or the ex post costs
associated with reneging. It is therefore quite refreshing to consider the results of a study by Kelley (2007) on states’ (un)willingness to renege on their
formal le- gal commitments to the International Crim- inal Court (ICC). Kelley asks, why do states live up to their legal obligations to cooperate with the
ICC, especially in the face of pressures any realist might assume would cause them to violate? Between 2002 and 2006, the United States applied
tangible forms of pressure—from diplomatic up to and including the threat of withdrawing military aid—to countries that re- fused to sign a mutual
nonsurrender agreement with the United States. These agreements cre- ated bilateral obligations not to surrender one another’s nationals to the ICC.
The problem, however, is that such agreements conflict with the legal obligation of any ratifier of the ICC statutes to cooperate with that institution. It is
a difficult dilemma: Should a state party fulfill its ICC obligations and risk U.S. sanctions, or should it stand up to the United States and stand by the
ICC? Kelley argues that despite the threats of the United States, some states resisted for very principled reasons. Some states had a strong affinity for
the purposes of the ICC. She presents evidence from a cross-sectional pro- bit that democracies, the “like-minded coun- tries” (the hard-core ICC
supporters during the negotiations), and states with sterling human rights records tended to ratify the ICC statutes. But even more revealing, states
with a strong commitment to the rule of law refused to go back on their ICC commitments. The interac- tion of a strong commitment to the rule of law
and a previous ratification was a strong predic- tor (again, in a cross-sectional probit model) that a state would refuse to ratify a mutual nonsurrender
agreement with the United States. Four case studies—Botswana, Costa Rica, Estonia, and Australia—provide the con- text for these findings. Although
Botswana re- neged, the other three rebuffed the United States, stuck with the ICC, and cited the im- portance of consistency with their prior legal
obligations as the primary reason. Kelley (2007, p. 15) concludes that “international agreements can be effective across a broad spectrum of issue
areas, not just in cases with clearly identified material payoffs of iterated cooperation.” She argues that a strong commitment to the rule of law highly
conditions any general claims about the overall “compliance pull” of treaties gener- ally. Consistent with normative theories of be- havior, the “tug” is
strongest for polities that place the highest value on the rule of law.