Cuban Embargo Aff Updates
Yes Nuke Terror
The risk of terrorist attack is high --- mobile weapons and loose nuclear material.
Neely 13 (Meggaen, research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues, “Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear
Terrorism,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3-21-13, http://csis.org/blog/doubting-deterrencenuclear-terrorism)
Assessing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism¶ ¶ The
risk that terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil is
disconcertingly high . While a terrorist organization may experience difficulty constructing nuclear
weapons facilities, there is significant concern that terrorists can obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear
materials. The fear that an actor could steal a nuclear weapon or fissile material and transport it to
the United States has long-existed.¶ ¶ It takes a great amount of time and resources (including territory) to construct centrifuges
and reactors to build a nuclear weapon from scratch. Relatively easily-transportable nuclear weapons, however, present
one opportunity to terrorists. For example, exercises similar to the recent Russian movement of nuclear
weapons from munitions depots to storage sites may prove attractive targets.¶ ¶ Loose nuclear
materials pose a second opportunity. Terrorists could use them to create a crude nuclear weapon
similar to the gun-type design of Little Boy. Its simplicity – two subcritical masses of highly-enriched
uranium – may make it attractive to terrorists. While such a weapon might not produce the immediate destruction seen at
Hiroshima, the radioactive fall-out and psychological effects would still be damaging. These two opportunities for terrorists differ from concerns
about a “dirty bomb,” which mixes radioactive material with conventional explosives.¶ ¶ According to Gary Ackerman of the National
Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, the number of terrorist organizations that would detonate a nuclear
weapon is probably small. Few terrorist organizations have the ideology that would motivate nuclear weapons acquisition. Before we breathe a
sigh of relief, we should recognize that this only increases the “signal-to-noise ratio”: many terrorists might claim to want to detonate a nuclear
the United States must find and prevent the small number of groups that actually would.¶ ¶
Transportable nuclear weapons and loose fissile materials grant opportunities to terrorists with
nuclear pursuits. How should the United States seek to undercut the efforts of the select few with a nuclear intent?
weapon, but
Terrorists have the motivation to attack and they’re more likely to obtain nukes.
Truman Project 12 (Truman National Security Project, national security leadership institute based in
Washington, D.C. “Nuclear Weapons,” Truman Briefing, 5-xx-2012, http://trumanproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Truman.Briefing.Book-NuclearWeapons.pdf)
Terrorists want a nuclear weapon and they are likely to use it if they get one. Al Qaeda bas been trying to get a
nuclear weapon since the mid 1990s. Osama bin Laden said it was a “religious duty” to obtain a nuclear weapon,
and al Qaeda’s current leader, Aymari al-Zawahiri, wrote a book authorizing the killing of American
civilians with a nuclear weapon. Terrorists have no incentive against using a nuclear weapon: they
have no country for us to retaliate against and no national population they must protect. The spread
of nuclear material makes it more possible for al Qaeda to get a bomb. The nuclear black market
gives terrorist groups and rogue states more opportunities to acquire nuclear material. The nine
nuclear states have about 23,000 nuclear weapons between them, but there is enough. Highly
Enriched Uranium and plutonium around the world to make approximately 100,000 more. Nuclear
energy increases the risk of proliferation. Because nuclear power technology uses the same enrichment process as nuclear
weapons, it takes only a few months to convert energy-grade nuclear material into weapons-grade
material. Businesses are experimenting with making nuclear energy plants small enough to fit in a
truck-borne shipping container, increasing the potential for proliferation . The spread of nuclear
energy creates a major challenge for reducing the spread of nuclear technology and increases the risk that nuclear
materials and technologies will fall into the wrong hands. Rogue states and tense regions are also interested in acquiring
nuclear capabilities. The technology needed for a nuclear weapon is often associated wìth national prestige. Small states want to acquire this
technology to bolster their standing in the international community. Nuclear weapons are also a great equalizer against a rival that has superior
conventional capabilities. Countries like Pakistan view nuclear weapons as a fairly inexpensive way to neutralize the threat from larger militaries
such as India’s. Finally, as Iran threatens to become a nuclear power, a series of countries in the Middle East have also begun to invest in
nuclear energy despite their large oil supplies.
Proliferation and nuclear stockpiles increase the probability of nuclear terrorism --only the plan eliminates bases to derail operations --- al Qaeda proves.
Montgomery 10 (Evan B., Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, summa cum
laude from Villanova University with a B.A. in Political Science and Sociology, and received his M.A. and Ph.D. in
Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia, “Understanding the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism,” CSBA, 4-2-10,
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2010/04/understanding-the-threat-of-nuclear-terrorism/2/)
Sources of the Nuclear Terrorist Threat¶ There
are two major dimensions of the nuclear terrorist threat: the
“ supply ” side of nuclear proliferation and the “ demand ” side of violent Islamist extremism. Over the
past decade, longstanding concerns over proliferation have become increasingly acute in light of a
number of worrisome developments, including the status of India and Pakistan as overt nuclear
weapon states, North Korea’s two nuclear weapons tests, the international community’s failure to restrain Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, and the fear that an Iranian nuclear weapons program could spark further
proliferation throughout the Middle East. Ultimately, while existing nuclear arsenals and stockpiles of fissile
material represent the most immediate concern, the spread of nuclear weapons and material has
increased the probability that terrorists might be able to acquire or construct a nuclear device. At the
same time that nuclear proliferation has become a growing concern, terrorism has also been elevated from a secondary to a primary threat to
US security because of the emergence of groups that have few inhibitions on inflicting mass casualties by means of chemical, biological, and
even nuclear weapons. Today, for example, the
threat of nuclear terrorism is primarily associated with Osama bin
Laden and his followers, who have not only pursued these weapons for some time, but have expressed their willingness to use them
against their enemies.¶ Since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, however, al Qaeda has lost a key sanctuary and much of its original senior
leadership. Does
it still hope to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction? is it capable of obtaining or building a
nuclear weapon? The answer to the first question appears to be “ yes .” Publicly available information leaves little doubt that the group’s
intentions remain unchanged. Nevertheless, al Qaeda appears to be much less capable of conducting a
major attack against the United States, and especially a catastrophic attack using a nuclear weapon, than it was when it had a
base of operations in Afghanistan. After the downfall of the Taliban regime, al Qaeda evolved into an increasingly decentralized organization.
Moreover, as the influence and capabilities of its central leadership have waned, the source of the terrorist threat has shifted toward regional
groups affiliated with al Qaeda and homegrown extremists inspired by it, neither of which are likely to possess the knowledge, skills, resources,
or discipline necessary to plan and successfully carry out a nuclear attack.¶ Until fairly recently, however, numerous
accounts
suggested that al Qaeda’s core leadership was in the process of reestablishing its ability to organize
and execute major attacks, due in large part to its sanctuary in the remote areas of Pakistan. Yet according
the United States intelligence Community this concern has diminished over the past year due to ongoing counterterrorism efforts, including
repeated strikes against terrorist operatives using unmanned aerial vehicles operating in Pakistan. These efforts “have put the organization into
one of its most difficult positions since the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom in late 2001,” and have also “dealt a significant blow to alQa’ida’s near-term efforts to develop a sophisticated CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear] attack capability.”
The probability of nuclear terrorism is increasing --- doesn’t matter if there hasn’t
been attack yet.
Bokhari 6 (Sarah, three Master's degrees: a recent one in Political Science from U of T, specializing in nuclear
disarmament in South Asia. As well as, an M.Phil, Defense and Strategic Studies from QAU Pakistan and an M.Sc.
International Relations from the same institute, specializing in South Asian nuclear politics, “The United States
dealings with nuclear terrorism: cooperation from prevention,” Journal on Science and World Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1,
2006, http://www.scienceandworldaffairs.org/PDFs/Vol2No1_Bokhari.pdf)
The probability of a nuclear terrorist attack has increased in the aftermath of 9/11. Security experts agree that
although unlikely, a nuclear terrorist attack is possible. Several episodes in the contemporary history of nuclear proliferation
unveil, in particular, al- Qaeda’s clandestine efforts to get the bomb. As early as December 1998, Bin Laden showed great desires
to acquire nuclear weapons for the mass killing of so-called ‘infidels’. Bin Laden believes, it is said, that it is a
religious duty to possess nuclear weapons and that were he not to follow this duty, he would be committing a sin [17]. Bin Laden tried to
acquire nuclear materials as far back as in 1992 when he sought to forge relations with South Africa. Bin
Laden was also alleged to
have sought a deal with Chechen rebels in Russia to buy a nuclear war head [18]. The fact that, until
now, Bin Laden’s network has not recurred to a nuclear attack does not mean that such attack will
not occur . Evidence shows that there is an important probability of a large-scale terrorist attack
involving the use of nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was reported to have said in
an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Dawn that if the US uses nuclear weapons on Osama Bin Laden groups and
affiliates, he would attack the US with nuclear and/or chemical/biological weapons. In the same interview, Bin
Laden also assured that he possessed weapons of mass destruction [ 19].
The magnitude of nuclear terrorism comes first.
Ferguson and Potter 4 (Charles D., president of the Federation of American Scientists, William C., Sam Nunn
and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies and Founding Director of the James Martin Center for
Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, “The Four Faces of Terrorism,”
Monterey Institute – Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://jeffreyfields.net/427/Site/Blog/30F67A03-182C4FC7-9EFD-A7C321F6DC8D_files/analysis_4faces.pdf)
In contrast, the consequences from an IND explosion are orders of magnitude more devastating than
the damage from use of an RDD. Taking into account both the magnitude of potential consequences
and the relative difficulty of execution, all four faces of nuclear terrorism pose potentially grave and
imminent dangers , and the United States and other concerned states must work to address all of
them.
Science Cooperation
Aff- Science Coop
Plan Solves
Lifting the economic embargo allows for science cooperation between the US and
Cuba.
Lempinen 12 (Edward W., Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences, “Oceans, Weather,
Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,” AAAS --- American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 5-1-12, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml)
They are next-door neighbors, sharing all the amenities and challenges of the neighborhood—oceans teeming with life, the risk of tropical
diseases, a changing climate that may be giving rise to bigger and more frequent hurricanes. And yet, because the neighbors are barely on
speaking terms, they cannot share the opportunities and the responsibilities that come with solving
the challenges.¶ Today, however, scientists in both Cuba and the United States are exploring whether a thaw in relations between the
two nations could allow for a range of new or expanded joint research projects that could bring
benefits to both nations and others in the Caribbean Basin. Recent visits and consultations facilitated by AAAS and the Academia
de Ciencias de Cuba (Academy of Sciences of Cuba) underscored that both sides see potential for substantive science
collaboration.¶ “The recent visits showed that the Cuban mindset is really ready to reach out,” said Peter Agre, a
Nobel laureate in chemistry and a former president of AAAS, who returned in March from his third visit to the nation. “The
scientists would have no trouble working together... The Cubans are understandably proud of their science, and they see us very positively. I would
anticipate if we could normalize relations and do science as a starting point, then really good things could happen.”¶ “The
possibility of open scientific exchange between researchers in Cuba and the U.S. can only bring increased benefits for both scientific communities, and of course, for
the people in their respective countries,” said Sergio Jorge Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. ¶ “The kind of scientific
development that took place in Cuba for the last half-century has produced original results that have been internationally
recognized as being in the frontiers of knowledge in several fields. Science, along with technology and innovation, has
produced outcomes that are important for societies not only in Cuba and the United States, but in neighboring countries of the Caribbean, and for sustainable
development everywhere.Ӧ Vaughan C. Turekian, director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, said that researchers from both nations have focused on
science, not on the politics that have divided the two nations for a half-century.¶ “Especially on the environmental side, there
is not an issue that we
that doesn’t have direct implications and impact both on Cuba and the United States,” said Turekian, who also
serves as AAAS’s chief international officer. “Given the proximity, when you’re talking about atmospheric or marine
science, if it travels to Cuba, it travels to the Southeast coast of United States, too. If it spawns off the coast of Cuba,
discussed
it is caught or affected by currents that go into the United States.Ӧ The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy organized an initial three-day visit to Cuba in November
2009, with Agre, then the AAAS president, and seven other U.S. science leaders. AAAS helped to facilitate a second visit last December, with 18 independent
scientists traveling to the island for informal talks centered on marine science, atmospheric science, environmental change, conserving biodiversity at large scales,
sustainable fisheries, and capacity-building. Agre, who heads the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, returned to Cuba in March to speak at Biotechnology
Havana 2012, an international congress that focused on medical applications of biotech. ¶ Since the early 1960s, just after the Cuban revolution, the
two
neighbors have been locked in a Caribbean cold war; though they are just 90 miles apart, the relationship has been
characterized by economic and cultural barriers , sometimes sharp political conflict, and broad dimensions of mistrust .
Advocates see science diplomacy as a way to do important research with value for all sides, and to build constructive engagement in a non-political environment.¶
History dating back well over 100 years suggests that Cuba and the United States are “natural scientific partners,” Pastrana said in an April email interview.
US Key
The proximate nature of the impacts requires the US to cooperate with Cuba.
Boom 12 (Brian M. [best last name ever], director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire
Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, “Biodiversity without Borders,” AAAS Science and Diplomacy,
8-14-12, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
Shared Environmental Problems The most urgent environmental problems requiring bilateral action are
broadly classified as disasters—both those that occur naturally and those that are man- made. Hurricanes are the clearest
examples of shared natural disasters. During the twentieth century, 167 hurricanes struck the U.S. mainland. Of these, 62 were major
Urgent,
(categories 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale). During the same period, 36 hurricanes, half of which were major, made landfall over Cuba. Because many
hurricanes — Katrina and Ike being twenty-first century examples — strike both countries, there exists a shared need after such disasters to respond to the negative
effects, including environmental problems created by rain, wind, and storm surges. Most
major hurricanes occurring in the Caribbean
during the past century have resulted in documented extensive perturbations of shallow-water
marine ecosystems, particularly to coral reefs, seagrass beds, and coastal mangroves . 2 Aside from physical
damage to such ecosystems from more turbulent water, hurricanes can also negatively impact water quality. On land, hurricane damage to ecosystems can be even
more severe than in the ocean. For example, damaged native vegetation will possibly be more prone to colonization by exotic, noxious species such as Australian
pine and Brazilian pepper. 3 While
Cuban and U.S. scientists have shared motivation to assess, monitor, and remediate the
marine and terrestrial ecosystems that are damaged by hurricanes, they currently cannot do so. Man-made environmental disasters, such as
oil and natural gas leaks, can likewise be of shared concern to the Cuban and U.S. governments. The Gulf of Mexico is a rich source of oil and gas and will remain so
for decades to come. According
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there exist
nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico off the U.S. coastline. Cuba also has plans for new
oil and gas platforms off its northern coast. 4 Given the near- and long-term implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants
on the Gulf of Mexico’s biodiversity, it is imperative for the economic and ecological wellbeing of
both Cuba and the United States that exploration is pursued with enhanced safeguards to avoid the
mistakes of past disasters, such as the dramatic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. While Cuba and the United States are signatories to
several international protocols for cooperation on containment of oil spills, there is scant cooperation between them on this
front—although there were at least some low-level meetings between the countries after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. 5 Given the potential of currents in
the Gulf of Mexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the waters and shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach
of the disaster. Fortunately, relative to its potential, the Deepwater Horizon spill remained mostly contained. However, with increased drilling in the area, including
deep wells, more than luck will be needed to avert future disasters. Even if oil and gas leaks or spills are restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative
environmental impacts can be important regionally. The
two nations’ shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the
mid Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many important commercial and sport fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So
destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will impact stocks of species such as snapper, grouper, and tuna, along with
myriad other animals, plants, and microbes that spend different parts of their life cycles in the territorial waters of each country. 6 Given that
urgent environmental problems can arise rapidly and harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that
there should be a mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats.
Impact calculus --- Environment
The Caribbean environment outweighs --- immediacy, irreversibility, magnitude.
Vergara 9 (Walter, Chief of the Inter-American Development Bank Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Unit,
“Assessing the Potential Consequences of Climate Destabilization in Latin America,” Latin America and Caribbean
Region Sustainable Development Working Paper 32, January 2009,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAC/Resources/Assessing_Potential_Consequences_CC_in_LAC.pdf)
Climate Hotspots To
visualize these impacts on ecosystems, it is useful to discuss the notion of Climate
Hotspots as those comprising ecosystems that are particularly affected by the physical consequences
of climate change. Focusing on hotspots also helps in defining areas that require urgent attention or need to be highlighted to press for
forceful climate action. In this working definition, Climate Hotspots are defined by a combination of:
Immediacy . Impacts are already being felt or the effects are expected to take place in the near term;
Irreversibility . The changes experienced by the affected ecosystems cannot be reversed; Magnitude .
The impacts would render the affected ecosystem non-operational or the damage is so thorough that
the ecosystem is no longer providing meaningful levels of its original environmental services, many of
which are difficult to assess in financial terms; Consequences. The changes would imply considerable losses of
natural and eventually financial capital. This definition can be applied to some of the system-wide
impacts in evidence in the region. These include: a) the bleaching of coral reefs, leading to an
anticipated total collapse of the coral biome in the Caribbean Basin ; b) the warming and eventual disabling of
mountain ecosystems in the Andes; c) the subsidence of vast stretches of wetlands and associated coastal
systems in the Gulf of Mexico; and d) the risk of forest dieback in the Amazon Basin (see Table 1 below).
Impact --- Laundry List
The embargo blocks a laundry list of scientific exchanges that save lives.
Pastrana and Clegg 8 (Sergio Jorge, Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T.,
Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences,
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, “U.S.-Cuban
Scientific Relations,” Science, 17, October 2008, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5900/345.full)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of the United States and Cuba—will
celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite
the proximity of both nations and many common scientific
interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S.
Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange . It's time to
establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also
to start building a framework for expanded cooperation.¶ Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific
cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the
hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and
mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to
research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last
month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite
the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. ¶ Another major example where
scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases , such as
dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first
recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research
centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is
almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing
knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.¶ Cuba has also
made important strides in biotechnology , including the production of several important vaccines and
monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug
addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including
the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there
institution.
is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research
Impact --- Biodiversity/Ecosystems
Science cooperation allows for better solutions to ecosystem and biodiversity
collapse.
Boom 12 (Brian M. [best last name ever], director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire
Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, “Biodiversity without Borders,” AAAS Science and Diplomacy,
8-14-12, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
Emergent, Shared Environmental Problems¶ Thankfully, urgent, shared environmental problems involving the United States and Cuba are not
everyday occurrences. Nonetheless, every day there are numerous environmental issues of concern to both countries that are of great
importance in the medium to long term. Such problems center on the need to study, monitor, and assess the status of organisms and
ecosystems that functionally exist in both countries.¶ A
complex mosaic of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroves
knit together the marine and coastal ecosystems. Some of the most extensive, best preserved coral
reefs in the Wider Caribbean Region occur in Cuban waters, and extensive coral reefs parallel the Florida Keys in U.S.
waters. Cuba has the largest extent of mangrove forests in the Caribbean, about 4,000 km², and Florida’s southwestern coast supports
mangrove forests comprising about half the extent of those in Cuba. Seagrass
meadows occur in shallow waters of both
countries, stabilizing sea bottom sediments that could otherwise threaten coral reefs and providing breeding, feeding, and shelter grounds
for myriad marine animals, plants, and microbes.7¶ These ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat
modification, the impact of tourism, overexploitation of marine fishes and other commercial seafood
resources, the ramifications of climate change and rising sea levels, and pollution from land-based
sources (e.g., unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices) and ocean-based sources (e.g., cruise ship waste). Increasing tourism
especially threatens coral reefs. Despite some positive measures taken by the cruise industry in recent years, more cruise ships in the region
still mean greater potential stresses to the marine and coastal environments. In addition to these and other shared ecosystems, many marine
and terrestrial species are shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered, and disease vector
species.¶ Migratory Species: Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations.
Cuba provides key wintering
habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also
migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both
Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also
swim between U.S. and Cuban waters.¶ Invasive Species: Cuba and the United States share many of these problem organisms, which are among
the most significant threats to native species and to ecological and economic wellbeing. For example, Hydrilla verticillata, an aggressive
waterweed native to the Old World, displaces native aquatic plants and seriously disrupts recreational uses of lakes and rivers in Cuba and the
United States.8 Another example is the red
lionfish, which is native to the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans but was released into
the Atlantic Ocean from a home aquarium in Florida when Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992. Today,
this venomous fish has spread along the U.S. Atlantic Coast as far north as New York and into the Caribbean, including
Cuban waters, voraciously eating native fish and creating major disruptions to coral reef ecosystems.9¶ Endangered Species: Cuba and the
United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally
Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).
Because only a small fraction of the world’s plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened
species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known already, there exists a strong
imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including
the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.¶ These
threats are exacerbated by the
lack of active, ongoing bilateral scientific cooperation between Cuba and the United States.¶ Disease
Vector Species: A good example of a shared disease vector is the Aedes aegypti mosquito. This species is the
principal vector for the viruses that cause dengue fever, a non-curable, sometimes fatal disease in humans. In the Western Hemisphere, the
disease is known to occur throughout much of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but so far not in
Cuba, and only rarely in the continental United States. But this situation could change. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, there is evidence that this
mosquito is constantly responding and adapting to environmental
changes. Cuba has one of the world’s best centers for dengue research with knowledge about how the
island stays dengue free.10 Yet, Cuba and the United States are not working together on dengue, a shared and growing threat.¶
Both urgent natural and man-made problems, such as hurricanes and oil spills, as well as more gradual, less dramatic
threats, such as habitat modification and pollution, threaten the native biodiversity shared by Cuba and
the United States. These threats are exacerbated by the lack of active, ongoing bilateral scientific cooperation
between Cuba and the United States in seeking solutions to such threats.
Impact --- Coral Reefs
Science cooperation triggers biodiversity and conservation knowledge that allows for
more effective coral reef preservation.
Lempinen 12 (Edward W., Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences, Vaughan C. Turekian,
director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, Peter Agre, Nobel laureate in chemistry and former president
of AAAS, “Oceans, Weather, Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,”
AAAS --- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 5-1-12,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml)
Marine Science¶ Coral
reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from human
activity—over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine
scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health.¶
Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine Science at Smithsonian Institution and senior scientist emeritus at
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s worked in fields of marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are
her specialty. Save for a cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to Cuba, but on her visit in December, she was deeply
impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine science already underway there.¶ “There are amazing
habitats, much less impacted by people than most places in Caribbean, in terms of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she said. “And
there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in biodiversity and
conservation .”¶ For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,” allowing researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like
in an era past. “They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight
into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced.¶ “So there
are a lot of things to learn from Cuban marine
scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons for Cubans to come here, or for Cubans to come and
work at the Smithsonian. There’s a huge potential for interchange because there are so many shared
interests.”
Coral reef collapse kills biodiversity and leads to major economic impacts.
Vergara 9 (Walter, Chief of the Inter-American Development Bank Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Unit,
“Assessing the Potential Consequences of Climate Destabilization in Latin America,” Latin America and Caribbean
Region Sustainable Development Working Paper 32, January 2009,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAC/Resources/Assessing_Potential_Consequences_CC_in_LAC.pdf)
Collapse of the coral biome in the Caribbean Basin Coral
reefs are home to more than 25% of all marine species,
making them the most biologically diverse of marine ecosystems and an equivalent to rainforests in
land ecosystems. Corals are also very sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. When stressed by rising
temperatures, corals are expected to lose the ability to conduct photosynthesis, eventually leading to their
bleaching and death. Increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere also lead to more acidic seas, which impairs the
ability of corals to assimilate carbonates. Corals also play very important roles for other species, providing the
habitat for the spawning of many species and protection and mechanical support for other plants and
animals. The warming of the Caribbean Sea has led to many impacts but scarcely any equals the intensity with which it has affected the coral
reefs in this region (Wilkinson and Souter 2008). Gradual and consistent increases in sea surface temperatures have yielded increasingly
frequent bleaching events, the latest of which (2005) caused wide-scale bleaching throughout the region. As sea surface temperatures continue
to increase,
the ability of coral beds to withstand thermal shocks diminishes, leading to mass mortality.
In the wake of coral collapse, major impacts are anticipated, including severe loss of biodiversity ,
impacts on fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection. Although the latter three can be reasonably
monetized, the loss of species and ecosystem integrity is more difficult to evaluate, yet it may
represent the most important of these consequences. One- third of the more than 700 species of reefbuilding corals are already threatened with extinction. It is estimated that between 60 to 70 endemic
species of corals in the Caribbean are also in danger (Carpenter et al. 2008). The costs of adapting corals to future
environmental conditions in the Caribbean and protecting and recovering affected populations are likely to be very high, yet remain
unassessed. The Bank is supporting efforts by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Center to develop a pilot for the recovery of coral
populations affected by bleaching. This pilot could eventually provide some of the information required to make this assessment. The
effects are immediate, major, and likely to be irreversible. The economic consequences for the
countries in the region are severe . Clearly, the coral biome constitutes a Climate Hotspot even if the
full value of the damage escapes quantification.
Impact --- Disaster Diplomacy
The embargo blocks effective disaster diplomacy --- Galveston hurricane proves.
Glantz 2k (Michael H., Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), served as the
Head of the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, “Climate-Related Disaster Diplomacy: A US-Cuban Case
Study,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs Vol. XIV, No.1, Autumn-Winter 2000,
http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org/glantz2000.pdf)
The interactions between Cuba and the US with respect to hurricanes go back more than a century. In fact, Cuban
researchers were once ahead of their American counterparts with regard to research on hurricanes and their landfall. As early as the 1870s,
Cuban Jesuit priest Padre Benito Vihes began to earn his stature as a meteorologist for his articles in the American journal Monthly Weather
Review.8 The US even developed a network to monitor severe storms similar to that established by Viñes.9 . A
notable conflict of
scientific views between the US and Cuba about the characteristics of specific storm resulted in the
deadliest hurricane ever to hit the US, in 1900 at Galveston, Texas. The US forecaster in Havana disagreed with the
Cuban forecaster who believed that the US mainland was in danger of landfall of this major storm. The
American’s view prevailed and no warning was issued. On September 8. Galveston was destroyed. This deadly storm
was a major example of the need for cooperation between these countries as opposed to conflict based on
rivalry. Much has changed during the past 100 years. The political relations between the US and Cuban governments
have gone from bad to worse, ever since Fidel Castro overthrew the Batista government and took power in January 1959. Since that
time, the relationship has been stormy. The US backed the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles in mid-April 1961, and the Soviet
Union attempted to place medium-range ballistic missiles on Cuban soil in 1962. Attempts to improve relations have been an again, off again,
sidelined by Ideological and political differences throughout the Cold War. US policy toward Cuba has been heavily subjected to domestic
political activities. Cuban exiles and refugees in southern Florida have become an effective anti-Castro lobby group. Cuban policy toward the US
has been the result al Castro’s distrust of US leaders and Castro’s desire to export the Cuban revolution to other countries in Latin America and
later in sub-Saharan Africa or, as Castro might phrase it. The Cuban support of revolutions in other countries. Many people within and outside
of Cuba behave thai Lhe exiles In Miami have Iiad an inordinate influence on liS policy toward Cuba. They all believe, as I do, that whenever
there appeared to be chance for rapprochement between the countries, Castro would manufacture a political crisis with his neighbor to the
north to bring to an end any improvement in relations. Today, there
are three basic laws in the US that greatly restrict
interactions with Cuba: the 1960 embargo on trade with Cuba, the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act to
influence the behavior of American allies toward Cuba, and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, also referred to as
the Cuban Liberty Act or the Democratic Solidarity Act. President Clinton signed this Act into law in mid-March 1996, primarily in order to
discourage foreign investment in expropriated properties in Cuba.
Disaster diplomacy spills over to broader US-Cuban relations.
Glantz 2k (Michael H., Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), served as the
Head of the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, “Climate-Related Disaster Diplomacy: A US-Cuban Case
Study,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs Vol. XIV, No.1, Autumn-Winter 2000,
http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org/glantz2000.pdf)
The hope with respect to operationalizing the notion of ‘disaster diplomacy’ is that, if some elements of
cooperation were to develop during times of disaster, then those focused and ad hoc areas of
cooperation might be maintained in the future. More important to the notion is that cooperation
might be expanded (i.e. spillover ) to encompass other areas that would benefit both governments (if
not countries) from increased interaction and cooperation. In the US-Cuban situation, spill-over has
not yet occurred. US-Cuban interactions related to hurricanes – hazards which are specific, direct, and
traceable threats to both countries in space and time – are fruitful for a variety of reasons. However,
those interactions are encapsulated – bounded by realpolitik.
Impact --- Environment (generic)
Science collaboration is key to solve shared environmental issues.
Boom 12 (Brian M. [best last name ever], director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire
Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, “Biodiversity without Borders,” AAAS Science and Diplomacy,
8-14-12, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
The ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States provide the
opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach to
addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the two countries’
territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and the United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from
varied populations of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, exotic species invade, disease-causing
species disperse, and rare species go extinct in the face of growing habitat modification. The
living components of this shared
environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or man-made environmental
disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical
storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation.¶ Governments around the world routinely collaborate on
shared environmental concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation being addressed. Environmental nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) from local to international levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems that
extend beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and there are many effective
mechanisms in place to deal with challenges ranging from endangered species and ecosystems to oil and toxic waste spills.¶ However, a
lack
of formal diplomatic relations can limit desirable cooperation on shared environmental issues . The
U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba—which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to Cuba’s
nationalization of U.S. businesses’ properties in Cuba during the Cuban Revolution—and subsequent regulations have thwarted the
efforts of Cuban and U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental or other professional and academic
matters.1 There is essentially no intergovernmental environmental interaction between the United States and Cuba. The shared biodiversity
of these countries, and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico regions, suffers as a result.¶ Fortunately, some
NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental
issues. The experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring an enhanced mechanism for bilateral cooperation. Also
fortunately, on January 14, 2011, the Obama administration announced new rules that ease some restrictions on U.S. citizens’ travel and
remittances to Cuba, which will collaterally encourage more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have created some
space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is required to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring,
and protection of shared biodiversity.¶ Urgent, Shared Environmental Problems¶ The
most urgent environmental problems
requiring bilateral action are broadly classified as disasters—both those that occur naturally and those that are
man-made. Hurricanes are the clearest examples of shared natural disasters. During the twentieth century, 167
hurricanes struck the U.S. mainland. Of these, 62 were major (categories 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale). During the same period, 36
hurricanes, half of which were major, made landfall over Cuba. Because many hurricanes—Katrina and Ike being twenty-first century
examples—strike both countries, there exists a shared need after such disasters to respond to the negative effects, including environmental
problems created by rain, wind, and storm surges.¶ Most major hurricanes occurring in the Caribbean during the past century have resulted in
documented extensive perturbations of shallow-water marine ecosystems, particularly to coral reefs, seagrass beds, and coastal mangroves.2
Aside from physical damage to such ecosystems from more turbulent water, hurricanes can also negatively impact water quality. On land,
hurricane damage to ecosystems can be even more severe than in the ocean. For example, damaged native vegetation will possibly be more
prone to colonization by exotic, noxious species such as Australian pine and Brazilian pepper.3 While Cuban and U.S. scientists have shared
motivation to assess, monitor, and remediate the marine and terrestrial ecosystems that are damaged by hurricanes, they currently cannot do
so.¶ Man-made
environmental disasters, such as oil and natural gas leaks, can likewise be of shared
concern to the Cuban and U.S. governments. The Gulf of Mexico is a rich source of oil and gas and will remain so for decades
to come. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there exist nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms in the
Gulf of Mexico off the U.S. coastline. Cuba also has plans for new oil and gas platforms off its northern coast.4 Given the near- and long-term
implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico’s biodiversity,
it is imperative for the economic and
ecological wellbeing of both Cuba and the United States that exploration is pursued with enhanced
safeguards to avoid the mistakes of past disasters, such as the dramatic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil
rig.¶ While Cuba and the United States are signatories to several international protocols for cooperation on containment of oil spills, there is
scant cooperation between them on this front—although there were at least some low-level meetings between the countries after the
Deepwater Horizon blowout.5 Given the potential of currents in the Gulf of Mexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the
waters and shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach of the disaster. Fortunately, relative to its potential, the
Deepwater Horizon spill remained mostly contained.¶ However, with increased drilling in the area, including deep wells, more than luck will be
needed to avert future disasters. Even if oil and gas leaks or spills are restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative environmental impacts
can be important regionally. The two nations’ shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the mid Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many
important commercial and sport fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will impact
stocks of species such as snapper, grouper, and tuna, along with myriad other animals, plants, and microbes that spend different parts of their
life cycles in the territorial waters of each country.6¶ Given that urgent
environmental problems can arise rapidly and
harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that there should be a
mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats.
Impact --- Global Conflict (China/North korea)
New science cooperation spills over to broader science relations.
Hormats 12 (Robert D., US Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, “Science Diplomacy and
Twenty-First Century Statecraft,” Science & Diplomacy Vol. 1, no. 1, March 2012,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_diplomacy_and_twentyfirst_century_statecraft_science__diplomacy.pdf)
While the
scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international ties
among universities and research labs, are a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening
and strengthening our diplomatic relationships . Scientific partnerships are based on disciplines and values that
transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit
review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—are fundamental values from which
the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can
bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese
counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly,
the science and technology behind the agricultural “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian
researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries.
We are committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and technology , to
conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology
community. Twenty-first century statecraft also requires that we build greater people-to- people relationships. Science and technology
cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program, announced by President Obama in 2009 in Cairo, Egypt,
eminent U.S. scientists have met with counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build relationships and identify
opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the world’s population under the age of thirty, we are developing new ways to
inspire the next generation of science and technology leaders. Over the past five years, the Department of State’s International Fulbright
Science & Technology Award has brought more than two hundred exceptional students from seventy-three different countries to the United
States to pursue graduate studies. Through the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States recently invited
young innovators from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The
top submissions will receive financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities. Advancing the rights of women and girls is a
central focus of U.S. foreign policy and science diplomacy. As we work to empower women and girls worldwide, we must ensure that they have
access to science education and are able to participate and contribute fully during every stage of their lives. Recently, we partnered with
Google, Intel, Microsoft, and many other high-tech businesses to launch TechWomen, a program that brings promising women leaders from the
Middle East to Silicon Valley to meet industry thought-leaders, share knowledge and experiences, and bolster cultural understanding.
Science diplomacy is not new. It is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its
importance will continue to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights
that “science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a
dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” These interrelated issues are priorities
for the United States and, increasingly, the world.
Only science diplomacy allows effective negotiations to deescalate and contain global
conflict --- China and North Korea.
Pickering and Agre 10 (Thomas R., undersecretary of state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council
of the Civilian Research and Development Foundation, Peter, a Nobel laureate, a physician and director of the
Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, president of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, “Science diplomacy aids conflict reduction ,” Union-Tribune
San Diego, 2-20-10, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/Feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflictreduction/?#article-copy)
Over two foggy days in April, a
group of high-ranking Chinese science and education leaders and some American
counterparts met at a University of California San Diego faculty club to discuss an issue crucial to both nations: educating future
generations in the ethical
standards surrounding the conduct of research. The meeting was low-key – no TV cameras, no
potential for high impact was clear. Not so many years ago, during the Cold
War, the two nations were locked in conflict. Now they were collaborating to strengthen science for the 21st century. The
headlines – but from the start, its
talks were emblematic of a promising global trend that features researchers, diplomats and others collaborating on science and, in the process,
building closer ties between nations. Even
countries with tense government-to-government relations share
common challenges in infectious diseases, earthquake engineering, energy production and
environmental protection. The White House and Congress have made welcome moves to embrace the potential of science
diplomacy, but in the months and years ahead, they will need to exert still more leadership and make sure the effort
has the resources needed to succeed. Science diplomacy is hardly a new idea. A 1979 agreement between the United States and
China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation that has generated vast benefits for both nations, including reduced tensions and
billions of dollars in economic activity. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a Cold War thaw through scientific
exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. Now, science diplomacy
may help America open a door
toward improved relations with Pyongyang , too. Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations
sat down with their North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent
months also have visited Syria, Cuba and Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific
and technological accomplishments are admired worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote
dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that a deeply
unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly favorable view of U.S. science
and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall
views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific community, journals routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists
from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science
demands an intellectually
honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous
inquiry and respectful debate are all essential. The North Korea visit, organized by the U.S.-Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium, exemplifies the vast potential of science for
diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the
administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science
and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to
foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the
government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for
foreign doctors, scientists and engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical
contributions to human welfare and to our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America
overseas. Science is a wide-ranging effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to-scientist collaboration
can promote goodwill at the grass roots. San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years,
biology teacher Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals. Working with
game wardens and tribal leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down poachers. Such
efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health of the planet . In an era of complex
global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions both to global problems and to
global conflict.
Impact --- Human Rights/Relations
Science cooperation spills over to regional human rights and democracy--- emphasis
on openness and communication.
Pastrana and Clegg 8 (Sergio Jorge, Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T.,
Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences,
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, “U.S.-Cuban
Scientific Relations,” Science, 17, October 2008, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5900/345.full)
The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for
evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based
approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the
mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links
among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to
revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this
hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into
scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any
other Latin American country imposes such restrictions.¶ As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in
research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing
scientists to fully engage will not only
support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human
well-being . The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our
mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.
Latin American democracy solves the environment
Callejas 10 (Danny, Professor of Economics at the Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia, “Democracy
and Environmental Quality in Latin America: A Panel System of Equations Approach, 1995-2008,”
November)
Democracy has a positive effect on environmental quality. The theory suggests that democracy
sustains and encourages freedom of speech, freedom of press, political participation and social
awareness. These elements provide a conduit for social demands. As urban population and income
grow, citizens increase their demand for higher environmental standards and quality. The enactment
of new policies and regulations that incentive individuals and firms may lead to a reduction in
pollution, environmental degradation and deforestation; therefore, leading to a higher level of
environmental quality.¶ This study analyzed 19 Latin America countries for the period 1995-2008. A panel data system of equations
estimates suggest that a 10% increase in democracy may reduce CO2 emissions per capita in 0.48% or 0.60% in Latin America. Similarly, a 10% increase in education may reduce emissions in 0.71% or 0.73%. These
results suggest that democracy and education have a positive effect on environmental quality.
Extinction
Takacs 96 (David, Philosophies of Paradise, The Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., Baltimore)
"Habitat
destruction and conversion are eliminating species at such a frightening pace that extinction of many contemporary
species and the systems they live in and support ... may lead to ecological disaster and severe alteration of the
evolutionary process," Terry Erwin writes." And E. 0. Wilson notes: "The question I am asked most frequently about the diversity of life:
if enough species are extinguished, will the ecosystem collapse, and will the extinction of most other species follow soon afterward? The only
answer anyone can give is: possibly. By the time we find out, however, it might be too late. One planet, one experiment."" So biodiversity
keeps the world running. It has value in and for itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of
biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by
eliminating rivets, we play Russian
roulette with global ecology and human futures: "It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of
species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains
heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of
the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in
which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a
thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.""
Impact --- Hurricanes/Storms
Science cooperation leads to a better understanding of hurricanes and other storms --crucial data.
Lempinen 12 (Edward W., Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences, Vaughan C. Turekian,
director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, Peter Agre, Nobel laureate in chemistry and former president
of AAAS, “Oceans, Weather, Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,”
AAAS --- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 5-1-12,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml)
Atmospheric Science¶ Atmospheric
research is another area where Cuba and the United States share
tangible common interests. Hurricanes and other storms go over Cuba en route to the United States.
Clues gained from atmospheric conditions over the Caribbean can give insights—and perhaps early warning—
about tornados in Oklahoma and Arkansas, or storms in Chicago and New York.¶ It is an area of particular interest for Turekian, an atmospheric
geochemist. “There
is no doubt that real atmospheric science involving Cuba—measurements, understanding of
important not only for better understanding of transport of African dust, but also
for getting a handle on how atmospheric conditions and dynamics affect the Gulf of Mexico and the
southeastern United States,” he said.¶ “Given that tornadoes are driven by really complicated dynamics
that involve large amounts of warm air coming up through the Gulf and interacting with cold fronts, any data we can gain can
atmospheric conditions—is
mean lives saved .... But you can’t hope to understand things like storms as they affect the Southeast Coast of the
United States without
having better joint cooperation between scientists in the U.S. and Cuba, and without
research, instruments, and calibration to measure dynamics that affect us both.Ӧ Still, both Turekian and Robock suggested that official
mistrust and the
trade embargo combine to make such collaboration on climate research difficult, if not
impossible.¶ Robock, in an interview, outlined efforts by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder to install global
positioning system devices in the central Cuban city of Camaguey. The GPS devices receive signals from satellites; microwave signals are
affected by transmission through the atmosphere, and depending on the density of the atmosphere, that allows for insights on weather and
climate change.¶ There are nearly 100 such devices in the Caribbean, Robock explained, but Cuba, though one of the largest land masses in the
Caribbean, hosts none of them.¶ “Basic weather data are already shared by all the countries of the world,” he said. “But taking specific
measurements there with the GPS would be useful to Cubans and to the larger community. It gives you better information about the state of
the atmosphere—temperature, humidity, soil moisture. That’s what you need to start a weather forecast model.”¶ But the Cuban military is
wary of the GPS devices, and the nation has not approved the installation. At the same time, the U.S. embargo of Cuba makes it impossible for
Cuban scientists to come to the United States for even a week-long course in how to use a computer climate model.¶ “Scientists
from
both countries want to work together,” Robock said. “We’ll do the best we can... but there are significant
limitations.”¶ “From the scientific standpoint,” Turekian added, “this is about the ability to go to a place to
make measurements so that we can better understand hurricanes and other conditions that affect the
Caribbean and the southeastern United States. To do that, we need relationships and protocols so that Americans and the
Cubans together can benefit from measurements in Cuba.”
Hurricanes disproportionately affects the poor and unprivileged --- correct data is key
to solve.
Jorgensen 11 (Ellen, founded Genspace, the world’s first government-compliant DIY biotech lab, Adjunct
Assistant Professor, Pathology Dept. at New York Medical College, “Hurricane Katrina: Humanitarian Obligations
and Lessons Learned,” Case - Specific Briefing Paper Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies University
of Denver, 2011, http://www.du.edu/korbel/criic/humanitarianbriefs/ellenjorgenson.pdf)
According to Fred Cuny, the
root cause of most disasters is poverty (Van Arsdale 2011). Risk exists in the
environment and impinges upon people; vulnerability exists within cohorts of people. Those in areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina were at - risk as vulnerabilities such as impoverishment combined with
the low - land geography and environmental risks of the hurricane. Poverty is particularly highlighted
as a primary construct in protection, relief, and prevention. Long - term vulnerabilities interact with risk factors that exist in the
environment, creating problems in humanitarian emergencies. As Barbara Thomas Slater explains, poverty reflects long - lasting systematic
inequalities in life chances (Van Arsdale 2011). Furthermore, speaking generally, those systematic inequalities related to ethnicity, gender,
religion and caste, lead to unequal outcomes: i ncome, power, privilege, fame, and deference. William Felice states that poverty should be a
central concern for humanitarians (Van Arsdale 2011) . Thomas Pogge argues that people of the developed world must be mandated to tackle
poverty. To paraphrase him, “The inadequate response we’ve had to poverty is in part due to thoughtlessness, and we must morally situate
ourselves in respect to poverty and chose to act. If we fail to act we must understand the consequences” (Van Arsdale 2011). H uman
accountability and responsibility are associated with a theory of obligation. These are not options, nor abstractions; we must help and sustain
help to those in need. Humanitarian action and motivation must revolve around need, not be donor - driven . W ithin the theory of obligation
ethics, practice and theory come into play (Van Arsdale 2011) . Regarding ethics in the example of Hurricane Katrina , key philosophical
questions must be asked. Can we really afford to proceed as a nation without addressing how race, poverty, and class infiltrate the
opportunities of so many citizens? Why is it that the poor of New Orleans, as well as the poor of the nation, are hidden from us? T he factors of
race and social economic status contribute . The implications ar e critical as “lessons learned ” emerge and as the United States learns to better
prevent and respond to future disasters. Following the hurricane, the belief that the poor black population of New Orleans brought their
suffering on themselves was reflect ed throughout the media, including remarks made by religious leaders and talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly
and Rush Limbaugh. One journalist argued, “poor, often black hurricane victims brought all the misery and death on themselves, because they
weren’t mo tivated enough to succeed in America” (Dyson 2006, 181). Race
and socioeconomic status in fact are reflected
as the theory of obligation is considered in practice. Poverty is not a choice, as several humanitarians previously explained.
Yet obligations must exceed simple morality and be underlined in government, NGO and individual
reactions to disasters, interpreted through policy and practice. Recommendations and Conclusions: This
document has highlighted key findings from Hurricane Katrina. From these “lessons learned ,” what can NGOs and other organizations do to
better serve individuals in the future? My recommendations are centered on leadership, the inclusion of the local people, positive media
participation, FEMA restructurings, improved preparation, societal conver sations, education and advocacy. Franceria Moore explains how the
emphasis in education has not only helped survivors who are children get back to leading a “ normal life, ” but has also aided in breaking the
perpetual cycle of poverty. The implementation of Freedom Schools, which is specifically targeted towards black youth, has helped
communities rebuild, gain hope, and develop through youth leadership. She states how important it is for NGOs and other organizations to not
only put efforts into education to enhance basic rebuilding, but to enhance long - term aid that helps break poverty and reduce vulnerabilities.
She also believes that relief efforts should not only target rescue of the survivors, but supplement relief sites by delivering proper tools and
supplies . For example, areas like Montgomery and Baton Rouge did not have as much physical damage, but nonetheless were not well
equipped to handle the thousands of people attempting to escape the devastating conditions in New Orleans. Cities receiving survivors need to
be part of the relief effor t writ large and provided adequate tools and supplies to assist the influx of displaced people (Moore 2011). The
main leaders in this disaster encountered problems of poor communication, misguided reactions to
early warning systems , and mass criticism amongst the public. It is important in any disaster that communication from the top down
and bottom up be clear and concise. Furthermore, officials should not underestimate a potential disaster. Local officials in
particular should be held accountable for knowing the specific vulnerabilities of the people they represent. This information also needs to be
better reflected in the quickness of government representatives like the National Guard in provid ing aid. T he blame game is nonsensical when
people are still being evacuated in an emergency. Better
collection of data and systems of reporting need to be set
up, especially in geographical areas at high risk for natural disaster.
NGOs can also help in identifyin g towns that
are in greater need of long - term development and wh ich could be identified as promising sites exhibiting early warning signs of disaster.
Impact --- Malaria (destabilization)
Science cooperation solves malaria, which leads to regional destabilization.
Lempinen 12 (Edward W., Public Information Officer at The World Academy of Sciences, Vaughan C. Turekian,
director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, Peter Agre, Nobel laureate in chemistry and former president
of AAAS, “Oceans, Weather, Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,”
AAAS --- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 5-1-12,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml)
Malaria and the Caribbean¶ Both Turekian and Agre cited malaria
as one area where the U.S. scientists might learn
much from Cuba. And that might tie in to an interest shared by both countries in working to support
health and human development in the impoverished Caribbean nation of Haiti.¶ “Malaria is endemic
in Haiti,” Agre said. “It was endemic in Cuba, but one of the objectives of the revolution was to eliminate
malaria—and they achieved that. How did they do it? That’s something I would like to pursue.... In Cuba, vaccinations and
prevention are a high priority.Ӧ Unchecked malaria or other diseases in Haiti can be a destabilizing factor
even for neighboring nations, Turekian said. “It leads to a lot of people moving back and forth, and it
reduces Haiti’s internal strength and stability,” he explained. “So Cuba and the United States could have
mutual interests in working on this.Ӧ So too with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), added Agre. Because of hurricanes,
earthquakes, crime and other human disasters, PTSD is widespread in Haiti. “The Cubans have an interest in that, and we have an interest in
that,” he said. “We could work on it together.”
Latin America instability causes extinction.
Manwaring 5 (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at
Dickinson College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October
2005, pg. PUB628.pdf)
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term
security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state
status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and
terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host “evil”
networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or
some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things
people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These
means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty,
starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and
proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing,
warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill
over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout
the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez
considers these
actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to
establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude
to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a
targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and
society. Chávez’s
intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected
Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular
perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to
conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic
issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability
and the threat of subverting or
destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can
take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will
control that instability. As a consequence, failing
and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue
states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s
democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and
leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the
longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states
and people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global
security, peace, and prosperity.65
Impact --- Oil Spills
Science cooperation facilitates the flow of tech and expertise to solve oil spills.
Piñon and Muse 10 (Jorge R., former president and CEO of Transworld Oil USA, thirty-two year career in the
energy sector began when he joined Shell Oil Company’s supply and transportation organization, Robert L., lawyer
in Washington, D.C. with substantial experience in U.S. laws relating to Cuba, among his clients are major
corporations engaged in international trade and foreign direct investment, “Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why
U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical,” Brookings Institute, May 2010,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill%20cuba%20pinon/0518_oil_
spill_cuba_pinon.pdf)
Responding to Oil Spills in Cuban Waters. To
respond effectively to an oil-related marine accident, any company
operating in or near Cuban territorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and
equipment of U. S. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the
technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine environment. Obviously, the establishment of
working relations between the United States and Cuba to facilitate marine environmental protection
is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early
end to an oil spill. A good framework for such practical cooperation is the 1990 international Convention on oil pollution Preparedness,
Response and Cooperation. The Convention is designed to encourage and facilitate international cooperation and mutual assistance in
preparing for and responding to major oil pollution incidents. Signatory nations are charged with developing and maintaining adequate
capabilities to deal with such an emergency. In
the case of Cuba and the United States, those capabilities must be
transnational because there is no barrier to the movement of oil from one country’s waters to
another’s. Cuba and the United states are also members of the international Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) adopted in 1973. The MARPOL Convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine
environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine
environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) is another comprehensive umbrella agreement that provides the legal
framework for cooperative regional and national actions to protect the marine environment. So, the
commitment to marine
environmental cooperation already exists at the often aspirational level of international accords. What is needed now
is for the United States and Cuba to develop appropriate regulatory and procedural protocols that
ensure the free movement of equipment and expertise between the two countries that will be
indispensable to a satisfactory response to a future oil spill. Establishing specific protocols cannot wait because nothing
in U. s .-Cuba relations is ever simple. for example, disaster response coordination between Cuba and the United
states will involve various government departments such as the environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Commerce because U. s .-origin
equipment requires licenses for even temporary export to Cuba.
The Gulf is a key ocean biodiversity hotspot
Brenner 8 – Jorge Brenner, March 14th, 2008, "Guarding the Gulf of Mexico's valuable resources"
www.scidev.net/en/opinions/guarding-the-gulf-of-mexico-s-valuable-resources.html
Rich in biodiversity and habitats¶ The Gulf of Mexico is rich in biodiversity and unique habitats , and
hosts the only known nesting beach of Kemp's Ridley, the world's most endangered sea turtle.¶ The
Gulf's circulation pattern gives it biological and socioeconomic importance: water from the Caribbean
enters from the south through the Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico and, after warming in
the basin, leaves through the northern Florida Strait between the United States and Cuba to form the
Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic that helps to regulate the climate of western Europe.
Extinction
Clark and Downes 6
Dana Clark, Center for International Environmental Law, and David Downes, US Interior Dept. Policy
Analysis Senior Trade Advisor, 2006, What price biodiversity?,
http://www.ciel.org/Publications/summary.html
Biodiversity is the diversity of life on earth, on which we depend for our survival . The variability of and
within species and ecosystems helps provide some of our basic needs: food, shelter, and medicine, as
well as recreational, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic benefits. Diverse ecosystems create the air we breathe,
enrich the soil we till and purify the water we drink. Ecosystems also regulate local and global
climate. No one can seriously argue that biodiversity is not valuable. Nor can anyone seriously argue that biodiversity is not at
risk. There are over 900 domestic species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and 4,000 additional
species are candidates for listing. We are losing species as a result of human activities at hundreds of times the
natural rate of extinction. The current rate of extinction is the highest since the mass extinction of species
that wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago. The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation The question which engenders
serious controversy is whether society can afford the costs associated with saving biodiversity. Opponents of biodiversity conservation
argue that the costs of protecting endangered species are too high. They complain that the regulatory burden on private landowners is too
heavy, and that conservation measures impede development. They seek to override scientific determinations with economic
considerations, and to impose cost/benefit analyses on biodiversity policy making. An equally important question, however, is whether we
can afford not to save biodiversity. The
consequences of losing this critical resource could be
devastating. As we destroy species and habitat, we endanger food supplies (such as crop varieties
that impart resistance to disease, or the loss of spawning grounds for fish and shellfish); we lose the opportunity to develop
new medicines or other chemicals; and we impair critical ecosystem functions that protect our water
supplies, create the air we breathe, regulate climate and shelter us from storms. We lose creatures of cultural importance - the
bald eagle is an example of the cultural significance of biodiversity and also of the need for strong regulations to protect species from
extinction. And, we lose the opportunity for mental or spiritual rejuvenation through contact with nature.
AT: Status quo solves
There are still considerable obstacles --- distrust and visas.
Ordonez, their author, 12 (Franco, regional correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, “Scientists work to
bridge political gap between Cuba, U.S.,” McClatchy News, 5-21-12,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/21/149603/scientists-work-to-bridge-political.html#.UfwlE22DL1U)
There are still considerable obstacles to be overcome. In addition to needing visas to travel to the
United States , Cuban scientists work with fewer resources. The Internet also is not easily accessible.
In February, Fabian Pina, a scientist with Cuba’s Center for Coastal Ecosystems Research in Cayo Coco,
Cuba, was awarded a $150,000 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to study goliath grouper
populations in Cuba, the first time a Cuban researcher has received the prestitigous grant, a kin, in the
marine science world, to winning a MacArthur “genius grant.” But Pina was supposed to be in the 2011
class. It took months to get proper approvals from U.S. officials , who were concerned the grant
money would be taken or taxed by the Cuban government.
Economic blockade enforces travel restrictions on US scientists.
ACN 9 (American Communications Network, “US Blockade of Cuba Obstructs US-Cuba Scientific Cooperation,”
11-6-09, http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php/show/articles/1099:us-blockade-of-cuba-obstructsus-cuba-scientific-cooperation)
The Vice President of the Cuban Council of Ministers, Jose Ramon Fernandez, said on Thursday that
current obstacles to US-Cuba scientific cooperation show the anachronistic nature of Washington’s
economic blockade of the Caribbean nation. During the closing session of the
Congress on Biotechnology Havana 2009 that began last Monday in Havana with the presence of some 500 experts from 30
countries, including two Nobel Prize laureates, Fernandez compared this large foreign participation with
the poor attendance of US scientists, many of whom were not allowed to travel to Cuba by the US
Government. The Cuban official recalled that Cuba produces 85% of the medicines its needs, which ratifies, he said, the validity of the
financial, commercial and
program of biotechnological development initiated by the leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro in the early 1980s. He added that Cuba
produces eight out the 11 vaccines included in the national immunization program such as the vaccine against Hepatitis B, while work is
underway to produce therapeutic vaccines against cancer and another one against Hepatitis C. Also present in the closing session were the
Cuban Public Health Minister Jose Ramon Balaguer, and Ismael Clark, President of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. Germans Robert Huber and
Harald zur Hausen, winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1988) and Physiology and Medicine (2008), respectively, participated in the event
and each of them offered key lectures.
Ethanol
Link
Cuban sugar ethanol production trades off with US production.
Specht 13 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D.,
Washington University in St. Louis 2012, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental
Effects on the United States,” UC Davis, 4-24-13, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Unless Congress raises the RFS by a sufficient degree to absorb all domestic ethanol production on top
of these new imports, the increase in such imports would likely damage the domestic ethanol industry.
“Whatever the level or type of biofuel, increased imports (holding other factors constant) would
reduce the quantity of domestically produced biofuels, which would reduce the demand for biofuel
feedstocks.” 138 Because very little ethanol is currently imported into the United States, law and
policy changes that successfully fostered the development of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol
industry would have a significant economic impact on the United States. Such a change would have
the largest economic effect on two regions: the Midwest, which is currently the primary source of
ethanol production in the United States, and the Southeast, especially Florida. This Part of the Article
will discuss the likely economic effects of such policy changes first on the Midwest, then on Florida, then
on the United States generally.
Cuba’s sugar ethanol has a substantial impact on the global market.
Johnson 8 (Keith, staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal, “Sweet Home, Santiago: Cuba’s Ethanol Future,”
WSJ, 2-19-08, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/19/sweet-home-santiago-cubas-ethanolfuture/?mod=googlenews_wsj)
The academics who try to make sense of Cuba’s economy—and divine its post-Castro future—have spent a lot of time
wondering if Cuba could be a baby Brazil, which has become the world’s biggest producer of ethanol by pouring half its sugar crop into the fuel.
The short answer, from the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy’s Juan Tomas Sanchez:
The 1 billion gallons [of sugarcane-derived ethanol] that Brazil will export in 2007 could have been
produced in [the Cuban province of] Camaguey. Mr. Sanchez set out to determine how much ethanol Cuba could produce
after an exhaustive study of Cuban land use. In a best-case scenario, where post-Castro Cuba opened the door to hefty foreign investments to
its sugar industry and without any barriers to the U.S. market, Cuba could produce 3.2 billion gallons of
ethanol a year, Mr. Sanchez figures. (Other academics guess it would be closer to 2 billion gallons.) But unlike Brazil, which has a thirsty
domestic auto market to feed, Cuba’s relative lack of internal demand would free most of that ethanol for
export . Mr. Sanchez figures as much as 3 billion gallons, worth around $7 billion at today’s prices. Hard currency aside,
sugarcane ethanol appears to have two other selling points over other varieties. It seems to produce
lower carbon-dioxide emissions than biofuel made from corn, soy, or palm oil. And sugarcane biomass, long
modernize
used to fire distilleries in Cuba, could produce an additional 4 gigawatts of power (think four nuclear plants) for the electricity-starved nation.
Doubtless some big biofuels producers are rubbing their hands today. Another ASCE academic reported recently that Archer Daniels Midland
tried to break into the Cuban sugarcane ethanol business in the mid-1990s, but was rebuffed by the regime. Maybe Raul will be more
receptive?
Cuba’s sugar ethanol provides serious competition with US corn ethanol.
Forman 13 (Johanna Mendelson, senior associate with Americas Program at CSIS, where she works on
renewable energy, the Americas, civil-military relations, and post-conflict reconstruction, “Brazil - Cuba
Partnership: Island Nation Could Become a Major Ethanol Producer,” Center for Strategic & International Studies,
Vol III, Issue 1, 2-8-13, http://csis.org/files/publication/130108_SJohnson_HemInsider.pdf)
The Cuban sugar industry is about to a get a big lift after stagnating for almost a decade. According to news reports, the Compania de Obras en
Infraestructura, a subsidiary of the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht is gearing up to make a $60 million investment to begin managing
Cuba’s 5 de Septiembre mill in Cienfuegos province. This is the first time since the 1959 revolution that the government in Havana has accepted
foreign participation in this industry. However, what
is more relevant for regional energy security is that Brazilian technology
and know - how in the production
of ethanol will transform Cuba into an export platform for sugar-based
ethanol, a major competitor with the U.S. corn - based variety. Having a source of inexpensive and
cleaner ethanol close by could create significant competition for U.S. corn growers given the U.S. fuel
mandates that require ethanol in America’s gasoline blends, with required amounts likely to increase
over the next four years. While it will not be the reason that the United States ends its trade embargo with Cuba, energy
security may be a factor in nudging domestic political deliberations forward. Growing availability of cane - based
ethanol may also help supply the needs of energy deficient Caribbean and Central American states.
Cuban sugar production forces US producers to compete.
Knapp 9 (Thomas L., Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society, “Who
Benefits From the US Trade Embargo of Cuba?,” Center for a Stateless Society, 11-2-09,
http://c4ss.org/content/1369)
What would be the result of an end to the embargo — assuming, as it is never safe to do, that both
governments were actually willing to drop it into the wastebasket of history? On the economic side,
consumers and non-rent-seeking producers in both countries would benefit. Sugar in particular would
get cheaper in the US as American producers were forced to compete in an open market instead of
being “protected” from Cuban cane. Goods of all types would get cheaper in Cuba as American
imports which only have to be shipped across 90 miles of ocean arrive to compete with their
European equivalents. Producers in both countries would have new markets opened to them, and
capital from both countries would have new, competitive places to flow to.
Key to US Ag
Corn ethanol plays a crucial role in US agriculture.
Bachman 7 (Justin, reporter for Bloomberg, “Con: Ethanol Is Our Most Viable Choice,” Bloomberg
Businessweek – The Debate Room, 2-1-07 [earliest comment],
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/02/ethanol_too_much_hypeand_corn.html)
Additionally, the
ethanol industry plays a crucial role for the U.S. Farm Belt. Higher corn prices are
helping to recharge economically depressed rural economies, and new ethanol plants bring decent-paying
jobs to areas that have suffered chronic underemployment (see BusinessWeek.com, 01/10/07, “Who Profits from
Corn’s Pop?”). The 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol used last year consumed only 20% of the nation’s corn
crop. Meeting Bush’s goal would still require less than half of the entire corn crop—and that’s only if no new corn production is added.
Moreover, the U.S.’s vital agriculture economy depends heavily on healthy corn prices for farmers, and the
current cost of around $4 per bushel is manageable for the economy. The genius of free-market capitalism will sort out what needs to happen
as corn prices mature and other corn-dependent industries compete for the feedstock. Ethanol also could become much cheaper than it is now,
roughly in line with unleaded gasoline, if Washington ends tariffs on imported ethanol. That tariff, 54 cents a gallon, distorts ethanol’s real cost
and slows its U.S. expansion. Archer Daniels Midland ADM, VeraSun Energy VSE, and other ethanol producers are spending heavily to research
feed materials beyond corn, “cellulosic ethanol” (produced from cornstalks, sorghum, wood chips, and switchgrass), and the like. These efforts
would render moot worries that greater corn use will adversely affect the overall economy. Regardless of feed source, ethanol
has
proved a viable industry, as seen by Brazil’s dramatic success in converting its fuel systems to the fuel.
Key to environment
Sugar ethanol is the most environmentally sustainable fuel --- experts agree.
Schroeder 10 (Joanna, reporter for Domestic Fuel, “EPA Deems Sugarcane Ethanol an Advanced Biofuel,”
Domestic Fuel, 2-4-10, http://domesticfuel.com/2010/02/04/epa-deems-sugarcane-ethanol-an-advanced-biofuel/)
Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed
in its expanded rules of implementation for the Renewable
ethanol made from sugarcane is considered an advanced biofuel that lowers
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by more than 50 percent . Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane
ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect
Fuel Standard (RFS), that
land use change (ILUC) emissions. “The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how
this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while
diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane
Industry Association (UNICA). Brazil is the second largest ethanol producer in the world, behind the U.S., and the largest producer of ethanol
made from sugarcane. Sugarcane ethanol, when compared to most types of ethanol produced today, yields less CO2 and can be less expensive
for drives to purchase at the pump, this according to UNICA. The organization also says that “many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a
good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy
security.” A
recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since
1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.
“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the
full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG
reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those
who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation
biofuel with third generation performance,” said Velasco. UNICA concluded by congratulating the administration for its “transparency and
scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking,” and encouraged other governments around the world to “take note of the manner that
EPA has handled this process.”
Relations ADv
More Relations Spillover
Plan guarantees strong relations with Cuba- spills over throughout Latin America
Milam, 2008 (Lacey Milam, Communications Professional and correspondent for the Daily Beacon, Cuban embargo perpetuates
hostility, communism”, The Daily Beacon, 11/21/2008, http://utdailybeacon.com/opinion/columns/untitled-column-by-laceymilam/2008/nov/21/cuban-embargo-perpetuates-hostility-communism/)
Finally, the
United States needs to normalize relations with Cuba in order to increase national security .
and Venezuela, two unfriendly nations, have a close bilateral relationship. If the United States
allowed trade, Cuba would be less dependent on Venezuela and more dependent on the United
States. This would break up the threatening Cuba-Venezuela block and facilitate friendlier relations
Currently Cuba
with all of Latin America . Terse but stable diplomatic relations would be safer than the current
situation. ¶ Almost fifty years after it was established, the embargo has still not worked. It failed to end Fidel Castro’s regime or create a
democratic Cuba. The only reason to continue the embargo is as a symbolic gesture against oppressive communism. However, I would argue
that if not for the embargo, Cuba might already be a democratic nation.¶ In 1970, 17 of 26 Latin American nations had authoritarian regimes.
Today, only Cuba has a strictly authoritarian regime. The
embargo serves as an excuse for failed policies in the nation,
and it has allowed Cuba to remain isolated from economic trends like globalization. Globalization is credited
with encouraging democracy and reducing human rights violations throughout the world. It seems counterintuitive to continue the embargo
and discourage globalization and the market dynamic from coming into play in Cuba.
Lifting the embargo specifically key to relations throughout Latin America
Haass, 2009 (Richard N. Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations Expertise in U.S. foreign policy; international security;
globalization; Asia; Middle East , “Forget About Fidel”, The Daily Beast, 03/06/2009,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html)
The Obama administration has
a great opportunity to begin modifying U.S. policy before or during the Summit of the
new U.S. policy would not only increase U.S. influence in Cuba, but it
probably would also be the single most powerful way in which Obama could improve the U.S.'s
Americas, to be held in April in Trinidad. A
standing throughout the Western Hemisphere . The United States can engage with China and Russia, not
to mention North Korea, Syria and even Iran. Surely it ought to be able to do so with Cuba.
AT: Castro says no
Castro wants to open relations with the US
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317
Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba. Fidel Castro
says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The
U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open
dialogue with China; Cuba should be no different. This idea will also open doors to establish relationships
with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush Administration should also consider supporting
the Cuba Working Group’s 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform.
AT: Squo remittances solves
Squo remittances and travel easing not sufficient to solve
IGC, 2012 (Intentious Guest Contributions, “Inertia creeps: time to end the Cuban embargo”, 08/22/2012, Intentious,
http://intentious.com/2012/08/22/inertia-creeps-time-to-end-the-cuban-embargo/)
When Obama came to office in 2008 it was with an ocean of goodwill and hope. He has
repaid some of this faith in regards
to Cuba, with an easing of restrictions on remittances and travel however they are baby steps and
not enough . Over time it has become clear Obama is simply a US President and not the messiah many built him up to be. The continued
operation of Guantanamo Bay prison and the incarceration of Bradley Manning are two of the stand out failures of the Obama regime.
Health care, marriage equality, unemployment, climate change and the continued invasion of
Afghanistan, while attracting criticism, have less of a direct Presidential influence. Ending the Cuban
embargo would need support from congress, however Obama should stamp his authority and lead
the way in 2013.
Environment Advantage
1AC Environment
America desperately needs to invest in alternative energy
Kurniadhi , 2013 (Wisnu, Web Design and Front End developer, “Alternative Energy Research and Development for Investment”,
March 2013, Alternative Technology, http://alternativtechnology.blogspot.com/2013/03/alternative-energy-research-and.html#.UfcOPo2sim5)
Alternative Energy Research and Development for Investment. The
US government must continue to back the expansion
of the role of alternative energy research and development and its implementation by companies and
homeowners. Although this writer believes in the reign of the free market and that “that government is best which governs least”, our
current system has companies and people expecting federal backing of major initiative with direct investment, in the form of tax breaks, rebate
incentives, and even direct central bank investment into the alternative energy industry. The
US and its citizenry need to invest
all of the time and energy that they can spare to the conversion from a fossil fuel burning society to
one that is green for several different reasons. The green economy will not harm the environment or the quality of our air
like fossil fuel burning does. We can become the energy independent nation that we need to be by cutting away our need to import oil,
especially oil that is produced by anti-American nations such as Iran. Ultimately,
renewable energies and extremely
efficient energies like atomic energy are far less expensive than the continuous mining and drilling for
fossil fuels. If we do not invest in our future now, catastrophe awaits us. We are going to need to consume more
energy than ever in our history as we sail into the 21st century and beyond—our dependency on foreigners for meeting these energy needs
only leaves us open to sabotage while draining our coffers in order to fill other nations'. It
can be argued that federal, state, and
local governments should work in conjunction on the issue of alternative energy research and
development and implement mandatory programs for new home construction and all home
remodeling that stipulate the installation of alternative energy power sources—eventually over a
certain period of years transforming into 100% installation of alternative energy sources for any new
home or corporate building—as well as backing a similar program to have all new vehicles produced in the nation be hybrid vehicles
or hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles by the year 2020. All levels of government could also impose mandatory
compliance laws on construction and utilities companies. The utility companies in all 50 states should be required to
invest in alternative energy research and development while also being required to buy back, at fair rates, excess energy produced by
homeowners through their use of alternative energy power sources.
Strong financial incentives need to be in place for
new companies to invest in developing renewable energies. This would not only make the US energy independent
at the fastest possible rate, but it would stimulate the growth of the economy and provide tens of thousands of
new, good-paying jobs for people. Alternative energy generation in the forms of solar, wind,
hydroelectric, biofuel, geothermal, and atomic; alternative energy storage systems such as more
efficient batteris and hydrogen fuel cells; and alternative energy-furthering infrastructures with
superior energy efficiency all need to be brought into the affordable price range through
development. Government investment into these matters would surely help us along.
Removing the embargo is key to environmental cooperation
Conell, 2009 (Christina Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Relations, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?”, Council on Hemispheric Relations, 06/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
Through accidents of geography and history,
Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should
capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by moving to normalize relations and
establishing a framework for environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the
Americas. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida
Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental
conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama
administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing
contemporary issues. If President Obama is sincerely committed to environmental sustainability, he must
forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own
backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward
to find joint solutions to environmental challenges. Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white
sand beaches, extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the
Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada, Cuba
has 12 times more mammal species, 29 times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as many
vascular plant species. Equally important, adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters,
making protection of Cuba’s coastal ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine resources of
Cuba is critical to the economic health of North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The
U.S. and Cuba also share an ancient
deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys support
important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles, dolphins
and manatees in both countries. Fifty percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic, signifying the
importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the paradisiacal vision that Christopher Columbus
observed when landing on the island in 1492.
The embargo, specifically, opens new ethanol markets
Conason, 2008 (Joe Conason, the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com, “One more good reason to lift the embargo on Cuba”, SALON,
07/18/2008, http://www.salon.com/2008/07/18/cuba_6/)
There are many smart reasons to reconsider U.S. policy toward the communist island, not least of which is that the embargo has accomplished
almost nothing over the past five decades, except to solidify the Castro regime. It has also caused considerable and needless suffering for the
innocent Cuban population, while attracting votes and money from the hard-line exile leadership in South Florida. But measured according to
the presumed objectives of removing or even influencing the regime, it has failed completely. Now there is at least one more incentive to
change course. With
its huge potential for producing clean, renewable, sugar-based ethanol, Cuba
represents a significant source of energy that will remain unavailable to American consumers unless
we undo the embargo . Agricultural experts have estimated that Cuba could eventually provide more
than 3 billion gallons of fuel annually, perhaps even more when new technologies for extracting energy
from sugar cane waste (known as “bagasse”) come online — placing the island third in world ethanol
production, behind the U.S. and Brazil. Given the relatively small demand for auto fuel in Cuba, nearly all of that
ethanol would be available for export to its nearest neighbor.
Renewed Cuban ethanol fields transitions the US to alternative energy
Cajide, 2012 (Jeanette, Business Development at Dialexa, Cofounder at Blurtt, Blogger at The Huffington Post, Fellow at Criterion
Ventures, Senior Turnaround Management, Consultant at CRG Partners Associate in the Americas, Special Situations Group at Goldman Sachs,
“US-Cuba Policy: Moving Forward”, Huffington Post, November 9, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanette-cajide/us-cubapolicy_b_2088347.html)
In the early '90s when Russia pulled its aid from Cuba, the Cuban economy collapsed. This is what is called in Cuba as the "Special Period."
Times were extremely tough during this time for the Cuban people. Today,
Cuba is vulnerable to the volatility of the
Venezuelan government and if history repeats itself, the effects will be detrimental to people of Cuba.
With Obama re-elected, I strongly urge the U.S.A. to consider lifting the embargo so that it can maintain a
bilateral interest in the country, allow Cuba another life-line so that the country no longer relies mainly on Venezuela,
Russia or China and allow the free-market to be created naturally by trade, investments and establishing global business presence is Cuba. By
lifting the economic embargo, the U.S. can begin to direct the change that needs to take place in Cuba.
The U.S. can benefit from the economic growth that Cuba could bring to both the U.S. and Latin
America and send a message of political goodwill to the entire world by restoring diplomatic ties
between the two countries. The elimination of the embargo would have an immediate impact in the U.S. economy, create a new
opportunity for direct investments, encourage entrepreneurship, and is significant to the national security interests of the U.S.A.. I realize there
are many factors and risks than need to be considered, but the U.S. has impacted such change in other communist countries and we can work
to apply those same skills and tactics to Cuba. The Cuban literacy rate is near 99 percent. Education is an important value for the Cuban people.
This gives me confidence that the ingenuity and education level of the Cuban people will be a key factor in the transition of Cuba into a freemarket economy. Only 90 miles from our shoreline are some of the most literate and educated people who work for considerably less money.
In my visit to Cuba in 2008, I learned the average monthly wage of a Cuban worker is equivalent to $20 in U.S. currency. I also learned there is a
dual currency system of Cuban pesos and Cuban dollars, making it very difficult for Cubans to acquire any type of goods. To elaborate further,
there are two types of stores for goods and services in Cuba for each currency type. The "Cuban dollar stores," which are populated with the
latest goods we have here in the U.S., even with a unilateral embargo, and the "Cuban peso stores," which literally have no goods available. The
Cuban government pays the Cuban people in Cuban pesos, making it nearly impossible for the average Cuban to get Cuban dollars unless they
"exchange" their own currency from the Cuban peso to Cuban dollar. The Cuban peso is worth 24 times less than the Cuban dollar. This system
makes it nearly impossible to live in Cuba unless you receive funding from outside of Cuba. The relevance of all this is that if you ask the Cuban
government why the situation is what it is in Cuba, they blame the embargo. By lifting the embargo the Cuban government runs out of excuses
and can no longer blame the "imperialists." Once
we can normalize relations, one consideration to explore with
Cuba is developing an alternative energy industry in Cuba and use Brazil as an example. Cuba used to
be one of the top producers of sugar cane. Many of the fields sit empty today. If Cuba could rebuild its
sugar cane industry and begin to produce ethanol-from-sugar, given its close proximity to the U.S.A.,
shipping costs from Cuba would be lower than shipping costs from Brazil, and the U.S. could create a
sustainable alternative energy model . I realize that my vision for Cuba will not happen overnight. In fact, I am well aware that
these changes might not happen in my lifetime but I am writing this the day after the election so that the Obama Administration can think
about how it will use the next four years when it comes to Cuba-U.S. policy. The
Cuban people have been struggling for over
50 years. Enough is enough. It's time for a change. Let's continue moving forward.
Lifting the embargo sends a strong international signal of environmental leadership
Conell, 2009 (Christina Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Relations, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?”, Council on Hemispheric Relations, 06/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate
system. This legally binding international agreement attempts
to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor
withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is nonbinding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. This decline demonstrates that
the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard environmental track record. By aiding
Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would
enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena.
Climate change increasingly becoming a threat
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
While it is currently impossible to blame any single climatological event on climate change, even one
as large as a major regional drought, scientists have long predicted that such droughts as the Midwest
experienced in 2012 are the type of events that will result from climate change.192 Adding to the already
overwhelming evidence that climate change is occurring (and should no longer be a matter of debate),193 July 2012 was the hottest month the
United States has experienced in 118 years of meteorological records.194 The
key to halting (or at least slowing) climate
change will be to keep as large an amount as is possible of the carbon stored in fossil fuels — coal, oil, and
natural gas — in the ground and out of the atmosphere.195 By providing an alternative to petroleum,
biofuels can help to reduce oil consumption and therefore aid in the extremely important challenge of
keeping carbon underground. As the United States faces the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil, biofuels must be a part
of the solution. However, it is imperative that policies promoting biofuels are capable of accomplishing the United
States’ environmental and energy goals. Neither a wholesale abandonment of federal involvement in the development of
biofuels nor a continuation of the corncentric status quo is an acceptable way forward. The development of a Cuban sugarcanebased ethanol industry is part of a potential solution. Whether the former incentives for the domestic ethanol that
expired at the end of 2011 will be revived by a future Farm Bill remains to be seen. Even if they are not, as long as the U.S. trade
embargo against Cuba continues there will be little chance of that country making a substantial
investment in the development of an entire new industry. It is understandable, for face-saving reasons, that United
States policy-makers would not consider ending the decades-long trade embargo against Cuba as long as Fidel Castro remains alive.196 But,
as soon as possible after a governmental transition begins in Cuba, United States policy-makers
should consider taking steps to encourage the creation of such an industry.
Plan spills over to greater alternative energy and innovation
Milam, 2008 (Lacey Milam, Communications Professional and correspondent for the Daily Beacon, Cuban embargo perpetuates
hostility, communism”, The Daily Beacon, 11/21/2008, http://utdailybeacon.com/opinion/columns/untitled-column-by-laceymilam/2008/nov/21/cuban-embargo-perpetuates-hostility-communism/)
President Hu Jintao of China arrived in Cuba on Tuesday to promote economic ties with the country. China has worked to increase trade with
Latin American nations from $13 billion in 2000 to more than $100 billion in 2007. Meanwhile, the United States continues to alienate Latin
American nations and miss economic opportunities by refusing to recognize Cuba.¶ The
current United States embargo is illadvised for a number of reasons. To begin with, the embargo is ideologically flawed. The United States seeks to
punish Cuba for human rights violations, but economic sanctions create undue hardship for ordinary
people, not political leaders. Therefore, the embargo only hurts the people it is designed to help.¶ Another
reason the United States needs to lift the embargo is because it stands to reap significant economic benefits from doing
so. Despite bitter sentiments on both sides, Cuba and the United States have shared interests that could lead to a
mutually beneficial relationship. An Oct. 9 Christian Science Monitor article by Jennifer Gerz-Escandon explores the economic
possibilities of lifting the embargo. ¶ For example, United States farmers have sought to ship goods to Cuba for years. Ending the
embargo would mean the end of quotas and licenses for farmers, who would enjoy low shipping costs to
the profitable Cuban markets.¶ The United States could also benefit from alternative energy research
in Cuba. Cuba possesses large nickel and sugarcane resources, as well as a surplus of talented
engineers. All three of these resources can be used to develop alternative fuels. Therefore, combining United
States investors with Cuban resources could lead to innovation and technological advancements . Both
nations would benefit from moving
toward greater energy independence .
Imported Cuban ethanol much more efficient combating climate change—multiple
warrants
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Nonetheless, the factors that go into these scientific evaluations, are important for understanding the larger picture of the ethanol issue, and
thus will be discussed. Using
any form of ethanol as a transportation fuel combats climate change because
the carbon released when ethanol is burned was captured out of the atmosphere by the plants used
to make the ethanol. Contrastingly, the carbon released when gasoline is burned had been stored in the earth for millennia in the form
of crude oil.59 This simple fact is complicated by the reality that the entire process of getting ethanol into the fuel tanks of drivers — from
growing crops, to creating a refined product, to delivering blended ethanol to gas stations — is reliant on fossil fuels. According to one report,
“If corn
growth required only photosynthesis, if ethanol were produced using solar power, if corn
were instantly transported to ethanol plants, and if no land use changes were needed to grow the
corn, then displacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
approximately [the equivalent of] 11.2 kilograms of [carbon dioxide]. However, fossil fuels are used to grow corn and
produce ethanol.”60
The debit side of the domestic ethanol industry’s climate-change ledger begins to
subtract from the credit side before the corn it uses is even planted. “America’s corn crop might look like a
sustainable, solar-powered system for producing food, but it is actually a huge, inefficient, polluting machine that guzzles fossil fuel.”61 While
advocates for corn production would dispute this characterization of the industry as “inefficient” and “polluting,” it is undeniable
that conventional corn production techniques use large amounts of climate change-exacerbating fossil fuels. Conventional (non-organic) corn
production techniques involve annual applications of fertilizers and pesticides, both largely derived from fossil fuels.62
Warming leads to extinction
Deibel, 2007 (Terry, Professor of National Strategy at the National War College, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”,
pgs. 387-389)
Finally, there
is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent
nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the
stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this
threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near
certainty. Indeed, not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted
that anthropogenic warming is occurring. "In legitimate scientific circles," writes Elizabeth Kolbert, "it is virtually impossible
to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming."83 Evidence from a vast international
scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: • an international panel
predicts "brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century"; • climate
change could "literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine snowcaps and aid the
spread of cholera and malaria"; • "glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and...
worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than they did a decade ago"; • "rising sea temperatures have been
accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes"; • "NASA scientists have
concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second"; • "Earth's
warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each
year" as disease spreads: • "widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad ... killed broad swaths of corals" due to a 2-degree rise in sea
temperatures.84 "The world is slowly disintegrating," concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. "They call it
climate change,... but we just call it breaking up."85 From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the
industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present
they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric
CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase. We
are thus in for significant
global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories
quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms,
spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of
low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands. At a warming of 5 degrees or less the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that
would cover North Carolina's outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer
than its latitude would otherwise allow.86 Economist William Cline once estimated the
damage to the United States alone
from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26
percent of GDP.87 But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback
from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions,
associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring
ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the
best one can conclude is that
"humankind's continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian
roulette with the earth's climate and humanity's life-support system."88 At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, "we're just going to burn everything up; we're going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it
was in the Cretaceous, when there were crocodiles at the poles. And then everything will collapse."89 During the Cold War, astronomer Carl
Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union would not
only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet.90 Global
warming is the post-Cold War era's equivalent of
nuclear winter, at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run, it puts
dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It
is a threat not only to the security and prosperity of
the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
Sugarcane ethanol from Cuba saves environment and biodiversity
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Cuba could
produce a significant amount of ethanol without any negative impacts on native habitat. A striking amount
Another reason Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol could be one of the most environmentally friendly fuels possible is that
of Cuban agricultural land — fifty five percent as of 2007 — is simply lying fallow and is not cultivated with anything.125 Although its character
may have changed due to years of neglect, this land is not virgin native habitat like the grasslands of North Dakota or the Cerrado of Brazil.
Cuba therefore could greatly increase its production of sugarcane, and thus its production of
sugarcane-based ethanol, without negative impacts on wildlife habitat. While it is not environmentally perfect —
no form of energy is — Cuban sugarcane based ethanol would raise fewer environmental concerns than the
fuel sources it would displace: petroleum, domestic corn-based ethanol, and Brazilian sugarcane
based ethanol. Therefore, from a purely environmental perspective, changing U.S. law and policy in order to
promote the importation of Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol should be encouraged.
Biodiversity poses an imminent threat to human survival
Raj 12 (Dr. P.J. Sanjeeva Raj, consultant ecologist and the Professor and Head of the Zoology Department of the Madras Christian College
(MCC), “Beware the loss of biodiversity”, September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/beware-the-loss-ofbiodiversity/article3927062.ece) Professor
Edward O. Wilson, Harvard visionary of biodiversity, observes that
the current rate of biodiversity loss is perhaps the highest since the loss of dinosaurs about 65 million
years ago during the Mesozoic era, when humans had not appeared. He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all
biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is
sure to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this
planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the “Eremozoic
Era, the Age of Loneliness.” Loss of biodiversity is a much greater threat to human survival than even climate
change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has
designated the decade 2011- 2020 as the ‘Biodiversity Decade’ with the chief objective of enabling
humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that during
October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from
193 party countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the
Earth Summit or the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries.
Biodiversity provides all basic needs for our healthy survival — oxygen, food, medicines, fibre, fuel,
energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees, dragonflies, bats, frogs,
house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great
economic loss as well as posing an imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity
mission before us is to inventorise the existing biodiversity, conserve it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.
Ethanol key
Plan solves for global warming
SC, 2011 (SugarCane.org, “Ethanol”, Sugarcane Products, http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/ethanol)
Sugarcane ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel produced by the fermentation of sugarcane juice and
molasses. Because it is a clean, affordable and low-carbon biofuel , sugarcane ethanol has emerged as a
leading renewable fuel for the transportation sector. Ethanol can be used two ways: Blended with gasoline at levels
ranging from 5 to 25 percent to reduce petroleum use, boost octane ratings and cut tailpipe emissions Pure ethanol – a fuel made up of 85 to
Cleaner Air.
Ethanol adds oxygen to gasoline which helps reduce air pollution and harmful emissions in tailpipe
exhaust. Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Compared to gasoline, sugarcane ethanol cuts carbon dioxide
emissions by 90 percent on average. That’s better than any other liquid biofuel produced today at commercial scale. Better
100 percent ethanol depending on country specifications – can be used in specially designed engines Benefits of Ethanol
Performance. Ethanol is a high-octane fuel that helps prevent engine knocking and generates more power in higher compression engines.
Lower Petroleum Usage. Ethanol reduces
global dependence on oil. Sugarcane ethanol is one more good option
for diversifying energy supplies.
Ethanol benefits over other renewables
Barrionuevo, 2006 (Alexei, President of Project Allegro LLC and columnist and foreign correspondent at the New York Times, “A
Range of Estimates on Ethanol's Benefits”, New York Times, June 25, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.html?_r=0)
Would using ethanol save energy? That question, it turns out, is not easy to answer. Ethanol's enthusiasts point to the potential benefits of
replacing gasoline with a renewable energy source that they contend will
reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and cut
greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels. But the benefits of ethanol, particularly when it is produced from corn, are not so
clear cut. A number of researchers who have looked at the issue have concluded that more energy now goes into making a gallon of
ethanol than is contained in that gallon. Others, however, find a net benefit, though most see it as relatively modest. Those who
question whether ethanol is as "green" as advertised say that supporters ignore or downplay the large quantities of natural gas used to produce
ethanol, as well as the diesel fuel used to transport it from plants to markets. Moreover, growing corn requires heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers,
made from natural gas, and requires extensive use of farm machinery, which burns fuel refined from crude oil. Given the complexities of the
calculations, there is a wide range of estimates of the benefits of ethanol. On the positive side, analysts
at the Agriculture
Department concluded in their most recent assessment that ethanol offered a substantial gain,
producing a positive output 67 percent greater than the energy inputs. But others who view ethanol favorably are
more conservative, with several estimating the net energy benefit at about 20 percent. David Pimentel, a professor of
agriculture and life sciences at Cornell University, is one of several researchers who has challenged the
Agriculture Department's conclusion. He has estimated that ethanol requires 29 percent more energy from fossil fuels than it
delivers in savings from not using gasoline. Dr. Pimentel, along with Tadeusz W. Patzek, a civil and environmental engineer from the University
of California at Berkeley, published research finding that the Agriculture Department's analysis excluded the energy required to produce or
repair farm machinery, as well as the steel and cement used to build the plants. The
Agriculture Department counters by
noting that the professors failed to consider the energy benefit of certain ethanol byproducts,
including corn oil and corn gluten, and said they were using old farm machinery data. "They put all the
energy on the ethanol," said Roger Conway, director of the department's office of energy policy and new uses. The Agriculture
Department also points to increases in corn yields, and efficiency improvements in the fertilizer and
ethanol industries, which add to ethanol's energy benefit. Dr. Pimentel acknowledged the omissions
of some byproducts, saying they might have boosted the energy balance to as much as break even. But
he said that even a best-case scenario, using his calculations, did not justify a heavy investment in ethanol. He called the push into ethanol a
"boondoggle" motivated by farm-state politics and big profits. Dr. Pimentel, who first began criticizing ethanol as an energy alternative about
25 years ago, said that he has never been supported by the oil industry. Dr. Patzek has worked as a researcher for an oil company in the past
but said that his biofuels research had received no support from the industry. Several
environmental groups that support
ethanol concede that the energy savings from corn-based ethanol may be limited, but they say it will serve as a crucial bridge
to more efficient sources like switchgrass, a type of prairie grass that could potentially be used to produce ethanol. The
choice of what fuel to use to run an ethanol plant will also play a role in determining its ultimate
energy efficiency.
Ethanol benefits
ACE, 2012 (American Coalition for Ethanol, “Ethanol”, Ethanol.org, http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=34)
Economy & Job Creation Benefits . The production and use of ethanol benefits our economy on all
levels - local, state, and national. From the local communities where the crops are grown and processed to the metropolitan areas
where drivers fill up with a domestically produced fuel, American-made ethanol propels the economy. In its 2002 study "Ethanol and the Local
Community", AUS Consultants and SJH & Company found that: - With
an approximate cost of $60 million for one year of
construction, an ethanol plant expands the local economic base by $110 million each year. - Ethanol
production will generate an additional $19.6 million in household income annually. - Tax revenue for
local and state governments will increase by at least $1.2 million a year. - Nearly 700 permanent jobs
will be created in the area near an ethanol plant. Agriculture, Farmers & Rural Communities Ethanol
production and use benefit U.S. agriculture and lead rural economic development. Because it is made
primarily from corn and other agricultural products, ethanol increases demand for these crops, increases the prices
farmers receive for these crops, and brings economic development opportunity to the rural areas
where the ethanol is made. Over the past decade, farmer-owned and locally-owned ethanol plants
have driven the dramatic growth in the U.S. ethanol industry. Though private companies have now joined the ranks of
U.S. ethanol producers, at least 22% of the industry is still owned by farmers and local owners. The percentage is higher if you were to count
ethanol plants with significant local investment from Main Street and non-ag shareholders. The U.S. ethanol industry has increased demand for
corn and has played a role in bolstering chronically low corn prices, allowing
farmers to earn a modest, market-based
profit on their crop. Studies have shown that the local price of corn increases by at least 5-10 per
bushel in the area around an ethanol plant, adding significantly to the farm income in the area. USDA
estimates that the Renewable Fuels Standard will generate an additional $2 billion to $4 billion in net
farm income by 2012. Environment & Clean Air Fossil fuel-based gasoline is the largest source of
man-made carcinogens and the number one source of toxic emissions, according to the U.S. EPA.
Ethanol is a renewable, environmentally friendly fuel that is inherently cleaner than gasoline. Ethanol
reduces harmful tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and
other ozone-forming pollutants. The use of ethanol-blended fuel helps reduce the environmental and
economic impacts of gasoline consumption on our society. Read more in the research Clearing the Air - a Review of the
Real-World Impacts of Using Ethanol-Blended Fuel and in Ethanol: A Convenient Solution to the Inconvenient Truth Ethanol Clean Air Facts:
Ethanol blends are likely to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in vehicles by between 10% - 30%,
depending upon the combustion technology. (U.S. EPA) The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits
ethanol-blended fuel with reducing smog-forming emissions by 25% since 1990. The use of 10% ethanol
blends reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12-19% compared to conventional gasoline. (Argonne National
Lab) In 2004, ethanol use in the U.S. reduced CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by
approximately 7 million tons, equal to removing the emissions of more than 1 million cars from the
road. (Argonne National Lab) Research shows a 35-46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 50-60%
reduction in fossil energy use due to the use of ethanol as a motor fuel. (Argonne National Lab) Ethanol
contains 35% oxygen, making it burn more cleanly and completely than gasoline. E85 has the highest
oxygen content of any fuel available, making it burn even more cleanly and even more completely
than any other fuel. E85 contains 80% fewer gum-forming compounds than gasoline. Ethanol is highly
biodegradable, making it safer for the environment.
Advantages of using ethanol
USDOE, 2012 (US Department of Energy, “Ethanol Benefits and Considerations”, USDOE: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html)
Ethanol is a renewable, domestically produced transportation fuel. Whether used in low-level blends, such as E10
(10% ethanol, 90% gasoline), or in E85 (a gasoline-ethanol blend containing 51% to 83% ethanol, depending on geography and season),
ethanol helps reduce imported oil and greenhouse gas emissions. Like any alternative fuel, there are some
considerations to take into account when contemplating the use of ethanol. Energy Security About two-thirds of U.S. petroleum demand is in
the transportation sector. Approximately half of U.S. petroleum is imported. Depending heavily on foreign petroleum supplies puts the United
States at risk for trade deficits, supply disruption, and price changes. The Renewable Fuels Association's 2012 Ethanol Industry Outlook (PDF)
calculated that in
2011 the ethanol industry replaced the gasoline produced from more than 485 million
barrels of imported oil. Ethanol represents 25% of domestically produced and refined motor fuel for
gasoline engines. Fuel Economy and Performance A gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The
result is lower fuel economy than a gallon of gasoline. The amount of energy difference varies depending on the blend.
For example, E85 has about 27% less energy per gallon than gasoline (mileage penalty lessens as ethanol content decreases). However, because
ethanol is a high-octane fuel, it
offers increased vehicle power and performance. Job Opportunities
Ethanol
production creates jobs in rural areas where employment opportunities are needed. According to Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol
production in 2011 supported more than 400,000 jobs across the country, $42.4 billion to the gross
domestic product, and $29.9 billion in household income. (See Estimated Economic Impact of the U.S. Ethanol Industry
(Microsoft Excel) and Number and Production Capacity of Farmer- and Non-Farmer Owned Ethanol Plants (Microsoft Excel).) Lower
Emissions The carbon dioxide released when ethanol is burned is balanced by the carbon dioxide
captured when the crops are grown to make ethanol. This differs from petroleum, which is made from
plants that grew millions of years ago. On a life cycle analysis basis, corn-based ethanol production and use
reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by up to 52% compared to gasoline production and use. Cellulosic ethanol use
could reduce GHGs by as much as 86%.
Using carrot stick with Cuba gives US access to its substantial oil industry
Helman, 2011 (Christopher, Associate Editor at Forbes Magazine, “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For Oil Exploration”, Forbes,
December 12, 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oil-exploration/)
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot
just 70 miles south of Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be
joined by rigs from PetroVietnam, Malaysia’s Petronas and Venezuela’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any
U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro regime.This wrongheaded policy represents a dangerous threat to the environment and a huge missed opportunity to the U.S. oil
industry. The U.S. embargo will do nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from being
done by the most experienced companies with the highest-quality equipment. Norway’s Statoil is a proven operator with a long history in the
North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore. A group of U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol
(ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called that bluff. At least the Obama administration
is doing something to ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff.
According to an excellent article from Bloomberg
today, Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from
the Coast Guard, two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and
watch some drills. But, according to the article, there will be real limits to what the inspectors can inspect. They won’t get to
check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling fluids that are to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss
any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no enforcement authority. Although the offshore industry’s best service
companies and parts manufacturers are right here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and scrounge for spare parts from
the rest of the world. But here’s something that completely blows my mind. The administration, again, according to the Bloomberg article, has
granted some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban waters. The government won’t say how many
companies have that license or who they are, but there’s at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans
to stage a subsea containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout. Of course it’s smart and safe for the U.S.
government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the message to the industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S.
operators the license to drill for oil in Cuba, but we want to make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems. And the message to Cuba: we’re
not going to let you use our engineers, just our janitors. Knowing that a top-notch American clean-up crew is on standby in case of a blowout is
not a big incentive for Cuba to keep its own regulators on top of things. Think about Cuba in relation to U.S. oil adventures in the rest of the
world. Even
if Cuba really were a tyrannical threat to U.S. interests, there’s myriad countries where U.S.
oil companies have done business that are no more democratic than Cuba. They include Venezuela, Saudi Arabia,
Burma, Libya, Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan. The Castros’ days as rulers of Cuba are numbered. The embargo
stick hasn’t brought regime change, and has only forced Cuba into the arms of autocrats like
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Better to use the carrot of capitalism to gradually bring Cuba into the U.S.
sphere of influence. The oil industry is a great place to start.
Engagement with Cuba increasingly important—provides necessary resources oil and
ethanol
Camargo, 2010 (Raisa, reporter with the Hispanic Link News Service, “Oil Prospects in Cuba Have Some Rethinking U.S. Trade
Embargo”, Latin America News Dispatch, AOil Prospects in Cuba Have Some Rethinking U.S. Trade Embargo, August 19, 2010,
http://latindispatch.com/2010/08/19/oil-prospects-in-cuba-have-some-rethinking-u-s-trade-embargo/)
WASHINGTON — As
speculation surfaces of oil prospects in Cuba, officials are worried that the United
States’ embargo will fall short with trade, as the island continues to attract global investments from countries such as China.
“If we insist on maintaining the embargo, other countries will benefit from that increased trade ,” said
Ronald Saligo, professor of economics at Rice University, through a teleconference Aug. 17 at a luncheon of the National
Foreign Trade Council (NFTC). “There is a great deal of potential here. The question is whether we are going to sacrifice those for this (embargo)
policy, which has not succeeded in 50 years.” Legislation
lifting the U.S. travel ban and removing sales of
agricultural commodities to Cuba is still pending. Yet, recent reports from the White House indicate that the Obama
administration might be willing to ease travel restrictions including granting general licenses for students, researchers and educators — a policy
similar to that of the Clinton administration. Jake Colvin, vice president Global Trade Issues of the NFTC, said they expect the House Foreign
Affairs Committee either to make a decision on the travel ban by the end of this month or put it off until after midterm elections. A
group
of experts from the NFTC, Center for Democracy in the Americas, Rice University and congressional
staff took a four-day trip to Cuba, from July 8 to 12, to explore energy policies. At the luncheon, they
summarized the urgency to invest in Cuba’s oil reserves that has deadlocked because of the embargo. Sarah Stephens, executive
director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, took the trip. She said the U.S. should act swiftly with
the embargo, particularly because Cuba has begun exploratory drilling, with her findings indicating
that it’s ripe to become a major oil producer and refiner. Stephens pointed to Repsol, a Spanish oil company that is
paying an Italian firm to build an oil rig in China, which will explore oil off the shores of Cuba by next year. Lisa Margonelli, who
directs the New America Foundation’s Energy Policy Initiative and who accompanied Margonelli to
Cuba, agreed that if these companies are commissioning a “whole rig” it suggests there’s a fair
amount of oil. “Are we looking at lots of discrete pockets that would require one strategy or is there a big thing in there that could be
producing a significant amount of oil in a ten-year time frame?” said Margonelli, while adding that although two exploratory wells have been
drilled in Cuba, the amount of time to explore a whole field would be five to ten years because of mapping and production. Although
it
would take time, experts at the luncheon agreed that the U.S. should keep a close watch on Cuba in
its effort to improve economic engagement with the world. Saligo added that the benefits outweigh
the cons. He said Cuba would provide additional energy security, since exports in Canada and Mexico are
decreasing. The island also has the potential to produce sugar cane ethanol, a renewable energy fuel
that is more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable than petroleum. Saligo said relying on
trade exports from Cuba will supplement the U.S. goal to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022
— a requirement of the Energy Dependence and Security Act signed in 2007. Venezuela, Dubai and Brazil are investing in drilling exploratory
wells in Cuba, which has also attracted attention. The members at the luncheon are working on compiling a report of their findings in Cuba.
Cuban sugar-cane ethanol likely prospect for future US energy policy
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, p. 171, April
24, 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
In the coming decades the United States will need to change its energy policy to face two immense
challenges: adjusting to peak oil, and halting the advance of climate change. Liquid biofuels — made
from renewable, biologically-based sources of energy, rather than finite and climate change-inducing fossil fuels — will
be an important component of any strategy to deal with the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change. While the United States
has encouraged the production of biofuels in recent decades, the domestic ethanol industry, which is almost entirely corn-based,
has a number of major flaws, among them its environmental effects. Other legal scholarship has
focused on the environmental problems of the domestic ethanol industry and on the possibility of importing ethanol from
countries with more environmentally-friendly ethanol production. One possibility that has thus far largely been
ignored, however, is the possibility of the United States importing sugarcane-based ethanol from Cuba. This Article attempts
to close that gap in the legal literature. This Article begins with an overview of the U.S. corn-based ethanol industry and demonstrates that its
growth has been driven to a large degree by domestic politics. The Article then shifts its focus to Cuba, describing the potential for that country
to develop a sugarcane-based ethanol industry as well as the challenges such an industry will face. The remainder of this Article discusses the
environmental and economic effects that the growth of such an industry would have on the United States. In concluding, this Article asserts
that while
Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol
will not be a complete solution to either peak oil or climate change, it
can and
should be included in future U.S. energy policy . It further concludes, when the post-Castro era begins, the United States
should move quickly to encourage the growth of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry.
Cuba’s sugar-cane ethanol more environmentally beneficial
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Assuming that Cuba is able to meet all the challenges standing in the way of creating a sugarcanebased ethanol industry, including the removal of U.S. legal barriers, and it begins importing ethanol to
the United States, the United States would benefit environmentally in two ways. First, Cuban sugarcanebased ethanol would directly benefit the United States by reducing the negative environmental effects of
corn-based ethanol production, to the extent to which it replaced domestically produced corn-based ethanol.55 Second, by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would indirectly benefit the United States as well as
the rest of the world by reducing the speed of global climate change.56 A. Environmental Effects of Corn-Based
Ethanol A chief argument in favor of the domestic corn-based ethanol industry is that it is environmentally beneficial
because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.57 Scientists, industry advocates, and critics hotly contest
the degree to which greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by replacing a percentage of U.S. gasoline
consumption with domestically-produced corn-based ethanol.
Climate change
Climate change add to likelihood of resource wars—destroy global food prices, human
life, habitats, and supplies
Klare, 2013 (Michael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular and the author, most
recently, of The Race for What’s Left, just published in paperback by Picador, “Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Coming Global Explosion”,
TomDispatch, April 21, 2013, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175690/)
Normally, when we consider the impact of climate change, we think primarily about the environment - the melting Arctic ice cap or Greenland ice shield, rising global sea levels, intensifying storms, expanding deserts, and endangered or
disappearing species like the polar bear. But
a growing number of experts are coming to realize that the most
potent effects of climate change will be experienced by humans directly through the impairment or
wholesale destruction of habitats upon which we rely for food production, industrial activities, or
simply to live. Essentially, climate change will wreak its havoc on us by constraining our access to the
basics of life: vital resources that include food, water, land, and energy. This will be devastating to
human life , even as it significantly increases the danger of resource conflicts of all sorts erupting. We
effects of climate change to predict the following with reasonable confidence: * Rising sea
levels will in the next half-century erase many coastal areas, destroying large cities, critical infrastructure (including roads,
railroads, ports, airports, pipelines, refineries, and power plants), and prime agricultural land. * Diminished rainfall and prolonged
droughts will turn once-verdant croplands into dust bowls, reducing food output and turning millions into “climate
refugees.” * More severe storms and intense heat waves will kill crops, trigger forest fires, cause
floods, and destroy critical infrastructure. No one can predict how much food, land, water, and energy will be lost as a result of
already know enough about the future
this onslaught (and other climate-change effects that are harder to predict or even possibly imagine), but the cumulative effect will
undoubtedly be staggering. In Resources Futures, Chatham House offers a particularly dire warning when it comes to the threat of diminished
precipitation to rain-fed agriculture. “By
2020,” the report says, “yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by
up to 50%” in some areas. The highest rates of loss are expected to be in Africa, where reliance on rain-fed farming is greatest, but
agriculture in China, India, Pakistan, and Central Asia is also likely to be severely affected. Heat waves, droughts, and other
effects of climate change will also reduce the flow of many vital rivers, diminishing water supplies for
irrigation, hydro-electricity power facilities, and nuclear reactors (which need massive amounts of water for cooling
purposes). The melting of glaciers, especially in the Andes in Latin America and the Himalayas in South
Asia, will also rob communities and cities of crucial water supplies. An expected increase in the
frequency of hurricanes and typhoons will pose a growing threat to offshore oil rigs, coastal refineries,
transmission lines, and other components of the global energy system. The melting of the Arctic ice cap
will open that region to oil and gas exploration, but an increase in iceberg activity will make all efforts
to exploit that region’s energy supplies perilous and exceedingly costly. Longer growing seasons in the north,
especially Siberia and Canada’s northern provinces, might compensate to some degree for the desiccation of croplands in more southerly
latitudes. However, moving the global agricultural system (and the world’s farmers) northward from abandoned farmlands in the United States,
Mexico, Brazil, India, China, Argentina, and Australia would be a daunting prospect. It is safe to assume that climate
change,
especially when combined with growing supply shortages, will result in a significant reduction in the
planet’s vital resources, augmenting the kinds of pressures that have historically led to conflict , even
under better circumstances. In this way, according to the Chatham House report, climate change is best understood as a “threat
multiplier... a key factor exacerbating existing resource vulnerability” in states already prone to such
disorders. Like other experts on the subject, Chatham House’s analysts claim, for example, that climate change will reduce crop
output in many areas, sending global food prices soaring and triggering unrest among those already
pushed to the limit under existing conditions. “Increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as
droughts, heat waves, and floods, will also result in much larger and frequent local harvest shocks around the world… These shocks will
affect global food prices whenever key centers of agricultural production area are hit -- further
amplifying global food price volatility.” This, in turn, will increase the likelihood of civil unrest. When, for instance, a brutal heat
wave decimated Russia’s wheat crop during the summer of 2010, the global price of wheat (and so of that staple of life, bread) began an
inexorable upward climb, reaching particularly high levels in North Africa and the Middle East. With local governments unwilling or unable to
help desperate populations, anger
over impossible-to-afford food merged with resentment toward autocratic
regimes to trigger the massive popular outburst we know as the Arab Spring.
Climate change leads to extinction by threatening survival of plant and animal species
Fisher-Reid et’al, 2012 (M. Caitlin Fisher-Reid, Xia Hua, Caitlin Karanewsky, Hae Yeong Ryu, Gena Sbeglia, Fabrizio Spagnolo, John
Waldron, and Omar Warsi, work in Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University, “Extinction from Global Warming: Changing
Interactions Between Species May Be More Dangerous Than High Temperatures Alone”, Science Daily, October 17, 2012,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016203350.htm)
The article, entitled "How does climate change cause extinction?" describes
research led by John J. Wiens, an Associate
Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University and by PhD students
Abigail E. Cahill and Matthew E. Aiello-Lammens. According to the authors, extinctions of plant and animal
populations from human-related climate change are already widespread, but the causes of these extinctions are
very poorly understood. Contrary to expectations given global warming, the results of the study show that very few populations have gone
extinct simply because temperatures got too hot for the plants and animals to survive. "Instead," said Dr. Wiens, "climate
change more
often leads to local extinctions and declines by influencing interactions between species, such as
reducing prey populations for predators. These shifting interactions may make even small climatic
changes dangerous for the survival of plant and animal species. So, for example, many animals may starve to death
because of climate change long before the climate gets hot enough for them to die from overheating."
Global warming leads to extinction of human race
Handwerk, 2006 (Brian, Independent Writing and Editing Professional, “Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050,
Study Says”, National Geographic News, April 12, 2006,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0412_060412_global_warming.html)
The report's authors reached their conclusion after estimating potential changes to habitats—and the resulting loss
of species—in 25
biodiversity "hot spots" around the world.The ecologically rich hot spots include South Africa's Cape
Floristic Region, the Caribbean Basin, and the tropical regions of the Andes Mountains. These
territories compose only a small fraction of the planet's land area but contain large numbers of Earth's
flora and fauna. "These [hot spots] are the crown jewels of the planet's biodiversity," lead author Jay Malcolm of the University of
Toronto told the Canadian Press. "Unless we get our act together soon, we're looking at committing ourselves to this kind of thing." The report
appears in the current issue of the journal Conservation Biology. Many Threats Seen Global warming projections are by nature uncertain, and
the report includes many variables that significantly affect species' survival rates both for good and
for ill. Changes to the rate and degree of warming, as well as the ability of species to migrate or adapt,
altered the estimates of species' extinction risk. Climate change is also only one threat to species
diversity . Many plants and animals are already feeling the effects of habitat destruction and invasions by non-native species. It is difficult
for scientists to take all such factors into account. Still, the study's worst-case scenarios are sobering. They include a doubling of present
carbon dioxide levels (as predicted by many climatologists) and rising temperatures that could potentially
eliminate 56,000 plant and 3,700 animal species in the 25 hot spot regions. The report's findings echo those of a
2004 study, in which a team of international scientists suggested that over a million species—15 to 35 percent of those
they studied—could be at risk of extinction by 2050.Both the 2004 study and the current research were conducted in part
by scientists from Conservation International. "We used a completely different set of methods [from the 2004 study] and came up with similar
results," Conservation International's Lee Hannah, co-author of the current study, told Reuters. "All
is a very serious problem."
the evidence shows that there
Climate change threat becoming increasingly real
Thean, 2011 (Tara, TIME contributor and graduate of Princeton University, “How Climate Change Is Whittling Down the World’s
Species”, Time: Science and Space, July 12, 2011, http://science.time.com/2011/07/12/how-climate-change-is-whittling-down-the-worldsspecies/)
With all the climate conversation currently littering the Internet, and the myriad ways that extreme weather is linked to global warming, it’s
hard not to get confused about climate change sometimes – and given the sheer volume of muddled information out there, you might even be
forgiven for being unconvinced by the arguments thus far. But University of Exeter scientists have brought us some simple proof that
climate change seems to be as bad for our planet as we’ve been led to believe. Their study shows that the
loss of animal and plant species that have already happened match previous predictions in terms of
the relative risk to different species around the world. And based on that information, the scientists have made
a frightening forecast: one in 10 species will be extinct by 2100 if climate change continues affecting
the world the way it is now. “ Our study is a wake-up call for action ,” lead author Ilya Maclean said in a statement.
“The many species that are already declining could become extinct if things continue as they are. It is
time to stop using the uncertainties as an excuse for not acting.” Admittedly, the study comes with no shortage of uncertainties — aftr all, it’s
difficult to control for external factors when modeling the natural world. But Maclean’s team drew from established sources for their
conclusions: the IUCN Red List and widely published research showing how animals and plants from all types of habitats are already responding
to climate change across the globe. They used the former for population data and the latter to check if predictions were wide of the mark.
Based on this review, which is the largest one ever done of such studies, it looks like predictions
have been accurate – and
perhaps even a little too conservative. “By looking at such a range of studies from around the world, we found that the
impacts of climate change can be felt everywhere, and among all groups of animals and plants,” study
author Robert Wilson said. “From birds to worms to marine mammals, from high mountain ranges to jungles
and to the oceans, scientists seem to have been right that climate change is a real threat to species .”
And how exactly is climate change bad for flora and fauna? For one thing, migration and breeding cycles are extremely
temperature sensitive, mostly because of how much food availability is affected by the surrounding
climate. Climate change can also cause habitats to shift northwards and up mountain ranges to cooler
spots, forcing species to change their distribution ranges. In doing so they often face natural obstacles like the sea that
are, well, kind of large and hard to overcome. Not to undersell the earth’s species – they’re pretty hardy, and can sometimes evolve quickly –
adaptation takes millions of years , and climate change is happening too fast for us to wait for that
kind of evolutionary change. Take some of these responses to climate change compiled by the scientists: Decreased ice cover in the
but
Bering Sea reduced the abundance of bivalve molluscs from about 12 to three per square metre over a very short period of time (1999-2001).
These shells are the main food source for species higher up the food chain, such as Spectacled Eider. Climatic
warming and
droughts are causing severe declines in once-common amphibian species native to Yellowstone
National Park in the United States of America. Between 1992-1993 and 2006- 2008, the number of blotched tiger
salamander populations fell by nearly half, the number of spotted frog populations by 68 per cent,
and the number of chorus frog populations by 75 per cent. And these are some of the team’s
predicted responses to climate change: On Tenerife, an endemic plant, the Caňadas rockrose has a 74 to 83 per cent chance of
going extinct in the next 100 years as a result of climate change related droughts. In Madagascar, climate warming is
predicted to cause endemic reptiles and amphibians, often found in mountain ranges, to retreat
towards the summit of the mounts. With a warming of just two degrees Celsius, well within current projections,
three species are predicted to lose all of their habitat. Those are some pretty bleak forecasts, but maybe that’s the impetus we need to push
ourselves into action. That several
tangible proof
predictions of the effects of climate change have come true brings us
that we must mobilize what we can to create our most effective insulation against the climate crisis. The data might be
confusing, and critics will always call into question its accuracy, but – as Maclean said – uncertainties can only be our excuse for so long.
Climate change= extinction
Newitz, 2012 (Annalee, American journalist who covers the cultural impact of science and technology and she received a PhD in English
and American Literature from University of Berkeley, “Five reasons why climate change doesn't lead to extinction — at least, not directly”, io9,
October 18, 2012, http://io9.com/5952758/five-reasons-why-climate-change-doesnt-lead-to-extinction--at-least-not-directly)
In a new research paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a group of evolutionary
biologists examined 136
examples of extinctions that appeared to be related to climate change. Of those, only seven turned out to
be clearly connected with anthropogenic, or human-created, alterations to the climate. In these cases, temperature
changes weren't the issue. Instead, climate change led to knock-on effects that caused extinction. In fact, the biggest extinction
threat came from ways that climate change wound up altering the way different species interact. In a
news article, the Royal Society sums up five ways climate change set off extinction events: 1. Changes in
temperature can cause species to dramatically increase or decrease their activity. Possible outcomes
include starvation for creatures whose activity levels go down. Creatures like algae sometimes go into hyper-growth
mode when there is climate change, however. When algae levels go up, they tend to suck more oxygen out of the
water. And that kills fish and other sea creatures who depend on that oxygen to breathe. So one species'
gain can be another one's doom. 2. Climate change can alter rainfall. This means freshwater species may lose their habitats
and die. Other species may lose their sources of drinking water and die of thirst. 3. Multiple extinctions
can result when, for reason 1 or 2, a "beneficial species" goes extinct. These beneficial species include prey species,
pollinators, and host species. These are species that other species depend upon to survive. Without them, more species will go
extinct. 4. The climate can also affect the life cycle of "harmful species" like predators, competitors, and
pathogens. If there are too many of any of these harmful species, they can eat all the food in an area — or fell entire
populations with an epidemic. 5. Climate change can affect the way species keep track of time by gauging temperature and
sunlight. For example, insects and birds often time their migrations and movements to keep up with maturing plants. When climates
change, plants may start to mature at different times — and so the insects and birds may arrive at the
wrong times and starve. In other words, climate change causes extinction indirectly. But when it does this, it almost always causes
multiple extinctions at once. One species dying out can affect many others. Or, as in the algae and pathogen examples, one species living large
can wipe out many species.
Energy Scarcity Uniqueness
Alternate energy investment necessary- energy scarcity in world today
Pernick, 2010 (Ron, Cofounder and Managing Director at Clean Edge, Inc., Clean-Tech Author, Researcher, and Publisher, “Scarcity,
Sustainability & The Illusion of Choice”, The Energy Collective, December 6, 2010, http://theenergycollective.com/anjaatkinson/48202/scarcitysustainability-illusion-choice)
Concepts we hold to be true can be influenced by group consensus, evidential facts or false claims, the political climate, religion and more
relevant to most of us - the drone of media. In fact we often wind up being conditioned to believe something fed to us through the media over
and over again. Scarcity
of energy resources is a concept that is considered widely as relevant to our time,
an idea that we are consuming an energy supply that is finite. We have been asked to conserve energy
accordingly. Our energy supply needs to be controlled and this is in our best interest apparently. The
scarcity message in relation to our energy supply, is in reality a message from the energy status quo.
What we won't hear so much is that in fact the powers that be have managed our global energy resources poorly. But the energy fat cats would
still like us to conserve energy. In
light of the scarcity argument we can say that it is true that our global
population is huge and growing and therefor oil and coal can't meet the growing demand. Rather than get
all gloomy why not change the conversation by looking more closely at the concepts of energy Scarcity versus Sustainable supply
and ask ourselves if we should be listening to messages about our energy supply that just aren't
helping us evolve. Energy scarcity intrinsically implies lack of wealth, lack of abundance, not enough
to go around, or a serious depletion of a finite resource. With it comes fear, the need to control what
resources are available and ensuing power struggles. We are hearing more about peak oil, and that
demands on current energy infrastructures in many countries are reaching their limits . Peak oil means we
will approach oil scarcity at some point, perhaps sooner than we think . Within the context of energy scarcity we
begin to fall apart, but not because of scarcity, but because our definitions and concepts about energy are wrong, like a bad math equation that
keeps us going in circles. The oil zoo on the planet is not the prevailing equation, as it's now frankly being shown the door and on the decline.
It's only the prevailing equation for those who continue persist on working the energy monopoly game. The word sustainability is another term
that's been hijacked through media overuse. We need to stop and ask what it means so we are clear what it isn't. Sustainability is an equation
that takes into account living in harmony with the natural systems of the planet period. There is nothing else to add to that equation and
there's really not much more to say about sustainability. I've seen natural gas companies claim that this is the greenest most sustainable energy
around. If you know anything about fracking and the practices of natural gas companies the argument stops their. If you're not sure what I'm
referring to, see the movie Gasland.
All natural living systems create a symbiotic relationship with other living
systems and we simply need to do that. A sustainable energy supply looks like solar, wind,
geothermal, or hydro. Why are these energy systems sustainable? They take the notion of scarcity out of the equation, as they are
abundant natural forces that are variable but constant and qualify as renewable. Renewable in relation to energy supply means a non-depleting
resource. These energy sources are clean and sustainable. This
is a new equation that moves us forward, creates jobs,
creates abundant clean energy that won't run out and brings us into harmony with the natural
systems of the planet.The illusion is that we have a choice about using sustainable energy. The media
would like us to see it that way. We are not engaged in choice at this point however , we are engaged in
damage control.
We now hear and see the new media programming, the glamorizes clean energy and that all is under control. We hear
the message of peak oil but does it register? Oil is connected to your food, your car, your heat, your light, your computer, your airplane, your
cruise, your cell phone, your jar of peanut butter, your toothbrush. Oil
is presently depleting across the planet and
warnings have been provided to us by scientists who knew as far back as the 1960's , that we would reach
peak oil and we have, so I won't cover that here. The side affect of our media now feeding us this new rosy sustainable energy picture, is just
more of the same, and we remain disengaged from what's really going on to spend more time understanding how our hand-helds work.
Unfortunately we can't find out much about what's going on by looking to the media, but damage control multiplied is what we will face in the
coming years if we continue to listen to media. Yes
solutions are in the works and much progress has been made to
saturate the market with sustainable energy solutions but so much more needs to be accomplished.
Without correct energy policy the market will do what it wants, but it must be guided by sound policy
to be successful in meeting real world energy demands. . Right now we need all hands on deck
working on creating community sustainable energy programs. Creativity and cooperation are calling on all of us. Do
what you can to learn more about solar and wind energy, peak oil and how to prepare for what's ahead by reading our blog and blogs like From
the Wilderness. Community is a powerful force for good which we can re-awaken to. You just might be the guy that ignites the vision for change
where you live. The sustainable energy equation is one of abundance not control, and freedom rather than constraint.
AT: Ethanol DA
Imported ethanol no destroy Midwest—corn prices remain high
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Additionally, while exposing the domestic ethanol industry to competition from imported ethanol
might bring down corn prices, it would likely not be enough to reduce them enough to bring a 1980sstyle farm crisis to the Midwest. There are many sources of demand for corn in addition to ethanol. Contrary to popular
perception, the majority of U.S. corn production does not become food for people — at least not directly. The
largest percentage of the annual U.S. corn crop — between forty-eight and fifty-nine percent in the mid years of the 2000s — goes to
animal feed.164 In addition, Error! Bookmark not defined.165 The remaining percentage of the crop is mostly processed in a
number of ways. The products from corn processing include corn sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup), corn oil, corn starch, and
biodegradable plastics.166 Even
if corn-based ethanol production were to decline, U.S. corn prices are likely
to remain relatively high for the near-to-midterm future. This is mainly due to global rise of the middle
class, a resource-intensive phenomenon that is especially pronounced in countries like India and China
and is driving up prices for a large number of commodities.167 For example, if the Chinese economy continues to grow
and more Chinese citizens move from rural areas to cities, join the middle class, and therefore start eating more pork,168 there will be upward
pressure on demand for U.S. corn and therefore on U.S. corn prices.169 Thus, because
of factors outside of the entire debate
over importing ethanol from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere (and indeed, outside anything in the Western
Hemisphere) a reduction in demand for corn-based ethanol would not necessarily lead to low corn prices.
Repealing embargo k2 agricultural sector and solving unemployment
Carrasco, 2005 (Enrique, Professor of Law, Director, University of Iowa Center for International Finance & Development, “Cuba’s
Development and Trade with U.S. Midwestern States”, The University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development,
http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/issues/cuba/perspectives/cubas-development-and-trade-with-us-midwestern-states)
One might ask, what do travel restrictions have to do with trade between Cuba and U.S. Midwestern states? According to one study, lifting
the travel restrictions would produce between $126 million and $252 million in annual U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba above the current sales, creating between 3490 and 6980 jobs for
Americans. And if the embargo were lifted completely, some say sales of U.S. agricultural goods could
exceed a billion dollars annually and annual related economic output would exceed $3.6 billion. Much
of this output would come from U.S. Midwestern states, particularly Iowa (more than $70 million),
Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Missouri. Over 30,000 jobs would be created, with a good portion of the job
creation occurring here in Iowa (nearly 2000). Lifting the embargo would not only boost trade, but, as I have mentioned, it would also
allow U.S. foreign investment in Cuba.
AT: Domestically produced ethanol solves
Only imported Cuban ethanol yields substantial benefits—domestic sector fails
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, p. 173-175,
April 24, 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
This does not mean, however, that corn-based ethanol, thus far the major liquid-fuel petroleum
alternative pursued by the United States, is the best answer. While it has benefitted the Midwest economically, the
domestic ethanol industry has also contributed to a number of negative environmental effects. There is,
however, another liquid fuel option other than fossil-fuel based gasoline and corn-based ethanol. The Obama Administration’s
energy plan includes a wide range of strategies to reduce U.S. fossil fuel consumption, yet one strategy is notably absent from
the Blueprint: replacing a percentage of U.S. gasoline with ethanol imported from outside the United
States.9 A number of influential commentators, such as Thomas Friedman10 and The Economist,11 have called for the United States to
encourage the importation of sugarcanebased ethanol from countries like Brazil. But the possibility of importing ethanol from Cuba has been
largely ignored by influential opinion-makers as well as the United States government.12 While by no means a silver bullet for solving the
United States’ energy problems,
importing ethanol made from sugarcane grown in Cuba would bring a number
of environmental and economic benefits — partially offset by regionalized economic harms — to the United States. This
possibility, at the very least, deserves much greater consideration and evaluation than it has thus far received.
This Article attempts to close this gap in the debate. It explains which specific combination of federal law and policy in the fields of agriculture,
energy, and trade would encourage the growth of a sugarcane-based ethanol industry in Cuba. It also examines some of the barriers that must
be overcome before such an industry can grow. Finally, it evaluates the environmental and economic changes that would occur in the United
States as a result of the growth of such an industry. The Article is divided into four parts. Part II presents an overview of the U.S. ethanol
industry. It argues that, because
of national politics, the United States has promoted the growth of the
domestic corn-based ethanol industry at the expense of promoting imports of sugarcane-based
ethanol. Part III shifts the focus to Cuba. It explores the prospects for Cuba to develop a sugarcane-based ethanol industry and
corresponding challenges. The remainder of this Article considers possible environmental and economic effects that the growth of a successful
Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry would have on the United States. Part IV identifies the environmental effects. Based on an evaluation
of several factors, it demonstrates that
ethanol from sugarcane grown in Cuba would be one of the most
environmentally-friendly biofuels possible for the United States . Part V identifies the economic effects. Part V shows
that the biggest economic impacts of Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would be felt in two regions of the United States, the Midwest and the
Southeast. Part V evaluates the effects on these two regions and on the United States generally. Before concluding, Part V evaluates how the
U.S. drought of 2012 relates to the future of ethanol in the United States. The Article concludes that in
order to achieve both
environmental and economic benefits, the United States in the post-Castro era should encourage the
development of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry.
As damning as the list of environmental consequences of the domestic corn based ethanol industry may seem, advocates for the industry will
point out that the
gasoline replaced by corn-based ethanol comes with its own set of dramatic
consequences, environmental and otherwise: carbon emissions, pollution from petroleum refining,
and dependence on unstable foreign regimes.107 This is certainly true,108 and any fair evaluation of whether or not the
domestic corn based ethanol industry is a worthy endeavor must consider all these factors. However, the question of whether cornbased ethanol or petroleum-based gasoline is the least environmentally harmful fuel source for the
United States is a false dichotomy — or at least it would be if U.S. law and policy were changed to
encourage the importation of sugarcane-based ethanol.
Sugarcane ethanol outweighs corn-produced ethanol in multiple ways
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would have the environmental benefits of Brazilian sugarcane-based
ethanol without its most obvious negative factor, damaging habitat in the Cerrado. The environmental effects
of biofuels depend on a number of factors. Whether or not a given type of biofuel is environmentally beneficial
“depends on what the fuel is, how and where the biomass was produced, what else the land could
have been used for, how the fuel was processed and how it is used.”115 Taken together, these factors
point to sugarcane-based ethanol grown in Cuba as one of the most environmentally friendly
biofuels possible . The environmental benefits of using sugarcane to produce ethanol are numerous. First, it is much more
energy efficient to derive ethanol from sugarcane than corn. Making ethanol from corn only creates
approximately 1.3 times the amount of energy used to produce it, but making ethanol from sugarcane
creates approximately eight times the amount of energy used to produce it.116 Second, unlike much of the corn
presently grown in Great Plains states, sugarcane grown in Latin America does not need to be irrigated.117 Third,
sugarcane requires relatively small amounts of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides .118 Fourth,
whereas most U.S. ethanol refineries are powered by coal or natural gas,119 sugarcane ethanol refineries can be powered
by bagasse, a natural product left over from the sugar refining process.120 In fact, refineries powered
with bagasse can even produce more electricity than they need and sell
AT: Current reforms solve
Current environmental reforms are ineffective
Conell, 2009 (Christina Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Relations, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?”, Council on Hemispheric Relations, 06/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
Beginning Concerns The
environmental degradation that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result
of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40 years, with the development of the Commission for
the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources (COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing
environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with environmental
responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although
COMARNA was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results.
The sad fact was that the centralized agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In
reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to ease environmental concerns , but the truth lingered
that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for
conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of natural resources by the State. By way of
example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and
dams where there was hardly any water to contain.
AT: Cuba says no
Cuba wants US involvement specifically on environmental issues
Conell, 2009 (Christina Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Relations, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?”, Council on Hemispheric Relations, 06/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba
partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written
regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for
greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging
sustainable development initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a
command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past
and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If
the embargo is lifted without a robust
partnership and plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may
seriously damage the island.
Trade Advantage
1AC
US-Cuba trade at all-time low due to embargo—only plan solves
Hanson et al., 2013 (Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute; affiliated with the
University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy; financial analyst, “It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba”,
Forbes, January 16, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/)
For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission from their government. The move, part of a
broader reform package being phased in by Raul Castro, underscores the
irrationality of America’s continuation of a fivedecade old embargo.While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of
the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the
Monroe Doctrine. The official position is outdated, hypocritical, and counterproductive. The Cuban embargo
was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the
newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation
of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton
Act – aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel
restrictions, and international legal penalties. Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the
government has undertaken more than 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and restrictions have
been lifted on property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a place of oppression
and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person nation is moving in the right direction.
Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the
United States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and according to the
Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of
thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year. At the Miami International Airport, visitors
arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further
customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban
goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government resources could be
better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and
rum. At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The
embargo has long been a point of friction
between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has
been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and
migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover
have dropped their claims. Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the
sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the
cost of conducting business in Cuba is only
negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba,
foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6
billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the
translate into real reductions in
income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.
What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less
friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the
construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with USowned networks close to its shores. Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting
trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals .
transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions
Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were
still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human
rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding
a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the
U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be
rolled back? The
cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is
higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated
Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and
tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when America’s allies are
openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is
time for the embargo to go.
Scenario 1: Democracy
Free trade supported by lifting the embargo reverses communist regimes and
promotes stability
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317)
Cuba’s future lies in free trade and market reform. Free trade will benefit both Americans and Cubans
alike. To say the American business sector is only interested in the financial factor is over simplifying the issue. Our own National
Security Strategy encourages free trade and free markets in a global economy. Globalization is
credited with inducing the significant decline of totalitarian and communist governments
throughout the globe . The process of accelerating economic, technological, cultural and political
integration is bringing the Western Hemisphere and the world closer together (U.S. Security Strategy for the
Americas) resulting in free markets and global trade. In the Western Hemisphere alone, the last ten years has seen
a significant change in government regimes from authoritarian to democratic, with Cuba being the
only non-democratically elected government left in the hemisphere. However, Globalization is also creating a
security environment in the hemisphere vulnerable to transnational threats like terrorism, drug trafficking, illegal migration and international
crime. We
should assist Cuba’s integration into the world market in order to shape the security
environment and promote regional stability .
Lifting the embargo would promote Cuba economic reform- those would
independently reverse authoritarian rule
Bandow, 2012 (Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald
Reagan, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, CATO Institute, 12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cubaembargo)
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S.
International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion
annually.¶ Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic
reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more
Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics
remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.¶ Lifting
the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the
lack of
widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits
of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold,
“American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in
their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to
carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.Ӧ The Castro dictatorship ultimately will
end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.¶ The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney
complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo
against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.¶
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As
Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. ” Of
course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than
continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would
make that day come sooner.¶
Latin American democracy’s a key model for democracy globally
Fauriol & Weintraub 95 – Georges Fauriol, director of the CSIS Americas Program, and Sidney Weintraub, the
William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS and the Dean Rusk Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson
School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, Summer 1995, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern
Cone,” The Washington Quarterly, lexis
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all
countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of
democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is
using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the
1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020.
Following that meeting, Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with
expanding exports.¶ Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable
development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by
country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in
this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will
compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
Democracy deters conflict and war—numerous studies
Tomz and Weeks 11 (Michael and Jessica, Department of Political Science, Government, “The Democratic Peace: An Experimental
Approach”, January, https://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/methods/papers/tomz.pdf) TC
Few findings from the political science literature have received as much attention as the ¶ “democratic
peace,” the discovery
that democracies almost never fight against other democracies. ¶ To some, the absence of military
conflict among democracies is so consistent that it approaches the ¶ status of an “ empirical law” (Levy
1988). Numerous studies have documented a correlation between democracy and peace. Most have ¶ found
that the democratic peace is dyadic, meaning that democracies are less likely to attack other ¶ democracies
but are no less likely to attack autocracies (Maoz and Russett 1993, Ray 1995, Oneal, ¶ Russett, and Berbaum 2003). Fewer studies have found
evidence of a monadic democratic peace, in ¶ which democracies
are overall less likely than autocracies to use
military force. We therefore focus ¶ on why democracies tend to refrain from using force against other democracies.
Extinction
Diamond 95 - Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In
the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs
intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian
regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these
new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to
war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to
threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they
offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to
their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international
treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in
secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law,
democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
Scenario 2: Trade
Plan opens new US-Cuban markets that spur growth and trade
Hancox, 2012 (Scott Hancox, attorney at Bradford Scott Hancox, “The Cuban embargo needs to end”, The Spectator, 05/03/2012,
http://students.hamilton.edu/spectator/opinion/p/the-cuban-embargo-needs-to-end/view)
However, the widespread
international opposition to the embargo as well as the changing geopolitical
circumstances surrounding its existence have seemingly not yet constituted a valid enough reason for the
American government to remove the embargo. This official stance, however , must be changed , as to remove
the Cuban embargo is to benefit both Cubans and Americans.¶ Since its application, an estimated $86.1 billion
worth of costs have been incurred in Cuba as a direct result of the embargo. These costs represent a
significant loss of commerce for Cuba but also demonstrate the rough level of economic losses the
U.S. has incurred over the past 50 years as well. Cuba’s potential primary exports to the U.S. include Cuban
cigars, Cuban rum, agriculture, sugar, oil and groundbreaking pharmaceutical products. These in-demand
products would have wide-reaching benefits in American markets if the U.S. were to lift the embargo.¶ For example,
Cuban researchers in Cuba’s advanced pharmaceutical industry have recently discovered a medication
named TheraCIM, which has been shown to reliably treat brain tumors in the necks and heads of
children. Thus, removing the Cuban embargo would directly lead to lower child mortality indicators in America,
increasing both the international prestige of the U.S. and American health care standards.¶ This embargo also
bans all American tourists from visiting Cuba. This ban is not only un-diplomatic, it also unnecessarily restricts the
average Americans’ freedom of travel. These effect of the removal of this embargo will also resonate at a local level, as
Hamilton College students would then be able to study abroad in Cuba, increase their overall level of health and enjoy Cuban commodities such
as coffee, rum, cigars, sugar and citrus fruits.¶ This list of potential
benefits is substantial, but the most important argument for the
removal of the Cuban embargo is that, throughout the 50 years that it has existed, it has not been successful at all . It
has not been able to destabilize the socialist government in Cuba nor has it convinced Cuba to become
a democratic-capitalist nation. Not only has it failed, but there are also no tangible benefits for keeping the
embargo in place anymore. Thus, the failure of this embargo to achieve its chief goals, the economic potential of its
removal, the widespread popular support for its removal and the removal of the ideological
justification for its original application indicate that the Cuban embargo should be promptly removed.
Trade eliminates the only rational incentives for war
Gartzke 11 Erik Gartzke is an associate Professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego
PhD from Iowa and B.A. from UCSF "SECURITY IN AN INSECURE WORLD" www.catounbound.org/2011/02/09/erik-gartzke/security-in-an-insecure-world/
Almost as informative as the decline in warfare has been where this decline is occurring. Traditionally,
nations were constrained by opportunity. Most nations did not fight most others because they could not
physically do so. Powerful nations, in contrast, tended to fight more often, and particularly to fight with other powerful states.
Modern “zones of peace” are dominated by powerful, militarily capable countries. These countries could
fight each other, but are not inclined to do so. At the same time, weaker developing nations that continue to
exercise force in traditional ways are incapable of projecting power against the developed world, with the exception of
unconventional methods, such as terrorism.¶ The world is thus divided between those who could use force but prefer not to (at least not
against each other) and those who would be willing to fight but lack the material means to fight far from home. Warfare in the
modern world has thus become an activity involving weak (usually neighboring) nations, with intervention by
powerful (geographically distant) states in a policing capacity. So, the riddle of peace boils down to why capable nations are
not fighting each other. There are several explanations, as Mack has pointed out.¶ The easiest, and I think the best,
explanation has to do with an absence of motive. Modern states find little incentive to bicker over tangible
property, since armies are expensive and the goods that can be looted are no longer of considerable value.
Ironically, this is exactly the explanation that Norman Angell famously supplied before the World Wars. Yet, today the evidence is
abundant that the most prosperous, capable nations prefer to buy rather than take. Decolonization, for
example, divested European powers of territories that were increasingly expensive to administer and which
contained tangible assets of limited value.¶ Of comparable importance is the move to substantial consensus
among powerful nations about how international affairs should be conducted. The great rivalries of the twentieth
century were ideological rather than territorial. These have been substantially resolved, as Francis Fukuyama has
pointed out. The fact that remaining differences are moderate, while the benefits of acting in concert are large
(due to economic interdependence in particular) means that nations prefer to deliberate rather than
fight. Differences remain, but for the most part the capable countries of the world have been in consensus ,
while the disgruntled developing world is incapable of acting on respective nations’ dissatisfaction.¶ While this version of events
explains the partial peace bestowed on the developed world, it also poses challenges in terms of the future.
The rising nations of Asia in particular have not been equal beneficiaries in the world political system. These
nations have benefited from economic integration, and this has proved sufficient in the past to pacify them.
The question for the future is whether the benefits of tangible resources through markets are sufficient to compensate the rising powers
for their lack of influence in the policy sphere. The danger is that established powers may be slow to accommodate or give way to the
demands of rising powers from Asia and elsewhere, leading to divisions over the intangible domain of policy and politics. Optimists
argue that at the same time that these nations are rising in power, their domestic situations are evolving in a way
that makes their interests more similar to the West. Consumerism, democracy, and a market orientation all
help to draw the rising powers in as fellow travelers in an expanding zone of peace among the developed nations.
Pessimists argue instead that capabilities among the rising powers are growing faster than their affinity for western values, or even that
fundamental differences exist among the interests of first- and second-wave powers that cannot be bridged by the presence of market
mechanisms or McDonald’s restaurants.¶ If the peace observed among western, developed nations is to prove
durable, it must be because warfare proves futile as nations transition to prosperity. Whether this will happen
depends on the rate of change in interests and capabilities, a difficult thing to judge. We must hope that the optimistic view is
correct, that what ended war in Europe can be exported globally. Prosperity has made war expensive,
while the fruits of conflict, both in terms of tangible and intangible spoils have declined in value. These forces
are not guaranteed to prevail indefinitely. Already, research on robotic warfare promises to lower the cost of conquest. If in addition,
fundamental differences among capable communities arise, then warfare over ideology or policy can also be resurrected. We must all
hope that the consolidating forces of prosperity prevail, that war becomes a durable anachronism.
General Trade
Plan solves laundry list- US agriculture, economic growth, academic exchanges,
terrorism, relations
Zimmerman, 2010 (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, studied at Barnard College, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time
to Mend a Broken Policy”, Barnard College, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now
focus on the¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The
U.S. needs¶ to adopt a new approach to
Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and¶ waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more
pragmatic approach¶ when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created¶
by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms¶ announced by Raul Castro which will
over time eliminate the state’s information¶ monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions¶ with
Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the¶ risks. Benefits for the
U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses
will benefit from¶ substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food
exports¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions,¶ and from the
elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S.¶ government will benefit from
additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3)¶ funds wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the
Castro regime, such as Radio and TV¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for¶ more
productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S.¶ Treasury’s administrative
expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and¶ investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel
to Cuba will be reduced and¶ redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating terrorist
networks abroad;¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most important allies¶
including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform¶ measures (Sweig). Offsetting
these benefits are the costs of enforcement of¶ increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these¶ measures will
not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid¶ transition to a democratic government.¶
Removing the embargo boosts trade, the economy, and increases ag sales
Zimmerman, 2010 (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, studied at Barnard College, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time
to Mend a Broken Policy”, Barnard College, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by¶ removing the trade
embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while¶ also helping to alleviate hunger among
Cubans. A policy environment open to¶ international trade and investment is a necessary ingredient to sustain higher
rates¶ of economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new¶ technology,
communications, and democratic ideas (Griswold, 1; Sachs and¶ Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is
a means of lowering¶ domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and domestic ¶
production. U.S. companies will introduce new technologies and production¶ methods, while raising
wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba.¶ The additional creation of wealth will help to advance social, political, and¶
economic conditions independent of the governing authorities in Cuba. The most¶ economically open countries today are more than
three times as likely to enjoy full¶ political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed (Griswold, 1).¶ Lifting certain trade restrictions
would assist Cuba in its efforts to recover¶ from the damage caused by its recent hurricanes. If the U.S. exempted construction¶ equipment and agricultural
machinery from the Cuban trade ban through regulatory¶ action, the Cuban people could benefit from the loosening of restrictions without¶ overhauling the entire embargo.¶ By allowing free travel to and from Cuba,
potential for the marketing and¶ sale of agricultural and medical goods would expand enormously, further boosting¶
the economies of the U.S. and Cuba. The U.S. International Trade Commission¶ estimated that if travel restrictions to Cuba were lifted, the number of U.S. travelers¶ would increase
from less than 200,000 to between 550,00 and one million annually¶ (U.S. International Trade Commission). The increase in U.S. visitors would in turn¶ increase demand
for more and higher quality goods and would provide more money¶ for the government to purchase U.S.
goods, according to the Commission report.¶ Allowing U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba would boost the tourism industry in
the¶ U.S. and create thousands of new jobs. Even lifting the travel restrictions on groups¶ or individuals directly engaged in U.S. agricultural sales
to Cuba would be a¶ significant advancement. Business leaders and entrepreneurs from the U.S.
would¶ gain a competitive edge by having the opportunity to travel to Cuba and becoming¶ familiar
with the Cuban market and meting face-to-face with their Cuban¶ counterparts.
Removing the embargo opens new markets between the US and Cuba
Williams, 2002 (Alexander Williams III, writer for the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law “MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, 01/2002, DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf)
C. The Cuban Economy The
Cuban economy is in terrible shape.132 Presently, “the Cuban econ-omy has stagnated
because its primary benefactor, the former Soviet Union, is no longer able to provide it significant financial
support.”133 Again, between 1989 and 1990, “Cuba lost its major commercial markets together with the Soviet sub-sidies it had been receiving.”134
Moreover, from 1959 to 1994, Cuba’s GNP fell from U.S. $32.5 billion to U.S. $ 18.6 billion.135 During that same time, the total worth of Cuba’s exports fell from
U.S. $5.4 billion to U.S. $1.7 billion.136 However, despite
its current economic crisis, investors still see great fi-nancial
promise in the Cuban market.137 Even though Cuba’s economy is in shambles, agencies such as the American
Farm Bureau Federation believe that Cuba could eventually become a market for American farmers .138
Especially because Cuba desperately needs food products, farming tools and machinery.139 Thus, the
Cuban Government is desperately welcoming foreign investment and commercial trade.140 Fidel Castro
has already initiated some economic reform by allowing foreign investors to partake in all of Cuba’s
industries.141 Furthermore, other government officials have been campaigning and encouraging foreign
investors that Cuba has a bright future ahead of them and that it will be safe for them to invest in
Cuba.142 Many companies and foreign investors seem to agree with the Cuban Vice President’s assessment and have taken advantage.143 For example,
“[c]ompanies from Mexico, Canada, Spain, Great Britain, France, and Australia have all begun to invest in Cuba and support its development.”144 D. Unnecessary
Costs to United States Farmers American
companies are eager to pounce on the Cuban market as well, but due to
the restrictions, they cannot participate in Cuba’s investment opportun-ities.145 As a result, American
companies, farmers, and subsidiaries have become the losers, not Castro.146 For example, before the
restrictions, the United States “was Cuba’s biggest source of wheat, rice and dairy products, and its
biggest customer for its crucial sugar crop.”147 Given this tremendous opportunity cost, the United
States’ restrictions make no sense , especially since “none of the ex-port controls [that America uses] for foreign policy or national security
purposes has appreciably reduced the total flow of agricultural imports to the target coun-try.”148
Removing the embargo revitalizes the economy- key to agriculture and tourism
Shkolnick, 2012 (Jacob Shkolnick, “SIN EMBARGO:1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall 2012, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol17No3-Shkolnick.pdf)
Cuba today is experiencing the most rapid shifts towards privatization and reform since the revolution
more than sixty years ago. Though truly open trade with Cuba will remain out of reach until the embargo
is relaxed or a new trade agreement is reached, it is worth the time of agricultural and business entities in the
United States to consider how they may approach doing business in Cuba. Given the extent of pre-embargo trade
between the United States and Cuba it is no stretch to imagine the enormous possibilities once that partnership is
reestablished. Though reforms over the past decade have made significant progress towards this end, they only scratch the
surface on what Cuba has to offer. The two economic areas where Cuba shows perhaps the most promise and
have the greatest potential for international trade and investment are tourism and agriculture. Tourism
shows great promise simply for the fact that for more than half a century the country has been entirely cut off from
open trade and travel by U.S. citizens, citizens who will likely flock to the country once access is
restored. Agriculture in Cuba also presents numerous unique opportunities, and since the collapse of the Soviet
Union the country has developed novel agricultural production techniques that could help serve a
growing demand for natural, organic foods in the United States. While tourism may increase economic opportunity
for existing businesses and industries, Cuba’s
agricultural model, on the other hand, presents unique opportunities to
both existing and entirely new business opportunities in the United States.
Lifting the embargo increases tourism- boosts the Cuban economy
Shkolnick, 2012 (Jacob Shkolnick, “SIN EMBARGO:1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall 2012, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol17No3-Shkolnick.pdf)
Prior to the embargo, Cuba was a travel destination for as many as 300,000 American tourists per year.91 Tourists from various Soviet Bloc
nations never came close to making up this loss in travel, reaching no more than 30,000 tourists per year.92 Since the demise of the Soviet
Union, however, tourism to
the island has continued to increase dramatically. As of July 2012, Cuba is the
second most popular tourist destination in the Caribbean region, trailing only the Dominican Republic.93 Slightly
more than two million tourists per year now visit the island as of 2011, representing growth of 7.3% over the last year alone.94 As of 2005,
Cuba’s service sector accounted for 67.8% of the nation’s annual gross domestic product, eclipsing
traditional Cuban exports such as nickel and sugar.95 Tourist infrastructure in Cuba, however, has strained to
accommodate the rapid surge in visitors, with hotels, resorts, restaurants, and other accommodations showing their age after decades of
relatively little improvement or investment.96 Depending on the precise means through which the travel and economic embargos are lifted,
estimates of the
number of U.S. visitors expected to visit Cuba within the first year range from six
hundred thousand to more than one million, with up to five million visitors per year by the fifth year
of open travel.97 There is the potential for modest yet not insignificant job growth in response to new travel
opportunities, with potentially over twelve thousand new service sector and travel jobs in the United
States within five years.98
Plan k2 Cuban reforms
Lifting the embargo spurs greater trade, economic growth, and Cuban economic
reforms
Griswold, 2005 (Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S.
Embargo against Cuba”, CATO Institute, 10/12/2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-againstcuba)
Expanding Our Influence in Cuba¶ Instead
of the embargo, Congress and the administration should take concrete steps
to expand America’s economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted.
According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to
visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban American.¶ Yes, more American
dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters,
a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost
the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would
then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors,
food venders, and other entrepreneurs.¶ Second, restrictions on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded
remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms , and promote
independence from the government.¶ Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed
to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most
international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba
through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the
HelmsBurton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated
objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or
modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue
acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial
engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should
continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing
expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below .¶ We should apply the president’s
sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be
more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas.¶ How many
decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
Sanctions empirically fail- lifting the Cuban embargo is key to Cuban reforms
Griswold, 2005 (Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S.
Embargo against Cuba”, CATO Institute, 10/12/2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-againstcuba)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have
failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the
deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and
globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are
respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that
tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases
the flow of goods and services but also of people and
ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.¶ President
Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech
on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of freedom,” the
president said, and those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that
open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and
believe in values—not just American values, but universal
values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way
to do that.Ӧ The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human
rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban
government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet China has
become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands
that economic
engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political
reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.¶ In fact, the
Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America’s national interest today than
either Cuba or China. Chavez shares Castro’s hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to
spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans
movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela’s state oil
company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our own energy sector, and Americans—last time I checked—can travel freely to
Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is that we don’t have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in
a swing state like Ohio.¶ This
is not an argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S.
foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special
about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo.¶
K2 democracy
Free trade key to Cuban democratic shift
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317)
Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However , free trade and open markets do
promote open economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better
opportunities and less poverty. Less poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia
Foundation and a leading political scientist in the United States calls this idea of free markets promoting
democracy “Liberal Internationalism.” He argues open markets lead to the formation of a middle class; the
middle class then brings pressure on non-democratic governments to open the political process; once
that opening occurs, democracy develops.
Lifting embargo without QPQ yield numerous economic and politics benefits—more
freedoms and liberalization
Sanguinetty, 2013 (Jorge A., president at Development Research Center, president & CEO at DevTech Systems, Inc., “Who benefits
and loses if the US-Cuba embargo is lifted? “, Democracy, Development, and Institutions, April 2013,
http://devresearchcenter.org/2013/04/08/who-benefits-and-loses-if-the-us-cuba-embargo-is-lifted-by-jorge-a-sanguinetty/)
The answer depends on the conditions under which the embargo is lifted. I focus on the expected distribution of benefits (and costs) between
the government and the Cuban population. A
unilateral move by the US Government, without any quid pro quo by
the Cuban government can be expected to yield significant benefits to the official establishment with
benefits of an unknown magnitude to the population at large. I posit that the magnitude of the latter depends on the
degree of internal liberalization of the Cuban economy. Until Raul Castro took over, the centralized command of the
Cuban economy was subject to a set or constraints arguably more restrictive than the US embargo.
What I have called the internal embargo consisted in the Cuban government outright prohibition for Cubans to own enterprises, freely employ
workers or trade domestically and internationally. To many Cubans, probably a majority, such
constraints were the main cause
of the country ´s secular economic crisis. Lifting the US embargo under such circumstances was
reasonably expected to yield most of the economic and political benefits to the Cuban government
and limited economic and no political benefits to the population. With the recent partial economic (not
political) liberalization policies implemented by Raul Castro, we can expect that the distribution of economic benefits
would be more favorable to the Cuban people. Such new economic freedoms carry a dose of informal
political freedoms as Cubans are able to develop relationships among themselves that were tightly constrained until
recently, like freedom of assembly, to communicate, and to make transactions and agreements without
the tutelage of the government. To wit, as the private sector develops because the government is forced to reduce the inflated
payrolls of its enterprises, the authorities lose control on those newly liberated workers.
Lifting Embargo key to Cuban democracy
Johnson, 2008 (Roger, North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, “Cuba: Snuff Out the Embargo”, Business Week,
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/06/cuba_snuff_out_the_embargo.html)
American policy toward Cuba is an abject failure. Nine U.S. Presidents have come and gone (and a 10th is about to depart);
Fidel Castro has just resigned, yet his closest supporters remain in power. The real victims of this misguided policy are the two generations of
Cubans who have grown up under the U.S. embargo that has deprived them of access to U.S. consumer products. More important,
it has
isolated them from the ideals of democracy and freedom, the very things we most want for them. In
the meantime, other nations, including most of our closest allies, are openly trading with and sending
tourists to Cuba. There is a substantial market there, especially for our agricultural products, and we
are missing out on much of it. Embargoes are almost meaningless when the rest of the world ignores
them. Since 2002, North Dakota has exported nearly $40 million in agricultural commodities—mostly
pulse crops (peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc.)—to Cuba, despite the competitive disadvantage imposed on us by our own government
restrictions. Lifting those restrictions would mean greater trade opportunities. Cuba’s government is much like those of China and Vietnam,
Communist nations that enjoy trade, tourism, and even the friendship of the U.S. Yet we treat Cuba, a tiny nation with virtually no political,
economic, or military power, as a pariah. The
U.S. should end the trade and business embargo with Cuba and
move quickly to allow tourism between our two countries. Most important, we should restore full diplomatic
relations with Havana. Only then will we have the leverage to press the new Cuban leadership to restore
human rights, establish a free market-based economy, and move to democracy. Until we do these things,
however, we will watch as others enjoy the benefits of trade with Cuba and play an active role in the development of the island. The U.N.
General Assembly has voted repeatedly for an end to the embargo against Cuba, most recently by a margin of 183 to 4. It is time to admit we
are wrong; it is
time to change our policy—for ourselves and for the people of Cuba.
US Action Key
US action key- Cuba can’t reform economy alone
Shkolnick, 2012 (Jacob Shkolnick, “SIN EMBARGO:1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall 2012, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol17No3-Shkolnick.pdf)
Additional capital will enable small Cuban farms to expand operations by hiring additional help or perhaps purchasing additional farm animals.
While purchasing a tractor may seem like an obvious choice for a growing farm, Medardo Naranjo Valdes of the Organoponico Vivero Alamar, a
UBPC just outside of Havana, indicated that farm animals such as oxen would remain the preferred choice for the foreseeable future on the
small and midsized farms that make up the majority of the newer agricultural cooperatives.165 Not only do farm animals not require gasoline
or incur maintenance costs beyond perhaps an occasional veterinarian charge, their waste can be used as fertilizer. Apart from additional labor,
funds provided to agricultural cooperatives could be put to use in developing innovative pest control
techniques that do not require the use of expensive pesticides or other chemicals. The Vivero Alamar is
currently experimenting with a variety of natural pest control techniques such as introducing plants that serve as natural repellents to insects
and the introduction of other insects that feed on harmful pests without harming the crops.166 Investment
in agricultural
cooperatives done in this manner will likely fail to see much return on the investment for their foreseeable
future, until policies in both the United States and Cuba are changed.167 For a relatively small sum, American
investors will get not only the benefit of a close relationship with a Cuban farm that will become a new
source of both import and export business in the future, but potentially gain access to innovative
agricultural techniques that could be used in the United States immediately.168
UQ Trade
The Embargo is destroying Cuba’s economy
Biles, ‘3/16 [3/16/13, Jonothan Biles is an editor for the Courier, “OP-ED: The embargo against Cuba
has run its course”, http://www.pcccourier.com/2013/03/16/cuba-pro/]
In 1960, the United States government imposed a full trade embargo on the nation of Cuba. Fifty years ago, Cuba was a hotbed
for Communism and Soviet Union collusion – an unsettling neighbor for an already weary post-war
U.S. – but those days are over. Fidel Castro is gone, his brother Raul has loosened restrictions on
Cuban citizens operating and owning businesses and more-freely travelling to the United States. Raul
Castro has said that this term in office will be his last. The Cuban Embargo is an antiquated law that seems more like
an adolescent grudge than an effort to protect the United States’ national security. Cuba is a nonthreatening, impoverished nation whose citizens’ lives have been maliciously affected by an archaic
embargo. Cuba has not been a legitimate danger to the United States for decades, yet it remains one of the
four countries that the State Department lists as “State Sponsors of Terrorism” – along with Iran, Sudan and Syria. In this era of hyper acuity
concerning terrorism, Cuba is never mentioned. Every year since 1992, the United Nations has voted in favor of the U.S. lifting its embargo
against Cuba. In 2012, the vote was held again and passed 183-3 in favor of lifting the embargo. The UN Secretary General’s office provided a
report on Cuba that stated, “The
economic damage accumulated [by the embargo] over more than 50 years,
until 2011, amounted to one trillion, six billion dollars.” The report added that the “blockade [was]
one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and
social development.” The embargo against Cuba is an outdated remnant of the Cold War and shows
an inconsistency of American political doctrine towards other nations. One of America’s leading trade partners is
China – a communist country that is riddled with environmental and human rights violations. As a purported shining light of world
liberties and freedom, the United States’ image is tarnished by the treatment of an island nation that
threatened our shores when President Barack Obama was three years old. Every American ally except Israel
supports and trades with Cuba, making the United States look like the petulant child of world politics. The
issues that caused the embargo were relevant and pressing – in 1960 – but no longer hold up. The
embargo against Cuba is no longer warranted.
Add-ons
Cred Add-on
The embargo- independently- destroys Us credibility
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317)
The flaw with this idea and the Helms-Burton Act is that the United States has lost international
credibility , by passing a law criticized as imperialistic in nature by the U.S. imposing its power,
authority and influence over a sovereign nation, with unconditional and inflexible terms for change before
it will entertain the idea of lifting the embargo. This is not the intent of an embargo. An embargo is not designed to
mandate how a country should run its internal affairs.
Strengthening US-Cuban ties by removing the embargo increases US credibility
Conell, 2009 (Christina Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Relations, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an
Environmental Duo?”, Council on Hemispheric Relations, 06/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense
importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine
environments. Such a
concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous
regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in
U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its
purpose. Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba
relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of
harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be
reinvigorated through expanded tourism , development initiatives and an expansion of commodity
exports, including sugarcane for ethanol . U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental
factors , thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. An environmental
partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models
that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has
the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides
the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s
extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices.
Obama’s credibility solves multiple nuclear wars- that’s extinction
Ben Coes 11, a former speechwriter in the George H.W. Bush administration, managed Mitt Romney’s
successful campaign for Massachusetts Governor in 2002 & author, “The disease of a weak president”,
The Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/the-disease-of-a-weak-president/
a weak president usually begins with the Achilles’ heel all politicians are born with — the desire to be popular. It leads to pandering to
results in that very politician
losing the trust and respect of friends and foes alike.¶ In the case of Israel, those of us who are strong supporters can at
The disease of
different audiences, people and countries and creates a sloppy, incoherent set of policies. Ironically, it ultimately
least take comfort in the knowledge that Tel Aviv will do whatever is necessary to protect itself from potential threats from its unfriendly neighbors. While it would be
preferable for the Israelis to be able to count on the United States, in both word and deed, the fact is right now they stand alone. Obama and his foreign policy team have
Obama’s
weakness could — in other places — have implications far, far worse than anything that
might ultimately occur in Israel. The triangular plot of land that connects Pakistan,
India and China is held together with much more fragility and is built upon a truly
foreboding foundation of religious hatreds, radicalism, resource envy and nuclear
weapons.¶ If you can only worry about preventing one foreign policy disaster, worry
undercut the Israelis in a multitude of ways. Despite this, I wouldn’t bet against the soldiers of Shin Bet, Shayetet 13 and the Israeli Defense Forces.¶ But
about this one.¶ Here are a few unsettling facts to think about:¶ First, Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the British depossess hundreds of
nuclear weapons, enough to wipe each other off the map many times over. ¶ Second, Pakistan
is 97% Muslim. It is a question of when — not if — Pakistan elects a radical Islamist in
the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini as its president. Make no mistake, it will happen, and when it does the world will
have a far greater concern than Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a single nuclear device. ¶
Third, China sits at the northern border of both India and Pakistan . China is strategically
aligned with Pakistan. Most concerning, China covets India’s natural resources. Over the years,
it has slowly inched its way into the northern tier of India-controlled Kashmir Territory,
appropriating land and resources and drawing little notice from the outside world.¶ In my book, Coup
colonized and left the region in 1947. All three wars occurred before the two countries had nuclear weapons. Both countries now
D’Etat, I consider this tinderbox of colliding forces in Pakistan, India and China as a thriller writer. But thriller writers have the luxury of solving problems by
imagining solutions on the page. In my book, when Pakistan elects a radical Islamist who then starts
a war with India and introduces nuclear weapons to the theater, America steps in and
removes the Pakistani leader through a coup d’état.¶ I wish it was that simple.¶ The more complicated and
difficult truth is that we, as Americans, must take sides. We must be willing to be unpopular in certain places. Most important, we must be ready and
willing to threaten our military might on behalf of our allies. And our allies are Israel
and India.¶ There are many threats out there — Islamic radicalism, Chinese technology
espionage, global debt and half a dozen other things that smarter people than me are no
doubt worrying about. But the single greatest threat to America is none of these. The single greatest threat facing
America and our allies is a weak U.S. president. It doesn’t have to be this way. President Obama could — if
he chose — develop a backbone and lead. Alternatively, America could elect a new president. It has to be one or the other. The
status quo is simply not an option.
Resource Wars Add-on
Energy scarcity in squo results in significant resource wars
Gendran and Hoffman, 2009 (Renée and Evan, qualified writers at the Peace and Conflict Review, “Resource Scarcity and the
Prevention of Violent Conflicts”, University for Peace, Fall 2009,
http://www.review.upeace.org/index.cfm?opcion=0&ejemplar=18&entrada=90)
Increasingly, it seems that many analysts within the peacebuilding field predict that future violent
conflicts will likely take the form of resource wars – which can be understood as those conflicts which
are primarily waged over access to scarce resources such as rare minerals, water, or oil .[1] The underlying
reasoning behind this assumption is that, “as the global population continues to rise, and the demand for
resources continues to grow, there is significant potential for conflicts over natural resources to
intensify” (UNEP, 2009). The proponents of this view argue that resource scarcity may be an underlying cause of
violence as it serves as an indication of poor social capital. The inability of existing social resources to
develop, maintain, and implement innovative techniques and solutions to resource scarcity indicates
weak overall social capital, translating into weak state institutions. While grievances and motivations for war are
unique to every violent conflict, weak state institutions serve as a good indicator of potential for violent conflict. A reasonable argument has
also been made that resource abundance, and not resource scarcity, has been a cause of violent conflict. The more plentiful a resource, the
more competition there will be for access and control over a particular resource. More precisely, the argument is as follows: the higher the
economic return, the more competition, the higher the likelihood of a violent conflict erupting. In sum, these two seemingly competing roles
that resources might play are summarized as follows: In
the past decades, natural resources have attracted
considerable attention as a source of conflict. Depending on the respective theoretical premises, some
scholars have argued that scarcity of renewable natural resources inevitably leads to violence in
countries of the global South.
Resource wars becoming increasingly likely nuclear conflict—empirics prove result in
millions of deaths
Klare, 2013 (Michael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular and the author, most
recently, of The Race for What’s Left, just published in paperback by Picador, “Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Coming Global Explosion”,
TomDispatch, April 21, 2013, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175690/)
Start with one simple given:
the prospect of future scarcities of vital natural resources, including energy,
water, land, food, and critical minerals. This in itself would guarantee social unrest, geopolitical
friction, and war. It is important to note that absolute scarcity doesn’t have to be on the horizon in
any given resource category for this scenario to kick in. A lack of adequate supplies to meet the needs
of a growing, ever more urbanized and industrialized global population is enough. Given the wave of
extinctions that scientists are recording, some resources -- particular species of fish, animals, and trees, for example -- will become
less abundant in the decades to come, and may even disappear altogether. But key materials for modern
civilization like oil, uranium, and copper will simply prove harder and more costly to acquire, leading
to supply bottlenecks and periodic shortages. Oil -- the single most important commodity in the international economy -provides an apt example. Although global oil supplies may actually grow in the coming decades, many experts doubt that they can be expanded
sufficiently to meet the needs of a rising global middle class that is, for instance, expected to buy millions of new cars in the near future. In its
2011 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency claimed that an anticipated global oil demand of 104 million barrels per day in
2035 will be satisfied. This, the report suggested, would be thanks in large part to additional supplies of “unconventional oil” (Canadian tar
sands, shale oil, and so on), as well as 55 million barrels of new oil from fields “yet to be found” and “yet to be developed.” However, many
analysts scoff at this optimistic assessment, arguing that rising
production costs (for energy that will be ever more
difficult and costly to extract), environmental opposition, warfare, corruption, and other impediments
will make it extremely difficult to achieve increases of this magnitude. In other words, even if production
manages for a time to top the 2010 level of 87 million barrels per day, the goal of 104 million barrels
will never be reached and the world’s major consumers will face virtual, if not absolute, scarcity. Water
provides another potent example. On an annual basis, the supply of drinking water provided by natural precipitation remains more or less
constant: about 40,000 cubic kilometers. But much of this precipitation lands on Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, and inner Amazonia where
there are very few people, so the supply available to major concentrations of humanity is often surprisingly limited. In many regions with high
population levels, water supplies are already relatively sparse. This is especially true of North Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East, where
the demand for water continues to grow as a result of rising populations, urbanization, and the emergence of new water-intensive industries.
The result, even when the supply remains constant, is an environment of increasing scarcity. Wherever
you look, the picture is roughly the same: supplies of critical resources may be rising or falling, but rarely do they
appear to be outpacing demand, producing a sense of widespread and systemic scarcity. However
generated, a perception of scarcity -- or imminent scarcity -- regularly leads to anxiety, resentment,
hostility, and contentiousness. This pattern is very well understood, and has been evident throughout human history. In his book
Constant Battles, for example, Steven LeBlanc, director of collections for Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, notes that
many ancient civilizations
experienced higher levels of warfare when faced with resource shortages
brought about by population growth, crop failures, or persistent drought. Jared Diamond, author of the bestseller
Collapse, has detected a similar pattern in Mayan civilization and the Anasazi culture of New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon. More recently,
concern over adequate food for the home population was a significant factor in Japan’s invasion of
Manchuria in 1931 and Germany’s invasions of Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union in 1941, according to
Lizzie Collingham, author of The Taste of War. Although the global supply of most basic commodities has grown
enormously since the end of World War II, analysts see the persistence of resource-related conflict in
areas where materials remain scarce or there is anxiety about the future reliability of supplies . Many
experts believe, for example, that the fighting in Darfur and other war-ravaged areas of North Africa has been driven, at least in part, by
competition among desert tribes for access to scarce water supplies, exacerbated in some cases by rising population levels. “In
Darfur,” says
drought, increasing
demographic pressures, and political marginalization are among the forces that have pushed the
region into a spiral of lawlessness and violence that has led to 300,000 deaths and the displacement of
more than two million people since 2003.” Anxiety over future supplies is often also a factor in conflicts that break out over
a 2009 report from the U.N. Environment Programme on the role of natural resources in the conflict, “recurrent
access to oil or control of contested undersea reserves of oil and natural gas. In 1979, for instance, when the Islamic revolution in Iran
overthrew the Shah and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Washington began to fear that someday it might be denied access to Persian Gulf oil.
At that point, President Jimmy Carter promptly announced what came to be called the Carter Doctrine. In his 1980 State of the Union Address,
Carter affirmed that any move to impede the flow of oil from the Gulf would be viewed as a threat to America’s “vital interests” and would be
repelled by “any means necessary, including military force.”In 1990, this principle was invoked by President George H.W. Bush to justify
intervention in the first Persian Gulf War, just as his son would use it, in part, to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today,
it remains the
basis for U.S. plans to employ force to stop the Iranians from closing the Strait of Hormuz, the
strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean through which about 35% of the
world’s seaborne oil commerce passes. Recently, a set of resource conflicts have been rising toward
the boiling point between China and its neighbors in Southeast Asia when it comes to control of
offshore oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. Although the resulting naval clashes have yet to result in a loss of life,
a strong possibility of military escalation exists. A similar situation has also arisen in the East China Sea, where China
and Japan are jousting for control over similarly valuable undersea reserves . Meanwhile, in the South Atlantic
Ocean, Argentina and Britain are once again squabbling over the Falkland Islands (called Las Malvinas by the Argentinians) because oil has been
discovered in surrounding waters. By all accounts, resource-driven
potential conflicts like these will only multiply in
the years ahead as demand rises, supplies dwindle, and more of what remains will be found in
disputed areas. In a 2012 study titled Resources Futures, the respected British think-tank Chatham House expressed particular concern
about possible resource wars over water, especially in areas like the Nile and Jordan River basins where several groups or countries must share
the same river for the majority of their water supplies and few possess the wherewithal to develop alternatives. “Against this backdrop of tight
supplies and competition, issues related to water rights, prices, and pollution are becoming contentious,” the report noted. “In
areas with
limited capacity to govern shared resources, balance competing demands, and mobilize new
investments, tensions over water may erupt into more open confrontations.”
Ag Add-on
UQ Ag
In the status quo the Agriculture sector is in decline
Bloomberg 13 (June 4, U.S. Farmland Values Seen Declining as World Grain Output Rises,
http://www.agweb.com/article/u.s._farmland_values_seen_declining_as_world_grain_output_rises_BLMG/)
Rising global production of wheat, soybeans and corn will decrease the U.S. share of world agriculture trade and
may reduce the value of farmland, according to a study by Ohio State University.¶ "A declining competitive advantage for U.S.
crops will ultimately reduce the relative advantage of U.S. farmland and thus the price it can command," Carl Zulauf
and Nick Rettig, economists at Ohio State, said in a report May 31. Revenue per acre may drop amid falling prices and because of "relative yield declines. In
short, the U.S. crop sector may be as vulnerable as it was in the late 1970s."¶ The Standard & Poor’s GSCI Agriculture Index of eight
commodities has jumped 57 percent since the end of 2006 as global droughts and extreme weather hampered crops. U.S. farmland values rose to a record in
2012, the government said in August. Rising crop prices spurred global farmers to increase production, and the expansion in world acreage and yields from 2007
to 2011 exceeded gains in the U.S., the Ohio State economists said.¶ "The
yield advantage of U.S. crops has been in a long-term
decline," which is also magnified by rising global acreage, Zulauf and Rettig said. "This advantage has declined substantially since the
late 1960s and has disappeared for wheat. In addition, average soybean yield over 2007-2011 was slightly higher in Brazil than the U.S."¶ U.S.
wheat yields fell 3 percent below the rest of the world from 2007 to 2011, the report showed. That compares with a 44 percent
advantage from 1968 to 1972. U.S. soybean yields were about 24 percent higher from 2007 to 2011, down from 86 percent. Corn yields averaged 2.43
times higher, down from 3.04 times.¶ From 2007 to 2011, U.S. farmers produced 8.9 percent of the global wheat crop,
35 percent of soybeans and 38 percent of corn. That’s down from 13 percent, 72 percent and 44 percent
respectively from 1968 to 1972.
Plan K2 Ag
The plan is key to support the US ag sector- they’re facing crisis now
Williams, 2002 (Alexander Williams III, writer for the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law “MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, 01/2002, DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf)
VIII. CONCLUSION American
farmers are eager to lift the Cuban embargo because there are millions of
people in Cuba who need all kinds of agricultural products.149 “[L]eading agricultural economists predict that United
States exports to Cuba could reach one billion dollars annually if the sanctions were lifted.”150 Basically,
this embargo imposes unnecessary hardships on American farmers who are look-ing to sell their crops
in large export markets.151 American farmers have already lost two billion dollars in lost export sales as a result of the embargo.152 And now
that many of them are in financial difficulty, they realize the need to look for new markets.153 “The future
of Amer-ican agriculture depends upon access to foreign markets.”154 Since Cuba is wel-coming foreign investment, the
U.S. government should lift the embargo and allow farmers to sell its products to Cuba. Furthermore, the
Cuban embargo has not worked or had that big of an impact on Cuba because other countries supply
Cuba with the products that the United States cuts off.155 As a result, the United States is losing billions of
dol-lars of business to other countries, even though they could deliver its products to Cuba faster and
cheaper than the other countries could.
Cuban markets uniquely key- US agriculture sector declining now
Williams, 2002 (Alexander Williams III, writer for the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law “MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, 01/2002, DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf)
As a result of these sanctions, the American farmer is prohibited from selling its food in the Cuban
market. This is senseless because American food producers do not have markets for all of their
products and a secure Cuban mar-ket actually exists .7 Furthermore, Cuba is no longer considered a
serious threat to our national security.8 Thus, considering that the American farmer is presently
experiencing a financial crisis , the embargo should be lifted so American farmers can reduce their
financial difficulties. This note gives an overview of the Cuban Embargo and the farming cri-sis in the United States and then explores
whether lifting the Cuban embargo would be an adequate solution to the farming crisis or at the very least
would serve as a kick-start to the American farmers’ quest for financial stability .
Cuban market uniquely key to our struggling economy and agriculture
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317)
Every sector of American society is challenging the Cuban American lobby that so vehemently fights to maintain the embargo. The International
Trade Commission estimates that the U.S. loses over $4 billion per year in lost trade with Cuba. The
U.S. agriculture sector, led by the
American Farm bureau, is becoming one of the loudest voices lobbying against the embargo, because it is one of
the sectors most likely to benefit from trade with Cuba. Estimated annual losses to the farming community total $1 billion.
Cuba currently imports between $700 million and $1 billion in food products primarily from Argentina,
France and Vietnam (Miami Herald, 2001) at a greater cost and distance, for lesser quality products. The
United States is Cuba’s most logical trading partner for its proximity alone. The restrictions on selling food and
medicine to Cuba should be lifted as a first step towards normalizing relations with the island. Selling food and medicine to Cuba should go
beyond humanitarian purposes and expand into a solid business relationship. Cuba
has the potential for a multibillion-dollar
market that will strength our own struggling economy, primarily in the agricultural sector.
The plan significantly increases US ag industry
Coleman, 2009 (Jonathan R. Coleman, Chief of the Agriculture and Fisheries Division with the Office of Industries of the U.S.
International Trade Commission (USITC), “U.S. AGRICULTURAL SALES TO CUBA: CERTAIN ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF U.S. RESTRICTIONS”, OFFICE
OF INDUSTRIES WORKING PAPER U.S. International Trade Commission, 06/2009, http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ID22.pdf)
Removing the financing restrictions will lower Cuba’s cost of purchasing U.S. products and therefore
lead to increased sales.13 Similarly, if travel restrictions were lifted, not just on Cuban- Americans, but all on U.S. citizens, the
influx of U.S. tourists would be huge.14 These tourists would boost the demand for imported agricultural
products, particularly higher-valued products from the United States, and bring more hard currency
into the country, allowing Alimport to buy more U.S. agricultural products for the domestic Cuban
population. Because of data limitations and the nonmarket aspects of Cuban purchasing decisions, the overall effect of removing
restrictions on U.S. exports to Cuba is difficult to quantify. Estimates of what U.S. sales of agricultural products to Cuba would have been in
2008 if there had been no financing restrictions and no ban on any U.S. citizen traveling to Cuba, based on interviews with Cuban purchasing
officials, sector modeling results, and discussions with U.S. industry officials, are reported in table 1.15 In
2008, Cuba imported
roughly $1.8 billion in agricultural products, of which $708 million came from the United States. With
restrictions lifted, U.S. exports would have been approximately $924 million to $1.2 billion, an increase of $216–478
million. In terms of share, the actual U.S. share was 38 percent. Absent the restrictions, the share would have been 49–64
percent. For individual products, U.S. foodgrains exports would have been significantly higher absent the
restrictions: wheat by $35–72 million, rice by $17–48 million. The effect is less for products for which the United States already had a very
high share of the Cuban market in 2008, such as corn, soybeans, and poultry. Also, products largely destined for the tourist market show small,
but not insignificant, gains, such as processed foods ($29–55 million) and red meats, beef, and pork ($12–21 million). Eliminating financing
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports would likely have a larger impact on U.S. agricultural sales than lifting the travel restrictions on U.S.
citizens because most imported food from the United States consists of bulk commodities sold to Cubans rather than foods sold to tourists.16
Plan boosts US ag exports
Smith, 2012 (Ron Smith has spent more than 30 years covering Sunbelt agriculture. Ron began his career in agricultural journalism as an
Experiment Station and Extension editor at Clemson University, served as associate editor for Southeast Farm Press, “Cuba trade holds promise
for U.S. agricultural exports, Texas A&M economist says”, South West Farm Press, 12/06/2012, http://southwestfarmpress.com/markets/cubatrade-holds-promise-us-agricultural-exports-texas-am-economist-says)
Cuba relies on imports for 75 percent of its food, creating a huge potential market for U.S. farmers and
ranchers, says Parr Rosson, head, Texas A&M Agricultural Economics Department and AgriLife Extension economist. U.S. producers
have been able to take advantage of some of that demand with the passage of a 2000 law allowing
limited trade with Cuba, in spite of a trade, travel and economic embargo that has been in place since 1962. Rosson, speaking at the
Texas Plant Protection Association’s annual conference today in Bryan, Texas, said ag exports to Cuba could reach $450
million for 2012, short of the more than $700 million exported to Cuba in 2008, when numerous hurricanes hammered the
island nation and increased the need for imported food. Rosson said key U.S. ag exports to Cuba include
corn, poultry, soy and soy products, feeds, pork and wheat. Potential exists for increased export of
higher quality cuts of beef, which currently are limited to use in the Cuban tourist industry.
Removing the embargo boosts US ag sector
CDA, 2009 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, non-governmental organization devoted to changing U.S. policy toward the countries
of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, fostering dialogue with those governments and movements with which U.S. policy is
at odds, and recognizing positive trends in democracy and governance, “TRAVEL TO CUBA HELPS U.S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL
BUSINNESS IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS”, Center for Democracy in the Americas, 06/26/2009,
democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/trade_talking_points.pdf)
3. U.S.
citizens traveling to Cuba would significantly bolster sales of U.S. agricultural goods to Cuba. • If
restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba were lifted, the annual U.S. share of Cuba's total agricultural imports
would nearly double to as much as 64%, from the current 38%, an increase of up to $483 million in sales
to Cuba, according to 2008 figures from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). • According to the USITC, U.S. sales to Cuba
could reach $1 billion, or nearly a two-thirds share of the market – but only with a substantial increase in
the numbers of tourists traveling to the island. The Commission indicates that removing financial and travel
restrictions on Cuba would result in at least a 300 percent increase in American visitors to the island –
such a jump could result in as many as a million U.S. visitors per year. • This increase in American
tourism to Cuba would vastly increase U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba, for example: driving up general
demand for a variety of staples such as wheat, poultry and eggs. increasing demand for brands of
processed food such as soft drinks and snacks that are familiar to American tourists, as well as luxury items like
California wine, Pacific wild salmon and Florida Black Angus beef. • If restrictions on travel and trade were removed, sales of 15
of the top 16 U.S. commodities exported to Cuba would increase. According to projections by the U.S. International Trade
Commission. Sales of wheat would increase ($17 million to $34 million); rice ($14 million to $44 million); fresh potatoes, fruits, and vegetables (a rise of $37 million
to $68 million annually); processed foods ($26 million to $41 million); milk powder ($15 million to $42 million); dry beans ($9 million to $22 million); and poultry,
beef, and pork each increasing by about $9 million to $13 million). (USITC, 4-4) • In
these difficult economic times, it is in our best
interest to allow greater trade opportunities, such as in Cuba, for American businesses to sell their
goods abroad.
The plan is key to the US agriculture industry
Shkolnick, 2012 (Jacob Shkolnick, “SIN EMBARGO:1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall 2012, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol17No3-Shkolnick.pdf)
It is the
agricultural sector, however, that provides some of the most substantial and intriguing opportunities
for both trade with Cuba and the creation of entirely new businesses in the United States. In fact,
agricultural products were the very first items traded between the United States and Cuba since the embargo in December of 2001, when two
ships loaded with chicken and corn arrived in Havana.99 The potential
for the U.S. agricultural sector is abundantly
clear when the sheer volume of Cuba’s agricultural imports are taken into account. In 2008, Cuba
imported approximately $1.8 billion in agricultural goods.100 Only approximately 40% of imported
agricultural goods were from the United States, leaving over $1 billion of trade going to other
countries.101 Cuba itself is very much in favor of increased agricultural trade with the United States simply
for the logistical simplicity and cost-savings it would provide. 102 Import costs account for as much as
35% of the goods Cuba currently imports from its trading partners.103 Because Cuba is less than one hundred miles
from the coast of the United States, the country is naturally eager to enter into trade relationships that lead to
lower transportation costs.104 Cuban officials105 cite rice as just one example of an agricultural product that they would be
interested in obtaining from the United States.106 Rice is a staple food for Cuban citizens, and they enjoy it with almost every meal.107
Presently, the bulk of their rice must be imported from Eastern Asia, meaning a long voyage by sea and the expenses that go along with
shipping tons of goods across the Pacific Ocean.108 Rice
exports alone present an enormous opportunity for U.S.
producers. The United States is a major exporter of both processed and unprocessed rice, accounting
for 10% of all international trade in rice each year.109 Half of annual U.S. rice sales come from the export market, and the
United States is considered a reliable supplier of a quality product on the international market.110 The
USDA estimates that if the current restrictions on trade were removed, Cuba could potentially exceed
Mexico and Japan as the biggest importer of rice grown in the United States.111 As of September 2005, Cuba
estimated that they could purchase more than one million metric tons of rice annually, but restrictions make it unlikely that
import from the United States will go much beyond current levels of 712,000 metric tons.112 A key obstacle,
according to Cuba, is the requirement that all shipments of agricultural products from the United States be paid for in cash before they leave
port.113 This resulted in a reduction in rice exports to Cuba by nearly 50% from 2004 to 2005, according to the USA Rice Federation. 114
Plan key to revitalize Cuba’s economy- allows Cuban markets to become more
competitive
Stern, 2012 (Sam Stern, writer for DBJ, “The Cost of Crisis in Cuba”, 05/30/2012, Dartmouth Business Journal,
http://dartmouthbusinessjournal.com/2012/05/the-cost-of-crisis-in-cuba/)
The large economic impact the lifting of the Cuban embargo would have on Cuba is closely tied to its
dependence on trade. Historically, the socialist system of trade has left Cuba’s prosperity in the hands of the Soviet Union and,
recently, Venezuela. In the period following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s GDP dropped 35% as Soviet subsidies were
lost and 85% of Cuba’s trading partners ceased trade with the island. Shortages of basic goods and
medicine, a plummeting standard of living, and rising debts all revealed Cuba’s dependence on
international trade and subsidies from socialist allies. And while Cuba has recovered from this period, much of it was due
to relaxed state control of the economy and increased humanitarian trade from the US.¶ Since 2004, Cuba
has replaced its Soviet sponsorship with Venezuelan subsidies and trade. Amidst Cuban economic growth, open trade with
the United States could relieve Cuban dependence on foreign support. As Cuba’s main trading partners are
currently Venezuela, Canada, and the EU, Cuba could competitively export agricultural and fuel products to its close
neighbor, the U.S. With the surplus earned from exports, the government could make balance debts and offer a greater variety of goods to
its citizens.¶ The United States would also benefit greatly from lifting the embargo. In terms of U.S. exports, the
U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that the annual U.S. export losses from the embargo
are approximately $1 billion dollars. Additionally, the United States could also normalize relations with
nations frustrated by their stubbornness over excluding Cuba. When choosing whether to continue or close the
embargo, the U.S. must weigh its effectiveness against these forgone benefits.¶ The embargo has now been in place for 50 years and has been
utterly unsuccessful. Broadly, the embargo was intended to push Cuba toward democracy and oust Fidel Castro as its leader, but instead Cuba
has adapted to the loss of U.S. support and has distanced itself from its powerful neighbor. Independent of the embargo, Raul Castro—Fidel’s
80-year- old younger brother—has loosened government economic control. Cubans are now able to sell some private property and apply for
181 approved self-employment occupations. Although the work is predominantly menial labor, the 371,000 licenses granted for selfemployment is nonetheless a step toward capitalism.
As Cuba takes these small steps on its own, U.S. trade will expose
the benefits of capitalism to the Cuban government.¶ The losses from trade that the United States incurs by
imposing the Cuban embargo further exposes its absurdity. The U.S. government promises to lift the
ineffective embargo on the condition that Cuba transitions to democracy, yet communist China
remains America’s second largest trading partner. After 50 years, the embargo resembles more an outdated
manifestation of the Cold War than an effort to improve the lives of Cuban citizens.nearly impossible for entrepreneurs to create
successful businesses.
Ag K2 US Econ
Ag sector is key to the US economy
Weber, 2011 (Vin, Co-Chairman of Mercury/Clark & Weinstock, a government relations and public affairs company, and an advisor to
Americans for Choice and Competition in Agriculture, “Agricultural innovation and exports key to America’s economic resurgence”, The Hill,
December 20, 2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/200461-agricultural-innovation-and-exports-key-to-americaseconomic-resurgence)
Last year, the United States exported more than $108 billion worth of agricultural products accounting
for more than 10 percent of all U.S. goods sold abroad. From a macroeconomic point of view, the American farmer is
unique among business sectors. With the United States running persistent trade deficits, American farmers ran a
$42 billion trade surplus in 2010. Despite economic weakness in traditional markets, demand for U.S. agricultural
exports is growing, up 45.44 percent in the last five years. As incomes rise globally and population shifts to cities,
more and more of the world’s population is coming to rely on agricultural goods produced far from their
homes. Growing up in rural Minnesota and later representing a Corn Belt district for 12 years in the House of Representatives, I know this
country has immeasurable agricultural advantages. American farmers till some of the most fertile land
in the world and employ techniques and machinery that make them the most productive anywhere.
Further, this country has the trucking capacity, railways and seaports to deliver its agricultural goods to every part of the globe. Farming,
however, is also quickly evolving as advances in seed technologies boost yields, and with it, profits
and exports. As in so many other areas of industry, these technological advances have outstripped the legal and regulatory frameworks
established to ensure a free and open marketplace. As farmers lead America’s export resurgence from rural
Minnesota, California’s Central Valley and out on the Plains, these regulatory structures must be updated to allow farmers access to seeds
best suited to their land, their families and their businesses. Both the pharmaceutical and crop protection industries
have structures in place to support the introduction of technologies that go off patent – also called generics –
which has spurred the creation of new and better products. Like with pharmaceuticals, the public has an overriding
interest in the promotion of generic alternatives. Blocking competition of products with generic ingredients keeps prices artificially high, curbs
choices in the marketplace, and blocks other innovators from employing technologies that should have entered the public domain. From the
standpoint of technological innovation, agriculture is no different than smartphones or pharmaceuticals. Innovators must be given reasonable
access to regulatory information on patented products so that once-groundbreaking technologies can be built upon and improved allowing a
new generation of technologies to come to market. Competition and free enterprise are the engines of American innovation. Patent rights are
integral to this system but so is unfettered access to post-patent technologies. We need to recognize that agriculture is now at the cutting edge
of innovation and requires regulations that meet the dynamic needs of an evolving sector. As has been the case for more than a century,
American farmers feed the world . The difference now and into the future is the growing wealth and
standard of living outside traditional markets for U.S. agricultural products. Individuals that were once
recipients of U.S. aid are now paying customers for U.S. agricultural exports. With the Administration set on
doubling exports by 2015 – a goal supported by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle – the agricultural sector is poised to lead
the American export resurgence. It would be a shame for Congress to ignore this issue as bad regulations derail this American
success story.
Ag key to the US economy
Pulliam, 2012 (John R. Pulliam, Business reporter at The Register-Mail, “Farmers want Cuban embargo lifted”, The Register-Mail,
07/08/2012, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargo-lifted?zc_p=0)
“Restoring
normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers’ abilities
to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products,” said Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the
Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot in our nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the
recent downturn. Improving our trade relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can
continue to strengthen our state and national economies.”
Agriculture is key to the economy
Hoenig 11 (Thomas, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Hearing;
"Agriculture: Growing America's Economy"; lexis)
Agriculture - broadly defined as farm production and output from related industries - accounts for almost one-sixth of U.S. jobs and economic
activity. While the farm share of economic output has declined as other parts of our economy have grown, increased activity in broader agricultural
industries - manufacturing, transportation, distribution and food retailing - has opened new job opportunities in both rural and metro communities. A
robust agricultural sector cushioned the rural economy in our and other regions across the nation during the
recent recession, and the industry's strength is supporting further improvement in the rural economy today. In 2010, strong
demand and tight supplies for most farm commodities contributed to a sharp rebound in farm profits , which then
supported sales in farm equipment and other farm-based industries. Strong profits from agriculture also girded important
elements of our rural financial system. Commercial banks with large agricultural loan portfolios posted stronger returns than their peers
over the past three years. While more than 300 commercial banks failed during this time, only 22 were agricultural banks.
Agricultural key to strong economy
NCbiofuels 12
(organization which has as its goal the awareness of biofuel and agricultural industries) "Agriculture - The Cornerstone Of Our Old (And New)
Economy." Agriculture - The Cornerstone Of Our Old (And New) Economy. NCbiofuels, 27 June 2012. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://ncbiofuels.net/biofuels-ncblog/643-agriculture-the-cornerstone-of-our-old-and-new-economy.html>.
America may not currently be as aware of the economic value of agriculture as we should be, but America is changing. Many of us are quickly realizing it is not
possible to sustain our planet or our economy with "throw away" products and artificially deflated costs. Both the credit and housing crises and recession of the
past few years have made all of us think about our resources differently. These events brought to light the need for all of us to change, not just for our economy,
but also for our planet. How
can we create jobs, increase strategic security, reduce waste, and sustain our own
communities with resources we currently have available to us? A large part of the answer has been right in front
of us all along: by creating new opportunity through agriculture. Innovating new agricultural industries is key to
creating sustainable national wealth and security.
The U.S Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, wrote recently in the White House Blog
about why creating an advanced biofuels sector in the U.S. is crucial. He said, "I believe in renewable fuel production goals and I believe in the need for
improved energy security, a cleaner environment, better economic opportunity and job creation in rural America." Developing the biofuels industry will create
massive demand for agricultural products (specifically biomass for biofuel production) and that demand will create potentially thousands of new rural jobs.
Agriculture is the giant on which our economy stands
Robinson 10
Robinson, Elton. (Staff writer for Southwest Farm Press) "Agriculture - the Unseen Economic Giant." Southwest Farm Press. Southwest Farm Press, 17 Nov. 2010.
Web. 28 June 2012. <http://southwestfarmpress.com/management/agriculture-unseen-economic-giant>.
Agriculture is an economic giant providing food, feed, fuel and fiber for so many despite the extremes of weather,
politics and volatile markets. Agriculture is everywhere we look — horses romping in a pasture along a rural road; our healthy,
hardwood forests; all those gleaming, winter-flooded fields giving sustenance to wildlife; and wide, breathtaking fields of corn, cotton,
soybeans, rice and wheat lining our highways.
Other countries there now
Other countries are shoring up US opportunities now- US action key
Williams, 2002 (Alexander Williams III, writer for the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law “MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, 01/2002, DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf)
A. Other
Countries Are Already Investing Clearly, American farmers want, need, and feel that they should have the
opportunity to tap into this market, just as farmers and businessmen from other nations have. Presently,
other countries have a head start with Cuban invest-ment.126 However, as a practical matter, tapping into this
market could be benefi-cial to both countries because Cuba is so close to the United States.127 Therefore,
this advantage afforded to other countries could shift to the United States simply because of the proximity between
the two nations.128 B. The United States’ Proximity to Cuba Cuba is only ninety miles south of the United States.129 Thus , both coun-tries could
save considerable amounts of time and money because of reduced transportation costs.130 Moreover,
American farmers’ products could be easily and quickly transported to Cuba if the embargo were
lifted.131
AT: Cuba=/ Want Ag
Cuba wants US investment in the ag sector
Shkolnick, 2012 (Jacob Shkolnick, “SIN EMBARGO:1 THE CUBAN AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED
STATES”, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Fall 2012, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol17No3-Shkolnick.pdf)
For the foreseeable future, any
effort by agricultural groups in the United States to take advantage of trade
opportunities with Cuba will have to operate within the guidelines and policy directives of Cuba as
well as the United States. One risk that any organization that wishes to trade with Cuba might encounter is that their proposals and
business plans will run into red tape not only through regulations in the United States, but through conflict with the Communist Party of Cuba,
which still holds tremendous sway over policy and business decisions on the island. Cuban
officials are, of course, aware of the
tremendous opportunity that trade with the United States might bring to their country, and for the most
part remain eager to pursue closer ties with whom they see as their closest, most natural trading partner.115 Roy
Ramón Philippón, a leading official with the Cuban Society of Agrarian Law, indicated that the country recognizes that changes
are necessary in order to properly compete with and participate in an open global market.116 Long gone
are the days when Cuba could count on highly subsidized exports to the Soviet Bloc as a stable source of income.117 For the first forty years of
Cuba’s “socialist experiment” following their revolution, the first priority for the Cuban government was to provide the maximum amount of
social services and benefit to the population regardless of the cost; something that they could achieve through trade with the Soviet Bloc prior
to its collapse.118 The process of reform in Cuba is necessarily dependent upon the approval of the national Communist Party. All of the
reforms that have been put in place must be considered by and ultimately recommended by the Communist Party operating under their
internal guidelines.119 By its nature this is intended to be a slow, deliberative process, the intent of which is to allow all interested government
officials, business representatives, and interested citizens to voice their opinions and for the Party’s guidelines to take each group’s concerns
into account. 120 Cuba
has continued to introduce new programs to assist local producers in becoming
more productive while also promoting ecological restoration and preservation.121 In a shift away from the large
state-run farms that characterized Cuban agriculture for much of the twentieth century, Cuba is now focused on diversifying
agricultural production through a variety of both privately run and some state-controlled enterprises.122 Cuban officials responsible
for investigating and recommending additional improvements to the Cuban agricultural system echo this call for reform and increased
efficiency and productivity.123 Cuban
officials point to the two primary goals that Cuba is pursuing in its efforts
to improve its agricultural output and modernize their agricultural system; eco-restoration and
preservation and urban and suburban agriculture.124 In addition, while the country is desirous of increasing
its agricultural exports as a source of income, enough of the goods produced must be funneled into an official statecontrolled market that can control prices and ensure that food is affordable even to those with low incomes.125 The first priority before any
additional exports can be considered is to increase production for local consumption to the point where the country could conceivably become
self-sustaining for the majority of its food production needs.126 Once they are producing enough food for local consumption, then priorities
may shift towards producing additional crops for export; coffee in particular is one locally produced crop that Cuba is particularly interested in
increasing production for both local consumption and export.127
Florida Add-On
Florida gains immense benefits from embargo removal
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
If the Corn Belt is the most likely regional economic loser from the changes in U.S. law and policy
encouraging the growth of a Cuban sugarcane ethanol industry, Florida is the most likely regional
economic winner. In the broader economic context, Florida has the most to gain of any state from free and
open relations between the United States and Cuba.170 The degree to which Florida would gain from the growth of a
Cuban sugarcane ethanol industry would depend how U.S. legal and policy changes designed to encourage this industry were structured.
Although Cuba was never mentioned as a possible source of ethanol,171 the goal of making Florida a
center for international trade in ethanol has been pursued by American policymakers before. Between
2006 and 2008, the Bush Administration and two gubernatorial administrations in Florida promoted the cause of ethanol, both within the state
and from abroad. In the spring of 2007, President Bush pursued an agreement with Brazil on importing ethanol. 172
While Florida did
its part to promote the ethanol industry within the state, the international side of the initiative went
nowhere. Congress refused to change ethanol tariff policy in the 2008 Farm Bill. Moreover, the subsequent
Obama Administration has been uninterested in pursuing such an agreement with Brazil or any other country to increase imports of ethanol
While the previous initiative was directed towards ethanol from Brazil, Colombia, and other Latin
American nations, the economic benefits to Florida of a hemispheric ethanol trade would apply
equally if this trade included Cuba (and perhaps more strongly, as Cuba is close to Florida, especially as compared to Brazil). The
international ethanol trade’s economic boost to the state would include increased traffic at Florida’s
ports, increased activity at Florida banks financing international trading arrangements, and perhaps
even the creation of an international ethanol exchange in Miami similar to the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange.
Florida key to US econ—creates jobs and decreases prices, lower costs
Specht, 2013 (Jonathan, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009, “Raising Cane: Cuban
Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, April 24, 2013,
http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)
Florida has a large population, coastal location, and is a great distance from other East Coast
population centers further north (as well as from the Midwestern center of U.S. ethanol production).
Given those circumstances, it would be practical for as much imported ethanol as possible to be used
within Florida if Cuban sugarcane became a source for U.S. ethanol consumption. Florida represents a
large potential market for ethanol. As of 2006, drivers in the state consumed 8.37 billion gallons of gasoline per year,175 and
ethanol has only recently begun to be marketed in Florida (it was first blended into gasoline in the state in 2007). One way to greatly increase
the state’s ethanol consumption would be to widen the availability of Flex Fuel Vehicles and gas stations that sell E-85 (a blend of gasoline that
is eighty-five percent ethanol). According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center, forty-four
Florida gas stations now sell E85 blends.176 Though this represents a rapid increase in availability, given that ethanol has only been marketed in
the state for five years, it is still a relatively small number. (Iowa, which has a fraction of Florida’s population, has over 100 more stations selling
E-85).177 Ethanol
from Cuban-grown sugarcane could enter the gasoline supply of Florida in one of two
ways: sugar could be refined into ethanol in Cuba and then shipped to the United States, or Cuban
sugar could be shipped to the United States and refined into ethanol domestically. Which method would be
more economical would depend on commodity prices and, especially, which law and policy changes the United States had made to encourage
the development of Cuban sugarcane ethanol. Depending on the difficulty of Cuba’s post-Castrotransition and ability to attract foreign
investment for creating an ethanol industry, refining
Cuban sugar into ethanol in Florida could represent a midterm
stage in the development of U.S. utilization of Cuban sugar as a fuel source. According to a report from the U.S.
Biomass Board, “The attractiveness of one [biofuel] feedstock over another will also be determined by the cost of delivering that feedstock
from ‘root to refinery.’ That cost will be a function of harvesting and collecting costs, which vary with the weight and bulk of the feedstock, and
distance to the biofuel plant. Transportation costs are a major issue for many ethanol producers. ”178 Shipping
Cuban sugar by sea to an ethanol refinery in Florida would be a low cost transportation option.179 Additionally, according to a 2006 report
from the USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, the capital expenditure costs of building a new sugarcane ethanol plant would be substantially
reduced if it were built adjacent to an existing sugar production facility.180 Thus, some
of Florida’s existing sugar refineries
could also become ethanol refineries at a lower cost than building a completely new ethanol refinery.
Looking further into the future, a dedicated ethanol pipeline has been proposed to bring ethanol from
the corn-producing Midwest to the fuel-hungry East Coast.181 If a stable and consistent international ethanol trade
arises with Florida as its U.S. entrepôt, eventually a dedicated ethanol pipeline could be built from Florida to Atlanta (a major fuel
consuming city).182 This would be beneficial both in stimulating Atlanta’s fledgling ethanol market and
bringing construction jobs to the states of Florida and Georgia
Off Case Answers
Politics
Plan Popular
*Plan is popular- won’t require Obama political capital
Turner, 2010 (Aaron Turner, Co-President Miami University College Democrats, “Obama administration has brilliant chance to
normalize Cuban relations”, 02/14/2010, The Miami Student, http://www.miamistudent.net/2.8193/obama-administration-has-brilliantchance-to-normalize-cuban-relations-1.1148968#.Ufq7WPUo5Ad)
Some of you may assume that the politics of such a shift in policy would make it impossible, but let's take a look at the politics. One could
assume that many of the
liberals would support ending the embargo for humanitarian reasons, the idea
being that an increase in trade will lead to more economic prosperity for the impoverished island. One
would also assume the conservative Republicans would vehemently oppose such a measure. But that
assumption would be false . Communism for the most part has been defeated and those Reagan-ites who oppose Communism in
any form are too few to matter. Also, many Republicans will be drawn to the idea of a new market opening
which may happen to reside in their district or state (Democrats will also be drawn to the idea for this
reason). It is obvious that the business community would support this policy shift. An AP poll released in 2007 showed
that the American public has no majority opinion on the issue of the embargo, but most Americans overwhelmingly support
(62 percent in favor) reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Surely the Cuban-Americans in this
country would not support a shift in policy but this assumption would also be false. A poll released last
December showed 55 percent of Cuban-Americans in Florida supporting an end to the embargo. So the coalition is
out there for Obama, all he has to do is go out and use his bully pulpit to win over the American public. I know everyone is
hoping and expecting a lot out of our new president, but it won't cost Obama much political capital to change
America's relation with Cuba . In his campaign he promised change and what more can symbolize the end of "politics as usual"
than a complete reversal of U.S.-Cuban relations.
Lifting the embargo is popular- gaining momentum and consensus
Lobe, 2009 (Jim Lobe, writer for Inter Press Service, “NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo”, 03/12/2009, AntiWar,
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=14392)
, Congress is acting to loosen the Cuba embargo and send these modest reforms to
a president who has promised to change the policy rather than issue veto threats or keep things as
they are," asserted a joint statement by several groups, including the Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). "When
we have a Congress and a president acting to make sensible changes in Cuba policy, this indicates to
us that the ground has shifted and that there is momentum behind the efforts to make broader and
more lasting changes in policy," said the groups, which also included the U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative of the New America Foundation (NAF) and the Latin America
"For the first time in almost a decade
Working Group here. In a victory for peace advocates, the funding measure, called an omnibus appropriations bill, also included a provision that makes permanent what had been a provisional
ban on nearly all cluster-bomb exports from the United States, bringing Washington one step closer toward compliance with a treaty signed by nearly 100 nations in December that would ban
cluster munitions altogether. The cluster-bomb provision states that U.S.-made cluster munitions can be exported only if less than one percent of their sub-munitions are duds and if the
recipient country formally agrees not to use the weapon "where civilians are known to be present." U.S.-origin cluster bombs were most recently used by Israel in its 2006 war with Hezbollah
in Lebanon where dud rates were reportedly as high as 40 percent, and hundreds of civilians and de-miners have since been killed or maimed by unexploded munitions, according to the U.S.
Campaign to Ban Landmines (USCBL). The easing of the Cuba embargo comes a month before Obama's much-anticipated attendance at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad where he will
Obama is widely expected to follow through
on campaign promises to use his executive authority to lift two of the most controversial measures
meet all of the hemisphere's leaders except Cuban President Raúl Castro. Before he travels to the Summit,
imposed by Bush, which limited the freedom of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba to once every three years, and their ability to send remittances to their families on the island.
Anti-embargo activists, which not only include groups focused primarily on Cuba, but also major U.S.
business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and human rights groups, such as Amnesty
International, hope that he will go further than that, possibly by broadening the authority of the Treasury Department to
issue general licenses for a wider range of travel to Cuba, including educational and cultural travel. While hard-line antiCastro forces, based primarily in southern Florida and New Jersey, still strongly oppose any easing of the embargo, there appears to
be a growing consensus in Washington – signaled in part by the approval of the omnibus bill in favor
of moving toward normalization , not only as a means to encourage reform by the Communist government, but also to remove an
impediment to closer ties with the rest of Latin America, virtually all of which have urged Washington to
lift the embargo . On Tuesday, for example, the Inter-American Dialogue (IAD), a hemispheric think tank based in Washington, called U.S. efforts to isolate and sanction Cuba
"an anachronism that serves mainly to isolate the United States from the rest of the hemisphere." " Nothing would better demonstrate the new
administration's intention to pursue a fresh approach to Latin America than making a quick start to
dismantle the web of restrictions that the United States has imposed on Cuba," said IAD, which is co-chaired by former U.S.
Trade Representative Carla Hills and former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos. "A policy shift on Cuba, which carries great symbolic weight
in the region, would be a powerful signal that Washington will be more responsive to Latin America
views." While the IAD report was directed primarily at Obama, majorities in Congress supported increased ties with Havana over the past eight years but were consistently thwarted by
Bush's veto threats. It is in that context that Congress approved the three Cuba-related provisions. Two of the three are mainly symbolic. Thus, Cuban-Americans will still be permitted to visit
their families once every three years, but the Treasury Department, which is charged with enforcing the embargo, will not be permitted to prosecute those who wish to travel more often,
because no funds will be appropriated for that purpose. Similarly, U.S. food and medical companies that export goods to Cuba will still be required under law to receive payment in cash before
their shipments leave U.S. ports. But, under the new provision, Treasury will not be able to prosecute companies that receive cash on actual delivery. The third provision – permitting Treasury
to issue a general license for agricultural and medical businesses wishing to export goods to Cuba rather than forcing companies to approve requests on a case-by-case basis – does mark a real
change in the underlying law, according to Jake Colvin, vice president of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), an association of major U.S. multinational corporations which strongly
supports lifting the embargo. "This will make travel to Cuba for a whole class of businesspeople much easier, and it will take the burden off Treasury to go through these applications so it can
focus more on tracking al-Qaeda and other more serious transactions," he told IPS. All of the anti-embargo groups, including the NFTC's Colvin, said the fact that Congress took the first step
toward easing the embargo should make it easier for Obama himself to go beyond his campaign promises to ease restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances. "This debate shows
the U.S. political climate has changed on Cuba," said Sarah Stephens, CDA's director. "I believe there is momentum in Congress to
make travel available for all, but the president need not wait for legislation to seize the initiative ," she said.
how significantly
Plan popular- Florida opposition changing
Debusmann, 2008 (Bernd Debusmann, Writer on international affairs. Former Reuters correspondent, news editor and columnist,
“After Obama win, goodbye to Cuban embargo? Bernd Debusmann”, Reuters, 11/05/2008, http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/11/05/columnsus-column-usa-cuba-idINTRE4A47LV20081105)
In the past, the most fervent opposition to ending the embargo -- the effects of which have punished the population
for the actions of a leadership it did not elect -- has come from the Cuban-American community in South Florida. But
even this is changing . "U.S. policy toward Cuba is at best static and at worst counter-productive, a source of
increasing frustration to many Cuban Americans," Jorge Mas Santos, chairman of the Cuban American National Foundation
(CANF), wrote late in October in a Washington Post opinion column that endorsed Obama. CANF was set up in 1981 by Mas's father, Jorge Mas
Canosa, with the express aim of overthrowing the government of Fidel Castro. For years, the group exerted enormous influence on Washington
policy makers -- as well as on presidential candidates keenly aware that winning the White House without winning Florida is a very difficult
undertaking. Obama won the state comfortably. Cuban exiles, numbering around 650,000, account for just over a quarter of the total
population of the greater Miami area. In the past, the Republican Party took the loyalty of most of them for granted -- Cuban Americans have
traditionally voted four to one for Republicans. The
three Miami-based Cuban American Republicans who serve in
the House of Representatives -- all supporters of the embargo -- were re-elected. Their votes against changes
Obama might propose once he takes office on January 20 can be taken for granted. Some of the most pointed criticism of the
embargo has come not from Democrats but from conservative businessmen who resent the fact that American business has
been kept out of Cuba while most of the world is engaged there.
Lifting the embargo has growing bipartisan support
Arzeno, 2003 (MARIO A. ARZENO, MAJOR, USA, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, MASTER OF MILITARY ART
AND SCIENCE Strategy, 06/06/2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317)
Congressional bipartisan support has grown in response to the growing national
interest. Congress is in the process of introducing new legislation to review the policy on Cuba. Among
the better known anti-embargo supporters is Congressman Jeff Flake, from Arizona, and Congressman
Charles Rangel, from New York. Both congressmen are part of a newly formed Cuba Working Group, a
bipartisan working group of forty congressional representatives, charged with reviewing the U.S.
policy towards Cuba. The working group has a unanimous criticism of the Cuban government’s refusal to allow free elections or the
creation of opposition political parties and its failure to respect freedom of the press or civil and political liberties; and it is their desire
to see the Cuban people enjoy greater political and economic freedom (Cuba Working Group). Congressman Flake
In the last three years,
is best known for introducing legislation to lift the travel ban to Cuba and Congressman Rangel is best known for introducing legislation to lift
the embargo in its entirety. Together with the Cuba Working Group, they have developed a 9-Point Plan for reform in Cuba, released in May
2002, which is outlined below.
Previous legislation proves bipartisan support for the plan- influential congressman
are on board
Litvinsky, 2009 (Marina Litvinsky, writer for Inter Press Service, “Support Builds in Congress to Lift Cuba Embargo”, AntiWar,
04/01/2009, http://original.antiwar.com/litvinsky/2009/03/31/support-builds-in-congress-to-lift-cuba-embargo/)
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators and interest groups is backing a bill that would end the long
economic embargo against Cuba, including travel restrictions to the island. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba
Act was introduced Tuesday by Senators Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and Senate Democratic
Policy Committee chair, and Michael Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming. They were joined by 20 cosponsors, including influential Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Lugar, the American Farm
Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Human Rights Watch (HRW). "The people of Cuba
ought to be free," said Sen. Dorgan, pointing to the U.S.’ failed Cuba policy in achieving this. The nearly 50-yearold embargo on Cuba is only "punishing American people," he said. If passed, the bill would prohibit the president from
regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal residents or any of the transactions ordinarily incident to such travel,
except in time of war or armed hostilities between the United States and Cuba, or of imminent danger to the public health or the physical
safety of U.S. travelers. The Cuban embargo, introduced in 1961 and subsequently tightened further, prohibits travel to and business dealings
with Cuba for all U.S. citizens. Many have argued that this policy actually thwarts U.S. interests and further strengthens the government there.
"The U.S. embargo on Cuba is a 50-year failure, and lifting the ban on travel is a good first step toward
a more rational policy," said Myron Brilliant, senior vice president for International Affairs at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. "The embargo was implemented to try to bring freedom to Cuba, but it made a martyr out of a
tyrant and actually has helped prop up the regime." Sponsors of the bill include agricultural
associations who believe the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba will increase U.S. agricultural sales of such commodities as poultry, wheat,
and soybeans. Agricultural sales to Cuba have averaged $400 million annually since 2000. "In the long term we need to do more to
open up channels of trade [in Cuba], like we do in other countries," said Bob Stallman, president of the American
Farm Bureau Federation. Proponents of the legislation point out that the 47-year-old embargo has done nothing to promote democracy or
force the Cuban government to obey human rights standards. "Human Rights Watch has been monitoring human rights in Cuba for nearly two
decades, and the dismal state of human rights has not improved," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division at HRW.
Plan Popular- Florida and American business lobbies prove
Brinkley, 2012 (Joel Brinkley, an American syndicated columnist and teaches in the journalism program at Stanford University, former
New York Times correspondent, “Cuba embargo isn't working but isn't going away”, 12/18/2012, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cuba-embargo-isnt-working-but-isnt-going-away-85281.html)
But today
the Cuban-American population is more diverse, as the U.S. presidential election last month
showed. Previously, Cuban-Americans regularly voted in favor of Republicans, who are generally staunch
embargo supporters, by 4 to 1. This time, President Barack Obama won half their vote. Now an argument can be made
that if the half-century of political paralysis on this issue can be overcome, both Cuba and the United States would benefit. American tourists
would most likely pour into Cuba, buying cigars, staying in beachfront hotels — spending money in the Cuban economy. And American
businesses would find an eager new market for a range of products beyond the food and medicine they are already authorized to sell. “We
cannot afford an obsolete ideological war against Cuba,” Richard Slatta, a history professor at North Carolina State
University who specializes in Latin America, wrote in an op-ed last month. “The embargo against Cuba denies North Carolina
businesses and farmers access to a major, proximate market.” Cuba experts say many business
leaders, particularly, are making the same case, especially now that the American economy has remained
in the doldrums for so long. They add that it’s an obvious second-term issue; Obama doesn’t have to worry
about winning Florida again.
Removing the embargo has widespread support- key to solve ag economic crisis
Williams, 2002 (Alexander Williams III, writer for the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law “MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE: LIFTING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, 01/2002, DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW,
http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf)
VII. SUPPORT FOR LIFTING THE EMBARGO Recently, there
has been widespread support for lifting the Cuban food and medicine
embargo by American farmers and Congressmen because it is es-timated that Cuba buys a little less than one
billion dollars of food annually from countries such as Canada, Europe, and Latin America.110 Any well-trained businessman knows that a billion-dollar market is a gold mine in the world of eco-nomics.111 And, any well-trained
businessman knows that “opening additional export markets,” a billion dollar one at that, is vital to any
“industry that is in a severe economic crisis .”112 Therefore, many American farmers and certain Con-gressman have taken steps to open
the Cuban market to American Farmers.113 For example, Representative Nick Lampson of Texas, along with several rice farmers, traveled to Cuba in search of new
export markets, in turn, they asked United States lawmakers to lift the restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba.114 Representative
Lampson
believes that “the objectives for which [the embargo] was created no longer makes any sense in
either political or economic terms.”115 Furthermore, Representative Lampson believes that the economic
sanctions specifically hurt two groups of people, “the Cuban people who need our food, and United
States farmers who can produce it in abundance.”116 Other Congressmen have also asked for lifting the
embargo, mainly be-cause of the rising interest and influence from agricultural and business groups who
want to transact business with Cuba.117 For example, in March 2000, Sena-tor Jesse Helms, an outspoken supporter of the embargo, passed
a bill that would permit the sale of American food and medicine to the Cuban people.118 It is also believed that the American public is even
changing its views about the embargo.119 Several polls showed that the Cuban embargo support of the
past was beginning to fade because six of ten Americans backed the sanc-tions; today, forty-seven
percent of the American public feel its time to remove Cuba’s sanctions.120 Furthermore, at least thirty-eight
powerful and influential farm groups and agribusiness companies support lifting the sanctions against
Cuba.121 More support is soon to follow, especially since two ships carrying U.S. chicken arrived in Cuba, completing the first trade between
the two nations since the embargo was first implemented.122 Moreover at that time, more shipments were expected to bring about $30 million dollars worth of
American wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and chicken.123 This
magnitude of support clearly demonstrates the eagerness of
Ameri-can farmers and businesses to tap into the economic opportunities that are present in Cuba.124
But the recent food sales to Cuba will surely fuel the debate in the United States between American farmers and corporations who would like to see an end to the
embargo, and Cuban exile groups who would like to make the sanc-tions tougher.125 If
the United States government were to lift the
Cuban embargo to provide assistance to the American farmer, then such a move will give them access to a new billiondollar market in which to sell its food. More importantly, this new billion-dollar market will ultimately provide
American farmers with some of the aid that they so desperately seek.x
Turns CIR
Keeping the embargo turns immigration- renders the bill ineffective
Gonzalez, 04/06/2013 (Alex Gonzalez, political Analyst and Political Director for LRTV and studies American politics, “Maybe Is
Time To End The Cuban Embargo”, LRTV, http://latinosreadytovote.com/maybe-is-time-to-end-the-cuban-embargo/)
While the current immigration debate is purely focused on Border Security, low-skilled immigrants,
future guest-workers, and citizenship for those immigrants already here, the outdated Cuban Embargo
that grants free services to “undocumented” Cubans, and subsequently citizenship, remains untouched. Tragically, this Cold War
archaic policy penalizes American citizens and businesses, and although it has failed to topple the Castro Regime, it will
continue to encourage more Cubans to come to the U.S. illegally under the Wet-Foot, Dry-Foot
policy; policy that stems directly from the Cuban Embargo. As a result, and even if we overhaul our Broken Immigration
system, the incentive for Cubans to come here illegally, and the penalties for Americans who want to
travel to Cuba to promote trade, will not change until the Embargo is changed, or terminated.¶ The Treasury
Department penalties for Americans traveling to Cuba are about $7,500. The Treasury Department forbids United States citizens to spend
money in Cuba without authorization, effectively barring tourist travel. As a result, American citizens must first travel to Canada or Mexico,
avoid getting their passport stamped in Cuba, and not use any credit cards. Conversely, Cubans can legally fly from the U.S. to Cuba while
American citizens have to use a third Country to get to Cuba. Also, under the Embargo, American Corporations and their subsidiaries can be
fined one million if they set up operations in Cuba.¶ Consequently, the Cuban
Embargo is relic of the Cold War that does
not reflect the economy realities of today’s global economy. Moreover, the Embargo is the only reason why President
Clinton signed the Wet-foot, Dry-foot policy; and it is only important to Cuban-Americans who keep insisting that
the Republican Party must support the Embargo because Cuba is a communist regime.¶
Avoids Congress
Plan uses administrative action- avoids congress and executive action
Zimmerman, 2010 (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, studied at Barnard College, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time
to Mend a Broken Policy”, Barnard College, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
probability of implementing these changes within the next six months¶ seems likely. The political
strength of the farm lobby has eclipsed the power of¶ Florida’s Cuban-American community, which did not play a
significant role in the¶ election of President Obama. Because all of these reform measures , with the¶ exception of lifting the travel ban, can be adopted
The
through administrative action ¶ rather than Congressional or executive action ,1 a political showdown
would not be¶ necessary to accomplish these measures.
AT: Stern
Plan is popular- Stern concludes aff- political climate is changing
Stern, 2012 (Scott Stern, studies at Branford College, “STERN: Lift the Cuba embargo”, Yale News, 02/10/2012,
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/)
The Cuban-American population is an exceptionally powerful and vocal voting bloc, and many CubanAmericans support the embargo out of sheer hatred of Castro. These Cuban exiles — whose votes are so important,
particularly in Florida — have pushed nearly every major politician away from normalizing relations with Cuba. As Hart wrote on his blog last
year -— years after leaving politics, of course — the embargo is “a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded
inordinate political power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy.” It would be highly inaccurate, however,
to foist the blame for the embargo’s persistence upon the Cuban-American population. American politicians across the political spectrum are to
blame for their intransigence and their unwillingness to challenge the status quo. The embargo is not a major political issue, so politicians are
just too apathetic to engage with it. I will be the first to admit that this is an irritatingly complex issue and one that only an expert could fully
understand. My limited understanding of the embargo against Cuba is based on research and interviews, not personal experience. And yet it is
however , hope.
Recent public opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans support at least reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. President Obama has relaxed some of the harsh travel
restrictions against Cuba and shown signs of favoring the normalization of relations there as well.
Cuba, too, has shown a willingness to change, highlighted by its recent legalization of the private sale of
real estate. It is time for the embargo to end. 50 years late is better than never.
easy for anyone to note that covering our eyes and pretending we can’t see Castro won’t make him go away. There is,
AT: Anti-Cuba lobby backlash
Second term means anti-Cuba lobby won’t affect Obama PC
Edmonds, 2011 (Kevin Edmonds is a former NACLA research associate and a current PhD student at the University of Toronto, where
he is studying the impact of neoliberalism on the St. Lucian banana trade, “Despite Global Opposition, United States Votes to Continue Cuban
Embargo”, NACLA, 11/15/2012,https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continue-cuban-embargo)
The double standard of dealing with noted human rights abusers such as China, Saudi Arabia and
Colombia, while isolating Cuba, does not make sense. Obama’s re-election has meant that he is no
longer captive to a potentially extreme anti-Cuba voting bloc in Florida. In fact, calls for normalization of
relations with Cuba have been on the increase. Given that Obama has stated that “I am not interested in talking for
the sake of talking, but I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction”—it is time for
meaningful, progressive engagement with Cuba to occur. Tuesday’s vote showed how out of touch America is on this
issue. Given the other foreign relations nightmares Obama has both inherited and created, normalizing relations with Cuba
would be a realistically achievable and just goal for his second term.
AT: Terror List CP
Cuba Should Stay on List
Cuba should not be removed from the state list of terrorism- they deserve it
Cárdenas, 2011 (José R. Cárdenas, an associate with the consulting firm VisionAmericas, based in Washington, D.C. From 2004-2009,
he served in various senior positions in the Bush administration working on inter-American relations, including in the U.S. Department of State,
the National Security Council, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he served as Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin
America and the Caribbean and oversaw nearly $1 billion in U.S. development assistance to the region. He also served as a Senior Advisor at the
Organization of American States and as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “It's not time to remove
Cuba from the terror list”, Foreign Policy, 02/18/2011,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/18/its_not_time_to_remove_cuba_from_the_terror_list)
This is a regime that since even before it seized power has used terror as an instrument of both domestic and
international policy to achieve its goals. At the height of the Castro regime's international influence in the late
1970s into the 1980s, Cuba helped to build up and unify at least 27 different terrorist groups in the Western
Hemisphere, totaling about 25,000 armed and trained members by 1987. ¶ Around the same time, the State and Defense
Departments estimated that a minimum of 20,000 individuals from around the world, including more than 10,000
Latin Americans, had attended one or more of the more than fifty guerrilla or terrorist training courses
offered in Cuban military facilities since Castro came to power (the most infamous of trainees being, of course, Carlos
the Jackal). ¶ Nor was the Castro regime content to victimize the unfortunate citizens of Latin America and Africa, as it aiding and abetting
terrorist groups operating on our own soil, including the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayres fame) and the militant Puerto Rican group, the
Macheteros. Victor Manuel Gerena, a mastermind of the Macheteros' 1983 robbery of a Well Fargo depot in Connecticut, has lived safely in
Cuba for decades, joining U.S. fugitives Joanne Chesimard and Charlie Hill, who are wanted in the U.S. for the murders of U.S. police officers, as
well as some 70 other fugitives from U.S. justice. ¶ In addition, following the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Cuban
intelligence sent numerous fake tipsters into U.S. embassies abroad to sidetrack and impede U.S.
counter-terrorism efforts. (Also, following 9/11, U.S. authorities rolled up the Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes at the Defense
Intelligence Agency, not wanting to risk her information being passed on by Cuba to other U.S. enemies.) ¶ But the anti-embargo
lobby wants us to forget all that. They will tell uninformed listeners that in 1992 the Castro regime
"renounced" the use of violence to achieve its political ends. But there has never been any profound
change of heart, expressions of remorse, or even compensation offered for victims of Cubansponsored terrorism. No, it was merely a change of tactics, forced on the Castro regime by the fact that in 1991 the Soviet Union
collapsed and, with it, its billions in annual subsidies to Cuba. Castro could simply no longer afford to do it, at least on the scale to which he had
become accustomed. ¶ Indeed, the Castro regime can no more renounce violence as an instrument of policy than it can renounce its totalitarian
state. ¶ Clearly, Cuba's
designation as a state sponsor of terror is well-earned. The Obama Administration should
ignore specious entreaties to delist Cuba as a state sponsor of terror. As has been proven over and over,
tyranny's best friend is a failure to remember. If Fidel Castro or his brother Raul wants to be removed from the State
Department list, there are any number of actions they could take: true expressions of repentance, concessions, recompense, and an accounting
for past misdeeds. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
Removing Cuba for the list will not affect Cuban embargo policies
Allen, 04/11/2013 (Bob Allen, managing editor of Associated Baptist Press., “Alliance: Drop Cuba from terror list”, ABP News,
http://abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8394-alliance-drop-cuba-from-terror-list#.UfgP-PUo4t1)
Removal from the list would not affect the embargo that prevents Americans from visiting Cuba as
tourists, but Cuban officials reportedly have hinted that it could influence discussions about the release of jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross,
whose 2009 detention derailed prospects of a diplomatic thaw.¶ Other statements adopted at the Alliance gathering opposed the
proliferation of lethal unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones, and lobbied Congress for legislation to alleviate
hunger and malnutrition, support vibrant farms and strong communities and preserve the environment.¶ One statement commended a 2009
Kairos Palestine document addressing the plight of Palestinian Christians living in the occupied territories. One of the authors, Bethlehem
pastor Mitri Raheb, is an Alliance partner.
US says no to removing Cuba from the list- recent talks prove
Bolender, 05/31/2013 (Keith Bolender is a research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), “Cuba is hardly a 'state
sponsor of terror'”, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/31/cuba-us-terror-sponsors-list)
The long-awaited annual report on international terrorism from the State Department was released Thursday, and confirmed what officials had already indicated –
that Cuba
is staying on the list along with Iran, Sudan and Syria. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell confirmed the
administration "has no current plans to remove Cuba". The decision came as a disappointment for
those who were expecting new Secretary of State John Kerry, a long-time critic of America's counter-productive
policy against the Castro government, might recommend Cuba's removal. The fact he hasn't
demonstrates how difficult it is to change the dynamics of the antagonistic relationship between
these two ideological adversaries.¶ Cuba was originally included on the list in 1982, replacing a then-friendly Iraq. The designation levies
comprehensive economic punishments against Havana as part of the overall strategy of regime change that includes a decades-long economic embargo, unrelenting
propaganda, extra-territorial application of American laws.
Cuba rightfully still a state sponsor of terrorism- Rubio defends Cuba’s place on the list
Hudson, 06/03/2013 (John Hudson, National Security reporter at Foreign Policy , “Rubio: Cuba belongs on the ‘state sponsors of
terrorism' list”, The Cable, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/03/rubio_cuba_belongs_on_the_state_sponsor_of_terror_list)
In the face of mounting calls to remove Cuba from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FLA)
defended Foggy Bottom's recent decision to keep Cuba on the list, in a statement to The Cable. ¶ "The Castro
regime sponsors terrorism abroad and against their own people, and removing a country from the list
of nations that sponsor terrorism requires evidence of reform," Rubio said. "We have not seen such evidence in Cuba."
¶ In
its annual Country Reports on Terrorism released last week, the State Department acknowledged that some conditions on the island were
improving, but maintained three reasons for keeping Cuba on the list: Providing
a safe haven for some two dozen
members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a Spanish rebel group charged with terrorist activity; providing aid to
Colombia's rebel group the FARC "in past years" -- Cuba no longer supports the group today; and providing harbor to
"fugitives wanted in the United States." ¶ "It remains clear that Cuba is the same totalitarian state
today that it has been for decades," Rubio told The Cable. "This totalitarian state continues to have close ties
to terrorist organizations."
AT: Bender [Boston Globe Article]
Their authors are false- US says no to removing Cuba from the list
Caribbean 360, 02/26/2013 (Caribbean 360, Caribbean's leading online news and information web sites and is headquartered
in Bridgetown, Barbados, providing access to news and events as they come to hand across the region, “No ease for Cuba from US state
sponsor of terrorism list”, Caribbean 360, http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/news/670101.html#axzz2aZ5wzHdz)
The United States has denied reports that it plans to remove Cuba from a list of countries that support
terrorism.¶ “I saw that report . Let me say firmly here it is incorrect,” US State Department
spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters here. “ This department has no current plans to remove Cuba
from the state sponsor of terrorism list .¶ “We review this every year, and at the current moment
when the last review was done in 2012, we didn’t see cause to remove them,” she added.¶ “We’ll
obviously look at it again this year, but as I said, we don’t have any plans at the moment,” Nuland
continued.¶ White House spokesman Jay Carney also said: “We have no changes in our approach or policy to Cuba to
announce or under consideration that I’m aware of.”¶ Reports had indicated that “high-level US diplomats”
have concluded Cuba should be taken off the terror list, which would allow Secretary of State John
Kerry to “remove a major obstacle to restoring relations” with the Spanish-speaking Caribbean island.¶ “Top
administration officials and members of Congress indicate there is a growing consensus in policy and intelligence circles that Cuba’s support for
terrorist groups has been terminated,” said the Boston Globe in a report.¶ It
also said that Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has
long favored improving relations with Havana, met in recent days “with officials to review the Cuba policy.”¶ The
report, however, said that US officials “emphasized that there has not been a formal assessment
concluding that Cuba should be removed from the terrorism list”.¶ Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the
Washington-based US-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, said removing Cuba from the list would amount to a
“scandalous” concession to the communist government.¶ The US State Department’s 2012 terrorism report lists Cuba,
Iran, Syria and Sudan.¶ It notes the Cuban government’s links to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) and Spain’s Basque Homeland and Liberty (ETA).
AT: Avoids Congress
CP requires congressional approval
Haass, 2009 (Richard N. Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations Expertise in U.S. foreign policy; international security;
globalization; Asia; Middle East , “Forget About Fidel”, The Daily Beast, 03/06/2009,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html)
Going beyond this and dealing with the basics of the embargo—or removing Cuba from the list of
state sponsors of terrorism —would likely require congressional approval . Current law, though,
makes it almost impossible to take such steps. It requires that Cuba effectively become a functioning
democracy before sanctions can be lifted. But it's precisely engagement that is far more likely to
reform Cuba. Preconditions are an obstacle to effective foreign policy.
AT: Travel Ban CP
CP fails—attempted before to no avail
Carrasco, 2005 (Enrique, Professor of Law, Director, University of Iowa Center for International Finance & Development, “Cuba’s
Development and Trade with U.S. Midwestern States”, The University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development,
http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/issues/cuba/perspectives/cubas-development-and-trade-with-us-midwestern-states)
The latest manifestation of the confrontation between pro-embargo and engagement constituencies occurred in Congress last year. Facing the
threat of veto from the White House, in
October eighteen Republican senators, largely from Midwestern states,
joined forty-nine Democrats to pass an amendment to the 2004 Transportation-Treasury
Appropriations Bill, identical to an amendment that passed in the House previously by a bipartisan vote of 227 to 188,] that would
have lifted the restrictions on travel to Cuba. However, to the dismay of engagement constituencies,
the amendment was controversially stripped out of the legislation even before the conference
committee formally met.