Mexican Cross-Border Transmission
Networks Aff
**1AC Starts Here
Thus the Plan:
The United States federal government should increase investment aimed to develop
cross-border and interconnected grid, transmission, and distribution infrastructure in
Mexico.
Contention 1 is Solvency
CBT is a priority- it’s a mutual interest
Wood 12, Duncan Wood, [Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and
the director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de
Derecho Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial
board of Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana
de Energia, Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf
Looking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the
United States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs.
Much of this depends on two key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector . In the past,
political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry
have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in
any U.S. based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there
has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly
in response to the perceived need for international
assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a
productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now
a greater potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory. We can identify three main areas in
which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short to medium term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is
great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second,
we can
point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross- border
transmission network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at
the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing
cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for
both partners.
Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic
competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these
concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North
American economic region has derived in recent years from low cost energy, driven by the
shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the
integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the
lowcost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s
energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of
commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a
potential source for driving long term economic growth and job creation, and the potential
opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an
active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will
benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and
industry best practices.
Current transmission fails
Wood et al 13 [January 13; http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf; Duncan Wood,
[Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and the director of the International
Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de Derecho Económico
Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial board of Foreign
Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana de Energia,
Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
In order to get electricity from Texas to Mexico, however, some major investments must take
place in the area of transmission. At the present time the cross-border transmission
infrastructure is highly limited and talks between the two countries aimed at facilitating
new cross-border projects have achieved little real progress since 2010. Nine cross-border interconnections
exist at the time of writing, with new transmission capacity last added in 2007, with the opening of the Sharyland McAllen-Reynosa
150MW connection. Of
course transmission not only affects the prospects for electricity imports
into Mexico from Texas, but also exports from Baja California to California, particularly of
electricity from renewable sources such as wind (see below). Mexico and the United States will need to deepen
their cooperation in the area of transmission if these projects are to be brought to fruition. As noted above, to date the
cross-border transmission discussions between the two countries have not yielded very
much of substance, and it should be a priority of both governments to try to inject the
process with more vigor and enthusiasm. In part the slow movement of the talks so far is a
result of the fact that neither side has attached much importance to them; on another level, however,
the differences between the two countries’ systems has run into cultural barriers. Because the CFE is run as a federal government agency,
rather than as a business, it has been noted that the organization thinks not in terms of business opportunities, but rather of fulfilling its
mission of providing electricity as a public service. This cultural obstacle to progress must be overcome, however, if
the true
potential for electricity trade is to be realized.
Developing an effective transmission system is a pre-req to US-Mexico Smart
Grid
NETL, 09, National Energy Technology Laboratory, [U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability]
http://www.netl.doe.gov/smartgrid/referenceshelf/whitepapers/The%20Transmission%20Smart%20Grid%20Imperative_2009_09_2
9.pdf
The time has come to increase the smart grid ’s focus on transmission. Both need and
opportunity argue as much. An efficient, reliable transmission system has had, and will
continue to have, an essential role in satisfying the nation’s growing thirst for electricity, the
most flexible and useable form of energy. Advanced digital technology, as well as power electronics, can raise
transmission to a new level of performance, even as the emergence of remote renewable energy farms and increasing electricity market
applications create new challenges. Growth
of large central station wind and solar farms, a national
priority, will be stymied until existing transmission capacity is increased using new
technology (FACTS, optimized transmission dispatch, high capacity conductors, advanced stor a ge, etc.) a long with the addition of
new high capacity high voltage direct current ( HVDC ) — 800 kV — and high voltage alternating current ( HVAC ) —65 kV lines. Bottom
line: while
it is true that today’s transmission is more advanced than distribution, the
transition to a smart grid requires much more transmission capability and now is the time to
make the required investment.
Contention 2 is Smart Grids
Scenario One is Warming
The earth’s warming – prefer long term trends
Nordhaus, professor of environment, 12 – Professor in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at
Yale University (William D., Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, holds a Certificat from the
Institut d'Etudes Politiques and a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT, served in the Panel on Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming and the Committee on the Implications for Science and Society of
Abrupt Climate Change in the National Academy of Sciences, former Provost and Vice President for
Finance and Administration at Yale, member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Carter
Administration, foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, 3/22/12, “Why
the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,” The New York Review of Books,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false
“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global
warming for well over 10 years now.” It is easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will
benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. The figure
below shows data from 1880 to 2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three different
sources.2 We do not need any complicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising, and
furthermore that they are higher in the last decade than they were in earlier decades.3One of the reasons that
The first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely,
drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that the historical temperature series is highly volatile, as can be seen in the figure. The
presence of short-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends. A useful analogy is the stock market. Suppose an analyst says that
because real stock prices have declined over the last decade (which is true), it follows that there is no upward trend. Here again, an
The last decade of temperature and stock market
data is not representative of the longer-term trends. The finding that global temperatures are rising over
the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
examination of the long-term data would quickly show this to be incorrect.
Warming causes extinction
Flournoy 12 – Citing Feng Hsu, PhdD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center,
Don FLournoy, PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio
University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager
for Unviersity/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of
Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, “Solar Power
Satellites,” January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11
**We disagree with the author’s use of gendered language
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the
forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The
evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential
for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA
colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through
which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues,
including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on
the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a
serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human
interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is
overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2
concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global
temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is
in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we
humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into
Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show
with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a
fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the
risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic
climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take
any chances” (Hsu 2010 )
Specifically, US-Mexico smart grid collaboration creates an expertise bank – spurs
global modeling
Bennett 11 (Nicholas, Regional Sales Representative – Terryberry Company, “Smart Grid Technology –
Mexico’s Upcoming Market Boon,” University of Arizona,
http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/BusinessInternationalEnvironments/Fall2011/student_papers/fina
lnicholasbennett.pdf)
The lack of synchronicity and communication between competing smart grid providers is possibly the
most detrimental factor hampering the industry. Reviewing the companies examined before, Austin Energy is a city-owned
public utility company, while Mexico City’s smart grid provider, Elster, is a third-party private company. The right to choose the most
advantageous and cost-effective smart grid servicer is discretionary as it should be. The issue stems
from a highly competitive atmosphere in a field that is still relatively volatile and still developing. Also,
the importance of successful implementation of smart grid technologies is vital for the day-to-day
operations in cities across the world. Major mistakes could lead to detrimental effects in their respective
regions. The foundation of an international committee or board of regents consisting of smart grid
professionals and approved providers would increase shared information and provide a reliable
resource for prospective customers . Mexico and the United States could instigate the formation of
this committee. Their existing relationship regarding the smart grid field is already close, so support
should be mutual. With two of the most promising nations moving forward to a collaborative smart
grid committee, other nations will likely want to join . The incentives of international support and
training would lead to even more effective solutions to energy usage. The committee could also be
used to raise funds for countries who cannot afford the upfront capital to begin smart grid programs.
The provision of numerous jobs, strengthened international relationships, and the culmination of
smarter energy solutions are only some of the benefits such a committee could provide. Strict regulations regarding privacy and
control between public and private companies will be enforced, limiting the barriers of entry for prospective members. The details and
complexities of formation of this committee would be subject to its representatives. A
global committee focusing on the
details of smart grid systems is a proactive response to an emerging and exciting new market.
Mexican leadership leads to GLOBAL climate agreements
O’Neill 13 – PhD in Government @ Harvard, senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization
(Shannon, “Mexico Makes It: A Transformed Society, Economy, and Government,” Foreign Affairs, 92.2)
If Mexico addresses these challenges, it will emerge as a powerful player on the international stage. A
democratic and safe Mexico would attract billions of dollars in foreign investment and propel the country into the world's top economic ranks.
Robust growth would both reduce northbound emigration and increase southbound trade, benefiting U.S. employers and employees alike.
Already influential in the G-20 and other multilateral organizations, Mexico could become
even more of a
powerbroker in global institutions and help construct new international financial, trade, and
climatechange accords .
Improving the effectiveness of global coop key to solve warming
Slaughter‘11
(Anne-Marie, Bert G. Kerstetter '66 university professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, “Problems Will Be Global -And Solutions Will Be, Too”, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct, Issue 188, Ebsco)
A more multilateral world is just the beginning. Before considering the world in 2025,14 years from now, it is worth
remembering the world 14 years ago, in 1997. Back then, the United States was the sole superpower, its immensity and
dominance of the international system so evident as to trigger the resentful label of "hyperpower" from the French foreign minister. The
American economy was expanding fast enough to leave the country a healthy and growing surplus by the
end of Bill Clinton's presidency three years later. The European Union, then still only four years old, had just 15 members; the
euro did not exist. The wars dominating the headlines were in Europe: Bosnia, Croatia, and, soon, Kosovo. The
term BRICs -- the Goldman Sachs label attached to the fast-growing emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- had not yet
been invented. The Internet was booming, but social media did not exist. You get the point: A lot can change in 14 years, and
rarely in ways foreseen. In the spirit of proper humility, then, here's my take on what the landscape of global diplomacy will look like a
decade and a half from now: For starters, the world will be much more multilateral. By 2025 the U.N. Security
Council will have expanded from the present 15 members to between 25 and 30 and will include, either as
de jure or de facto permanent members, Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa, either Egypt or Nigeria, and either
Indonesia or Turkey. At the same time, regional organizations on every continent -- the African Union, the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, some version of the Organization of American States -- will be much stronger. Each will follow its own version
of economic and political integration, inspired by the European Union, and many will include representation from smaller subregional
organizations. In the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey could provide the core of a new Middle East free trade area;
alternatively the European Union could be interlocked with an emerging Mediterranean Union. Driving
this massive
multilateralization is the increasingly global and regional nature of our problems, combined with an expanding
number of countries splitting off from existing states. National governments will remain essential for many purposes,
but managing bilateral relations and engaging in successful global negotiations with nearly 200 stateswill
become increasingly unwieldy. So we'll negotiate territorial disputes in the South China Sea in a regional
framework and deal with crises in Ivory Coast or Guinea through the African Union or even smaller subregional forums. At the global
level, the speed and flexibility necessary to resolve crises require smaller groups like the G-20, while longterm legitimacy and durability still require the representation of all countries affected by a particular
issue through large standing organizations. As for individual countries, the states that will be the strongest in
2025 will be those that have figured out how to do more with less. They will be those governments that
have successfully embraced radical sustainability -- maintaining vibrant economies through largely
renewable energy and creative reuse of just about everything. The leader will be Japan, a great civilization that has for
centuries pioneered spectacularly beautiful ways of appreciating and coexisting with nature. As China's youth seek more of everything, Japan's
are prepared to embrace a far more sustainable path. Scandinavia, Germany, New Zealand, and possibly South Korea will also be strong; many
emerging or even less developed economies have real potential, if they can tap into their indigenous habits of conservation. Embracing
sustainable growth will challenge the United States; its national renewal will depend on connecting its traditions of innovation,
decentralization, and liberty with a narrative of protecting America's natural bounty. Think America the Beautiful more than the Star-Spangled
Banner. But the
most dramatic changes between 2011 and 2025 won't take place at the level of statecraft and
grand strategy; they are likely to happen as new technologies continue to transform businesses, civic
organizations of all kinds, universities, foundations, and churches -- now able to self-organize as never
before around issues they care about. The American social revolution that Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the early
19th century, of citizens joining groups of every conceivable kind, is about to go global, forever changing the
relationship between citizens and their governments, and governments with each other. The Arab revolutions are but the first taste of this
larger change. These predictions may appear rosy. In fact, the
enormous changes on the horizon will require major
crises, even cataclysm, before they can materialize. It took World War I to generate the political will and circumstances
necessary to create the League of Nations; it took World War II to create the United Nations; it took the worst economic crisis since the 1930s
to force the expansion of the G-8 into the G-20. Just imagine what it will take to break the decades-old logjam of Security Council reform. And
creating and changing multilateral organizations is child's play next to the profound changes in public and private behavior required to move
away from the more-is-better economic model to one which accepts that our resources are finite on a planetary scale. Yet
the sources of
potential crises and disasters of a magnitude sufficient to force systemic change are all around us:
Climate change is driving countries closer to the extremes of desert and jungle, droughts and floods,
while a global pandemic or a nuclear terrorist attack would have a similar impact. This is not Malthusian gloom,
however. As Robert Wright argues in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, catastrophe is terrible for individual human beings but beneficial
for humanity as a whole. As
the full consequencesof genuinely global interconnectednesscontinue to make
themselves felt, the world of both states and the societies they represent will have no choice but to
adapt.
Scenario 2 is Grid Security:
Current Power Grid is vulnerable to EMP Attacks- attractive option to terrorists
Carafano, Spring, and Weitz, 11, [James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The
Heritage Foundation’s Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies., Baker Spring is the F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage
Foundation., Richard Weitz, Ph.D.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/before-the-lights-go-out-a-survey-of-emppreparedness-reveals-significant-shortfalls
Members of the EMP Commission testified before the House Armed Services Committee in July 2002,
releasing a partially classified five-volume report on the United States’ vulnerability to a potential EMP
attack.[5] The EMP Commission concluded that the United States was extremely vulnerable to a
catastrophic EMP attack, finding “[o]ur increasing dependence on advanced electronics systems results
in the potential for an increased EMP vulnerability of our technologically advanced forces, and if
unaddressed makes EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.”[6] The commission
proposed a five-year plan aimed at protecting critical infrastructure from potential EMP attack. The National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2006 reestablished the EMP Commission to continue its efforts “to monitor, investigate, and make recommendations, and report to
Congress on the evolving threat to the United States from electromagnetic pulse attack resulting from the detonation of a nuclear weapon or
weapons at high altitude.”[7] The goals of the renewed commission were to assess the threats to U.S. critical infrastructure and provide
recommendations to address vulnerabilities. This new commission released its final findings in 2008 through the publication of the Critical
The commission concluded
that an EMP attack on the United States would be devastating: Should significant parts of the electrical
power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the
consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic
elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities. In fact, the Commission is
deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are
taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of
electric power, particularly to essential services.[8]
National Infrastructure Report, as well as testimony before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee.
They’ll use EMPs
Glunt 11, Nick Glunt, [Card quotes R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, having held the
office between 1993 and 1995] http://chqdaily.com/2011/07/15/woolsey-u-s-energy-can-be-target-of-terrorist-attacks/
As suggested by his story, Woolsey said, terrorists have the means to cut power to many Americans. This
is mostly because the means to controlling power now lie on the Internet — meaning hackers can access
it with the right skill. “We’ve got 18 critical infrastructures in the U.S. — water, food, sewage, electricity,
gas pipe lines, etcetera,” Woolsey said. “All 17 of the others (aside from electricity) depend on
electricity.” If the power grid was to go down because of an attack, it wouldn’t just be electricity
Americans would be without, he said. It would be like dropping to the 1870s in an instant. He said it’s
important to remember it was a single teenager who gave hundreds of thousands of secret cables to WikiLeaks. Another issue that faces the
electrical grid is that of the electromagnetic pulse.
EMPs are emitted from nuclear bombs and other high-energy
explosions. They can affect the ground even if the bombs are detonated at very high altitudes. EMPs can
travel along electrical wiring, Woolsey said, disrupting and destroying transformers and other electrical
devices as they go. Even though the U.S. has been aware of EMPs since the Cold War, Woolsey is
concerned because he believes the U.S. has not done enough to protect its electronics. The technology
to shield from EMPs has been developed but has been largely neglected. If North Korea or Iran launched
a relatively small scud missile, Woolsey said the bomb could do “a pretty brutal job” against shares of
America’s important electronics. As a result of the advent of terrorism, Woolsey said, attacks can now
be completely unidentified, be it because of suicide missions or computer-based attacks from other
countries. Furthermore, the designs of those grids lie in wait on the Internet, Woolsey said. On these maps,
the most “sensitive areas” are marked with “Danger” and “High Voltage” signs to make maintenance easier. “The transformers are well
protected — they’re 30 yards from the side of the highway; they’re well fenced-in by cyclone fences and by big signs that point to the
transformers and say, ‘Danger! Do not touch,’” Woolsey said. “Well, the system is pretty well-designed to keep out, let’s say, a drunk teenager
on Saturday night.” The problem here is that the transformers were designed before terrorism, when the U.S. never expected to be attacked at
“We don’t have (an energy protection) problem that we can solve with better intelligence,”
Woolsey said. “We don’t have a problem we can solve with better weapons. We have got to begin to
have our electricity system evolve into something that is a lot more resilient.”
home, he said.
EMP attack would kill hundreds of millions
Marsteller 11 (Jackson, November 24, 2011, “The Next Great Threat to America,” Right Side News,
**EMP = electromagnetic pulse attack, http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011112415012/us/homelandsecurity/emps-the-next-great-threat-to-america.html)
Tuesday night at The Republican National Security Debate, hosted on CNN by The Heritage Foundation
and the American Enterprise Institute, an electromagnetic pulse attack (EMP) was mentioned as one of
the most important national security issues that is not discussed often. This is true. Despite the gravity
of the threat, the United States remains unprotected from the effects of an EMP. An EMP is a high-intensity burst
of electromagnetic energy caused by a rapid acceleration of charged particles. The EMP would disrupt all electronic devices
within its zone of impact. It would burn circuits and immobilize electronic components and systems. It
addition, the EMP would flow through electricity transmission lines and would damage distribution
centers and power lines. Detonating a singular nuclear weapon at a high altitude can create an EMP large enough to envelop the
entire continental United States. The nuclear weapon could be delivered by a long-range ballistic missile from Iran, China, Russia, or North
Korea. Even a short-range nuclear-tipped missile launched off of the U.S. shore could cause a devastating EMP effect. But not all causes of an
EMP are man-made, as it can also be caused by a large solar flare called the Carrington effect. The last time such an event happened on a larger
scale, it shocked telegraph operators unconscious and their machines caught on fire as the electromagnetic forces from the flare surged
through the lines. The
effects of an EMP on today’s society would be even more devastating. According to
Heritage’s James Carafano, “communications would collapse, transportation would halt, and electrical
power would simply be nonexistent. Not even a global humanitarian effort would be enough to keep
hundreds of millions of Americans from death by starvation, exposure, or lack of medicine.”
Smart Grid ensures grid security- that solves EMPs
GSGF, 12, Global Smart Grid Federation, [Global Smart Grid Federation works with the International Smart Grid Action Network as well as
with national and international government policymakers to address the broad challenges of deploying smarter grids.]
http://www.globalsmartgridfederation.org/documents/May31GSGF_report_digital_single.pdf
The term “smart grid” is a flexible concept which can be very simple or very ambitious in its expression. The
European Union
Commission Task Force for Smart Grids defines “smart grid” as an electricity network that can cost-
efficiently integrate the behaviour and actions of all users connected to it in a manner which ensures an
economically efficient, sustainable power system with low losses and high levels of quality and security
of supply and safety. The U.S. Department of Energy Smart Grid Task Force goes into further detail,
specifying that smart grids anticipate and respond to system disturbances in a self-healing manner,
enable active consumer participation, accommodate all generation and storage options, enable new eco
opportunities, optimize asset utilization and efficient operation, and provide the power quality needed
in a digital economy. The smart grid brings together the idea of grid modernization and the closer integration of all actors in our
electricity system.
Contention 3 is Renewables
The need for integration of North American renewable energy markets is real and
immediate- Interdependence Solves
Wood 12, Duncan Wood, [Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and
the director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de
Derecho Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial
board of Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana
de Energia, Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf The need
for integration of North American
renewable energy markets is real and immediate. Although the region has extensive
renewable energy resources, their geographic distribution, and their nature (intermittent
and of variable strength), mean that it makes sense to integrate both supply and distribution
across national borders. This has long been the case with energy; electricity grids have seen extensive integration across the
US northern border, and pipelines have brought Canadian natural gas and oil to the United States for a long time. As US demand
for renewable energy increases, satisfying that demand will require importing energy from
its neighbors, and Mexico offers a reliable and relatively low ‐ cost supply from its wind energy farms in the north.
Oil Demand steadily increasing into a “sea of uncertainties”
Bangkok Post 13, 7/8/13, [Card quotes the International Energy Agency]
emerging markets led by China will boost growth of oil demand to a record high
total next year, the IEA forecast on Thursday. Next year, consumption by emerging markets will
Global economic recovery and
dominate demand overall, a position "they should hold in perpetuity", the International Energy
Agency said. But the IEA monthly report stressed that the oil market is heading into a sea of
"many uncertainties", partly because oil production in the United States is "set to grow strongly". Supply from other countries outside
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), notably Brazil, Kazakhstan and South Sudan, would also rise and was set for a 20year record, the agency forecast.
For this year, because unseasonally cold weather had caused a big
increase in demand for heating oil in the northern hemisphere in the second quarter, the agency
raised its estimate for global demand by 215,000 barrels per day (bd). This took the overall estimated annual
growth to 930,000 bd, and total consumption to 90.8 million barrels per day (mbd). The IEA estimates show demand rising
by a further 1.2 mbd next year to 92.0 million barrels per day, a new record after record demand
also this year. In London, the price of benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil fell 24 cents from the closing price on Wednesday to
$106.28, partly in response to the report but also due to comments on monetary policy from the US Federal Reserve and a bullish outlook for US
fuel stocks, traders said. The price is at a 15-month high point, however.
Regarding supply, "upheaval in the Middle East
and North Africa remains an overarching concern," the IEA warned. "Emerging markets and
developing economies are forecast to lead demand growth in 2014," the IEA said. The growth of
demand from countries outside the 34-member OECD had slowed "from the heady pace of
recent years" but would "climb above total OECD demand in the second quarter of 2014," the
agency said. Recently, the speed of expansion had slowed most in China, India and the Middle
East, but demand by China would still lead consumption by emerging markets, the agency said. - Unrest in Egypt, Syria, worries oil market -- The IEA said that the United States would play a role in "an expected steep
increase in global refining activity in the third quarter of 2013". This was part of "tectonic shifts in the mid-stream and down-stream industries."
Analysts at PVM oil brokers in London commented that the IEA report "reveals that the US shale oil boom will represent a significant growth of
non-OPEC supply in 2014." The agency said that improving prospects for global economic growth would pull demand and that demand from
countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development would shrink at a much slower pace than it had since the financial
crisis began in 2008. OECD demand would fall by 0.8 percent this year and 0.4 percent in 2014, on the basis that "OECD economies will on
average return to growth in 2014". The
IEA said that oil prices had risen recently because of concerns that
unrest in Egypt could affect supplies via the Suez Canal and the SUMED pipeline which runs
from the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean Sea. "Observers worry that the political
confrontation in Egypt, like the Syrian civil war, could drag on and worsen before it gets better,
and the instability could theoretically threaten production and transit through the Suez Canal," the
IEA said. Unrest had also disrupted supplies from Libya, Nigeria and Iraq.
Perception alone triggers the link: The perception of a change in demand will cause
global Price Spikes
Kosakowski, 11 (Paul, writer and long-time investor from investopedia.com, 6/11, Investopedia.com
“What Determines Oil Prices”, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/determining-oilprices.asp#axzz1zuSutPpH, 7/7/12)
Not quite. The price of oil as we know it is actually set in the oil futures market. An oil futures contract is a binding agreement that gives one the
right to purchase oil by the barrel at a predefined price on a predefined date in the future. Under a futures contract, both the buyer and the
seller are obligated to fulfill their side of the transaction on the specified date. The following are two types of futures traders: hedgers
speculators An example of a hedger would be an airline buying oil futures to guard against potential rising prices. An example of a speculator
would be someone who is just guessing the price direction and has no intention of actually buying the product. According to the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (CME), the majority of futures trading is done by speculators as less than 3% of transactions actually result in the
purchaser of a futures contract taking possession of the commodity being traded.
The other key factor in determining oil prices
is sentiment. The mere belief that oil demand will increase dramatically at some point in the future
can result in a dramatic increase in oil prices in the present as speculators and hedgers alike snap up
oil futures contracts. Of course, the opposite is also true. The mere belief that oil demand will
decrease at some point in the future can result in a dramatic decrease in prices in the present as oil
futures contracts are sold (possibly sold short as well).
Oil price hikes threaten a global recession:
Richard Valdmanis, 6/2/2008
(http://www.reuters.com/article/CentralEuropeanInvestment08/idUSSP32671320080602)
continued price hikes are darkening the clouds on the global economic horizon. Energy
experts said a continued rise could worsen an economic slowdown in Europe and the United States,
already hit by a housing slump and credit crisis and potentially trigger a decisive recession. It's also bad news for
the developing Asian economies that fueled the spike, threatening to slow down their pace of growth.
"We'll see growth slow globally," said Jay Bryson, global economist at Wachovia Bank. "But the big losers are the oil
importers of the world, including (South) Korea, Japan, China and a lot of other Asian economies in
general."
In the meantime
Economic Decline Causes Nuclear War:
Walter Mead, 1992 NPQ's Board of Advisors, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer 1992, p.30
What if the global economy stagnates-or even shrinks? In the case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor, Russia, China, India-these countries with
their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order
than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
US-Mexico grid expansion is key – the plan creates pilot projects that spill over to
developing countries and make renewable energy successful
Bruns 11 (Adam, Managing Editor – Site Selection (Magazine about Real Estate Strategy and Economic
Development, “Crossing Boundaries,” Site Selection, August,
http://www.siteselection.com/theEnergyReport/2011/aug/energy-storage.cfm)
Founded by a man from Denmark, currently based in the UAE, and with offices in such locations as Moscow and Johannesburg, energy
storage and smart grid firm Rubenius is nothing if not global. The company's latest foray is taking place at one of
the globe's most fraught borders, tackling one of the energy sector's most daunting challenges . Last fall, Rubenius
purchased 346 acres (140 hectares) at the Silicon Border development near Mexicali in Baja California, Mexico, for the
installation of a large utility-scale energy storage operation. Rubenius calls it "the world's first mega region energy
warehouse," aka Energy Warehouse No. 1, and plans to roll out similar complexes in other emerging economies around the world. Ultimately
Rubenius plans to install 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) of sodium sulfur (NaS) energy storage batteries at a fully commissioned cost of over
US$4 billion. "The
reason Rubenius chose this location is the U.S. grid is under expansion in the area, and
at the Mexican border, the [Mexican] grid crosses our property into the U.S. and connects to the U.S.
grid," says Daniel Hill, CEO of the 4,000-acre (1,620-hectare) Silicon Border technology park. "So from that location you have a lot of potential
customers in California and even Arizona. And of course you're connected to the Mexican grid, which has large switches across the street from
us." According to a report published by Greentech Media in March, the giant batteries are being financed "with the help of Japan's
Export/Import bank" and are made by only one manufacturer, Japan's NGK Insulators. In early 2010 NGK and other parties signed an agreement
to develop large scale sodium sulfur NAS battery assets for use by EDF Energy in the United Kingdom. The
storage space in Mexico
will be offered to energy companies and utilities in both countries, and ostensibly will make
deployment of wind energy and solar energy more viable . According to research published this summer from BCC
Research, the global market for alternative energy storage is projected to be $325 million in 2011. That value should reach $423 million in 2016
as it increases at a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.4 percent. "The global alternative energy storage market can be broken
down into four segments – batteries, capacitive energy storage, fuel cells, and flywheel energy storage," said the report. "The segment made up
of batteries is estimated to be worth $256 million in 2011 and in 2016 should be worth $322 million," or 76 percent of the total alternative
energy storage market. Initial project plans in Mexico call for a 50-MW battery to be installed within one year. "Rubenius is in the process of
negotiating commercial contracts for that battery, and I'd say they're probably going to be completed in the next few weeks," says Hill, noting
that he's observed Rubenius systems in action in Abu Dhabi, where the company's Amplex subsidiary has installed what it calls the largest
energy storage system in the world. "They're also working on a license with a utility-scale battery company, to have a license to produce their
battery in this location," says Hill. "The idea is they would use the location for large-scale battery storage and also to manufacture batteries.
We've done a lot to scope the size of the buildings and budgets to build this factory, and their intent is to possibly start construction toward the
end of this year or early next year on this factory." In addition to the grid connection, Silicon Border's amenities include a state university
grid expansion is the Sunrise Powerlink project being pursued
by San Diego Gas & Electric, with the purpose of linking renewable power in the Imperial County region of California to San
campus and collaboration with UC San Diego. The U.S. transmission
Diego. The 117-mile (188-km.), $1.8-billion, 500-kilovolt electric "superhighway," like the Rubenius energy warehouse, will have a capacity of 1
gigawatt, and its schedule calls for it to be in service in 2012. The Sunrise Powerlink project has bred other economic development activity as
well: In March, in conjunction with a 25-year contract between SDG&E and a subsidiary of CSOLAR Development, LLC, a renewable energy
company managed by Tenaska Solar Ventures, for up to 150 megawatts (MW) of solar energy to be generated at the Imperial Solar Energy
Center (ISEC) West's proposed 1,057-acre solar energy facility near El Centro, Calif., Soitec, a French company, said it would build a new factory
in the San Diego region to manufacture proprietary concentrated photovoltaic modules. Multiple Hubs to Roll in Unison The company's border
investment includes an R&D operation in San Diego, Calif. The U.S. location will include labs for smart grid products and services. The company
expects to immediately employ more than 60 researchers, expanding to more than 200 employees for current products. The company says it
will outsource many operations, creating more than 400 additional green jobs in the region. "After a very successful roll-out of smart grid
products in the U.A.E., including street lighting controls, smart meter installations, and utility scale batteries, we are confident we can be a
significant contributor to communities and countries in America who are embracing renewable energy and improving the efficiency of scarce
resources with an eco-friendly approach," said Claus Rubenius, the company's chairman and founder, last fall. Also speaking at the
announcement was Mexican President Felipe Calderon. "Once we showed them our attributes, which include the proximity to the
manufacturing strength and the location of Silicon Border to Mexico, they decided to participate in our efforts to make this an energy and
technology hub," said Calderon. "This
is the kind of collaboration we should be doing more of among Mexico,
the United States and private businesses from around the world. Our two countries offer the largest
markets and workers who are second to none ." Rubenius says the storage project is expected to create more than 200
direct jobs and 800 indirect jobs in the region. "After meetings with Mexico's President Calderon and the Minister of Economy, Bruno Ferrari, as
well as various communities in Mexico, we felt a manufacturing base in Baja California will enable us to address markets throughout North
America," said Rubenius. "Furthermore, we believe the regional approach to become a mega center of energy and technology on the border of
Mexico and San Diego is the best way to capitalize on the strengths of the people and both countries." The company credited the efforts of San
Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and the alternative energy promotion efforts of CleanTECH, San Diego Economic Development Corp., San Diego
CONNECT and the State of California in helping it reach its investment decision. In April, after five years of operating in the UAE, Rubenius
officially moved its global operations offices to Dubai. Assisted by the emirate's Foreign Investment Office (Dubai FDI), the investment
promotion arm of the Department of Economic Development (DED) in Dubai, the company said it moved there because of Dubai's "strategic
location between Europe and Asia, excellent connectivity, business-friendly environment and easy access to global project financing, critical to
the company's ongoing initiatives and growth targets." "Rubenius establishing their headquarters in Dubai is an outstanding success for our
joint efforts with Dubai FDI to promote bilateral trade and investment," said Jose Neif Jury Fabre, Middle East Business & Economic Affairs
Minister at ProMexico, the trade and investment promotion agency of the government of Mexico. "We are confident Rubenius and its growth
plans will continue to create strong grounds for increased engagement between Dubai and Mexico as we move forward." Among the
company's work areas is development of smart-grid systems that incorporate water use as well as power use. It also
deploys technologies enabling off-grid locations to operate with dependable power, and plans to explore pilot projects for
those technologies in Mexico . "In developing markets such as Africa, South America and The Middle
East, legacy utility infrastructure simply cannot keep up with the economic growth and increasing
migration from rural to urban areas," explains the company's website. "The result is a huge utility imbalance,"
with more and more people leaving rural areas with poor utility infrastructure but in doing so
inevitably increasing pressure on the already overloaded metropolitan grids. "The solution to this
imbalance is to deploy purpose-built utility service systems operating independently of the national or
regional grids," says Rubenius. "The Rubenius Off-Grid solution makes sense for suburban housing re-location projects but even more so
for rural areas earmarked for growth in sectors such as technology parks, economic free zones, agriculture or mineral exploration."
Renewable Energy is uniquely key to stabilize energy prices
UCS 13, Union Concerned Scientists, [alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists, UCS stands out among nonprofit organizations
as the reliable source for independent scientific analysis.] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/publicbenefits-of-renewable.html
Renewable energy is providing affordable electricity across the country right now, and can help stabilize
energy prices in the future. The costs of renewable energy technologies have declined steadily, and are
projected to drop even more. For example, the average price of a solar panel has dropped almost 60 percent since 2011 [20]. The
cost of generating electricity from wind dropped more than 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 and more than 80 percent since 1980 [21].
In areas with strong wind resources like Texas, wind power can compete directly with fossil fuels on
costs [22]. The cost of renewable energy will decline even further as markets mature and companies
increasingly take advantage of economies of scale. While renewable facilities require upfront
investments to build, once built they operate at very low cost and, for most technologies, the fuel is
free. As a result, renewable energy prices are relatively stable over time. UCS’s analysis of the economic benefits
of a 25 percent renewable electricity standard found that such a policy would lead to 4.1 percent lower natural gas prices and 7.6 percent lower
electricity prices by 2030 [23].
In contrast, fossil fuel prices can vary dramatically and are prone to
substantial price swings. For example, there was a rapid increase in U.S. coal prices due to rising global demand before 2008, then a
rapid fall after 2008 when global demands declined [24]. Likewise, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly since 2000 [25].
Adequate Transmission is uniquely key to developing Renewable Markets
Dombek 12, Carl Dombek, [Card quotes Sharon Reishus, senior director of Cambridge Energy Resource Associates]
Large portions of the country will not meet their renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates, primarily
due to lack of adequate transmission. That message was delivered to FERC and state commissioners at the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ (NARUC) summer committee meetings in Portland, Ore. “There are some very significant
constraints for why it’s going to be difficult to meet RPS targets,” Sharon Reishus, senior director of
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), told the FERC/NARUC emerging issues collaborative on
July 22. “The two major ones are transmission-related and cost-related.” “Clearly, transmission is a
limiting factor for a number of states that need to meet their targets,” she said, noting that aggressive
targets and transmission constraints are impeding RPS implementation in large portions of New
England, transmission congestion is inhibiting renewable energy use in New York, and import constraints
from the Midwest ISO (MISO) are restricting transfers of renewable energy into the PJM Interconnection
(PJM).
Politics, not transmission, could keep California from meeting its 33% RPS mandate, Reishus said. “California could import
more renewable energy and meet its target if its rule changes in the later part of the decade,” Reishus
said, referring to the state’s current policy requiring that its renewable energy come from in-state
resources. California commissioner Timothy Simon agreed that the state should be using out of state
renewable energy, but predicted that the state would still meet its mandate. “I do believe in a more
regional approach, but I do believe there are ways we can achieve” the state’s goal, even under the
current import limitations. Simon noted that three of the state’s largest utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California
Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) – are currently each obtaining approximately 21% of their energy from renewable
resources.
Contention 4 is Relations
Mexico’s presidential election casts doubt on the future of US-Mexico relations –
energy cooperation’s key
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando, Specialist in Latin American Affairs – CRS, “Mexico’s New Administration:
Priorities and Key Issues in U.S.-Mexican Relations,” Congressional Research Service, 1-16,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf)
Congress has maintained significant interest in Mexico and played an important role in shaping
bilateral relations . Recently, the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that governed Mexico from
1929 to 2000 retook the presidency after 12 years of rule by the conservative National Action Party
(PAN) in the July 1, 2012 elections. The party also captured a plurality (but not a majority) in Mexico’s Senate and Chamber of
Deputies. PRI President Enrique Peña Nieto, a former governor of the state of Mexico, took office on December 1,
2012, pledging to enact bold structural reforms and broaden relations with the United States beyond security
issues. U.S. policymakers are closely following what the return of a PRI government portends for
Mexico’s domestic policies and relations with the United States. Upon his inauguration, President Peña Nieto announced a
reformist agenda with specific proposals under five broad pillars: reducing violence; combating poverty; boosting economic growth; reforming
education; and fostering social responsibility. He then signed a “Pact for Mexico” agreement with the leaders of the PAN and leftist Party of the
Democratic Revolution (PRD) containing legislative proposals for implementing an agenda that includes energy and fiscal reform. Although the
pact may ease opposition in Mexico’s Congress, Peña Nieto could face other constraints such as violence perpetrated by Mexico’s powerful
criminal organizations and the performance of the U.S. and global economies. Some analysts maintain that the prospects for reform under this
administration are good, while others are more circumspect. U.S.-Mexican
relations grew closer during the Felipe
Calderón Administration (2006-2012) as a result of the Mérida Initiative, a bilateral security effort for which Congress
has provided $1.9 billion. Some Members of Congress may be concerned about whether bilateral relations,
particularly security cooperation, may suffer now that the party controlling the presidency has
changed. Although the transition from PAN to PRI rule is unlikely to result in seismic shifts in bilateral relations, a PRI government may
emphasize economic issues more than security matters. President Peña Nieto has vowed to continue U.S.-Mexican security cooperation,
albeit with a stronger emphasis on reducing violent crime in Mexico than on combating drug trafficking; what that
cooperation will look like remains to be seen. He has also expressed support for increased bilateral and
trilateral (with Canada) economic and energy cooperation .
Cross-border energy is uniquely key to US- Mexican Relations
Baker Institute, Baker Institute Energy Forum and Oxford University, http://www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/energyforum/research/the-future-of-oil-in-mexico-el-futuro-del-sector-petrolero
future of Mexico’s energy sector, with important
ramifications for cross-border energy trade, environmental quality at border regions, and economic
development and related immigration flow. Mexican energy policy will have far reaching consequences
for U.S.-Mexico relations and for U.S.-Mexico border regions. Understanding the dynamics of the
political trends in Mexico that will impact future energy policy and the economic consequences of such
policies requires a multidisciplinary approach that will study underlying issues from many perspectives.
The next presidential election cycle will have important implications for the
The aim of this study is to promote a better understanding of the challenges facing Mexico’s oil sector and to enhance the debate among
policymakers, the media and industry on these important issues.
D
Economic interdependence makes economic engagement most effective for
cooperation
Castro et al 12 (Rafael Fernandez de Castro is the chair of the department of international studies at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México and former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón; Condoleezza Rice is a Thomas & Barbara Stephenson Senior
Fellow on Public Policy, Stanford University, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush; Bill
Richardson is a Chairman, APCO Global Political Strategies, former Governor of New Mexico, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary
of Energy. A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations; http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)
One of the most important strategic drivers in the relationship today is the economic relationship .
While the other top issues on the bilateral agenda are primarily understood as problems to be solved,
the economic relation is strong and growing. A greater focus on business, investment, and trade has
the potential to reframe the entire U.S.-Mexico relationship , to create a discourse based as much on
opportunity and mutual benefit as it is on risk and shared responsibility. Both countries’ economies
depend on each other more than most citizens realize. Mexico is the United States second largest
export market, and the U.S. is Mexico’s largest. The two countries trade more than a billion dollars in
goods each day, but as important as the volume of the trade is its quality. With a process known as
production sharing, Mexico and the United States jointly manufacture goods, sending parts back and
forth across the border as a final product is built. This integration of our manufacturing sectors means
that to a large extent we will sink or swim together in today’s fiercely competitive global economic
environment.
US-Mexico coop is key to solve drug trafficking
Gallaher & Schneider 13 (Carolyn Gallaher and Dan Schneider are professors in the School of International Service at American
University; 5/2/13; Obama, Peña Nieto must save a vital part of effort to fight drug trafficking;
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0502/Obama-Pena-Nieto-must-save-a-vital-part-of-effort-to-fight-drugtrafficking/(page)/2)
With President Obama visiting Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, today, it’s time to ask
what the future holds for US-Mexican cooperation in reducing drug trafficking – an effort known as
the Mérida Initiative. The Mexican government is radically restructuring that cooperation. Instead of
spreading the work across multiple ministries, which have been working with numerous US agencies,
it is coordinating everything under the single roof of its Interior Ministry. We appreciate Mr. Peña
Nieto’s desire to change course in the fight against cartels, but the far-reaching cooperative structures
Mérida established should continue. We recently traveled to Mexico City, where we examined security
cooperation between Mexico and the United States. After speaking with senior officials in several
Mexican federal agencies, we can say that changes in cross-border cooperation are dramatic. Some
context. In 2006, President-elect Felipe Calderón decided to make the fight against organized crime a
central part of his presidency. He had good reason to do so. Drug-related violence was soaring and
becoming more gruesome. Since then, more than 60,000 Mexicans have lost their lives to drug-related
violence. The violence is not, however, just a Mexican issue. American demand for drugs fuels the
trade, and guns from the US are the cartels’ weapons of choice. In Chicago, the murder rate is on the
rise, partly because of drug trafficking. In March 2007, President Calderón and President George W.
Bush agreed to significantly increase cooperation in fighting drug trafficking. Under the resulting Mérida
Initiative, the US pledged $1.4 billion in assistance over four years, a fraction of what Mexico spends
on the effort. Initial funds were earmarked for hardware; later allotments were to help Mexico
transform its judicial sector to be more transparent and accountable. Equally important, Mérida
sparked the creation of multiple binational working groups. Fast forward to 2012. Despite the
importance of organized crime as an issue in the Mexican presidential race, Peña Nieto’s administration
has focused almost exclusively on the economy since the election. Its first major security announcement
came a few days ago. Instead of Mexican agencies working directly with their counterparts in US
agencies, all communication, intelligence sharing, and joint maneuvers will run through one ministry –
Interior. As a public relations strategy in Mexico, it makes sense to lower the volume on the cartels and
drug violence. Mexicans are worn out after six years of constant media coverage of gruesome violence
and Mr. Calderón’s war on those perpetrating it. However, violence continues, and broad bilateral
cooperation can help to stop it . Indeed, during our research we have met US state prosecutors who
exchanged information with their Mexican counterparts that led to arrests and prosecutions in both
countries. We also heard positive assessments about coordination on cargo inspection. Officers in both
countries have also used the US e-trace system, which tracks weapons found at crime scenes. Despite
such progress, our discussions with senior Mexican officials suggest the future of bilateral cooperation
is in doubt. Many newly appointed senior officials were shocked at the full extent of cooperation with
the US during Calderón’s administration. Several officials used words like “penetration” and
“infiltration” to describe US involvement – words that suggest suspicion about US motives.
Narcotics cause Latin America instability, civil wars, and destruction of US-Latin
America ties
Messing and Hazelwood 12 (F. Andy Messing is the Executive Director of the National Defense
Council Foundation, Bruce Hazelwood wa a member of the Milgroup at the U.S. Embassy, “US Drug
Control Policy and International Operations” 2012
http://ndcf.dyndns.org/ndcf/Publications/US_Drug_Control_Policy_and_Int_Ops.htm#_Toc449503510\
\CLans)
Presently, many drug producing countries are beset with guerrilla war. Therefore, in order for our overseas drug control programs to be successful U.S. planners and field operators should have a full understanding of narco-guerrilla warfare and related activities. The following generic
outline of the Three Phases of Narco-Guerrilla Warfare represents a typical progression and details the levels of involvement of the narco organization, the insurgent forces and the likely responses of the foreign government
. As will be demonstrated, of
the three major players in a narco-guerrilla situation (the traffickers, the guerrillas, and the
government), it is the drug traffickers who are the most adept at manipulating the other two. As a starting
point, it can be said that countries with narco-guerrilla problems did not see both the drug and insurgent activities begin simultaneously. Each
organization clearly had a separate birth and a separate agenda. On the other hand, the guerrillas see themselves - as liberators of the
oppressed, defenders of social justice and fighters against corruption. In sharp contrast, the drug organization is a business representing free
enterprise at its extremes. The
insurgents' goals are to challenge the government's legitimacy and ability to
provide security to the rural population, always searching for the moral high ground. Their long term objective is to
collapse the government. In sharp contrast, the drug trafficker's goals are to gain control by using their
immense financial advantages and propensity for violence to corrupt and intimidate at all levels of
society. Their long-term objective is to incorporate the government. The government's goal is to maintain itself in power. Most narcoguerrilla situations can usually be divided into three phases. PHASE 1: Phase One is the incipient stage. Here the conflict is generated because of
the grave social, economic and political imbalance. The governmental forces are set on maintaining the status quo and the opposition guerrilla
forces are dedicated to change. The insurgents
will usually opt for a Maoist type strategy based in the rural
areas where the government's control is the weakest. Their plans are to work from the countryside into the metropolitan
areas. Neither side is preoccupied with funding sources as both envision an opportunity for early victory, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. It is during this phase that the military and organizational structure of both the government and the guerrillas are defined. Both sides believe
they are reaching for the moral high ground in an attempt to get support from the masses. During this early stage, activities by the drug traffickers are covert and large scale narco actions are limited. Both drug dealings and insurgent battlefield preparations are on going but largely
. Because the guerrillas are ideologically motivated and as yet possess limited armed capability,
they have no need or desire to be identified with the criminal narco dealers.
unrelated
Therefore, both elements operate and pursue their goals on separate
paths. During this phase, the government, with its untrained policy and military forces, views the guerrillas as bandits who can easily be eliminated by increasing its repressive activities in the affected areas usually outside of the country's capital. At the same time, some ruling civilian and
military officials begin to see the drug business as a way to augment their low income. They conveniently rationalize that the drug problem is one of external use and not their internal responsibility. Therefore, the lucrative drug trade is allowed to operate and flourish
. This
lack of government concern and understanding allows the drug operators as well as guerrilla forces to
develop their essential underground infrastructure and their operational apparatus.
By the latter part of Phase I, two important facts
start to become evident: Through police actions the narco/guerrilla connection is dearly exposed. This results in the government finally having to admit that separating the two is difficult. That as efforts become more aggressive, corrupt government officials begin to actively throw
obstacles in the path of the program designed to stop the drug trade. PHASE II By Phase II, the government and guerrillas bot h realize that the conflict may be protracted. Each side tries to extend their combat power to get the advantage.
Accordingly, the
costs in terms of "money, resources, manpower and political risks escalate. Money becomes central in
the conflict, whether it is denying it or making it. As the moral reasoning of the war blurs and the "end justifies the
means" rational emerges within elements of the fighting factions, the lure of easy money takes hold. Narcotics activity quickly emerges as a
leading moneymaker with the drug dealers taking the driver's seat. The principle objective of the narcos at this point is to export increasingly
large quantities of the product for sale abroad. Key
government and guerrilla leaders will use the military structure
of their organizations to facilitate the trafficker's goal in the name of maximizing the profits for "the
cause." Narco business elements make informal alliances with key leaders on both sides. In the case of the guerrillas, the overwhelming
majority of drug profits are initially directed to the insurgent's formal structure; however, the first incidents of major skimming occur. On the
government side, informal organizational structures are developed to distribute drug profits and formal discipline starts breaking down.
Inflation of the price for drug protection services; graft and corruption are becoming routine. During
Phase lithe guerrillas expand their bases and build up their fighting forces for the introduction of coordinated small unit combat activities. Their
increasing need for supplies and equipment make them more vulnerable and dependent on narco involvement.
Deals are made for
the protection of clandestine airfields and safe passage, and in the process money changes hand. The guerrilla
leadership uses the money to buy weapons, ammunition and other war materials. This drug income,
coupled with insurgent "battlefield acquisition" from the government forces, allows the insurgents to expand their area of
control and further challenge the government's authority and ability to maintain law, order and
security. The guerrillas help justify their association with the narcos as a way of assisting the campesino drug farmer rise above the
subsistence level. Therefore they use the government's attempts to conduct manual and aerial eradication of drug plants as rallying cries to
incite the former to protest. Using this "window of opportunity'. The guerrillas establish more control
and introduce their
dedicated cadres to the civilian population. The insurgents condition the farmers to believe that
growing drugs is not wrong, and that the government, its military forces and the U.S. supporters are
the enemy. Many become vulnerable to insurgent political propaganda and indoctrination and are slowly
incorporated into the guerrilla masses with some becoming full time combatants. Throughout Phase II, a sharp
increase in drug production and trafficking occurs. Towns within the harvest areas actually start to grow and thrive off of the narco dollars. This
further complicates the government's problems, because if state sponsored eradication and interdiction programs are successful, the results
will lower the standard of living and possibly serve to drive more people into the hands of the guerrillas. However, any
success of the
government's anti-drug programs is unlikely due to the "widespread corruption of government
officials by the narco dollars, which guarantees a half-hearted effort at best to implement programs designed to suppress the drug
trade. As the war between the insurgents and government forces intensifies, the balance of real campesino farmers vs. new entrepreneurs begins to change. Given the constant increase in drug demand, the narcotics growing areas start to at tract entrepreneurs from economically
depressed urban cities. Many of the original farmers, who only wanted peace and quiet, move into the safer government controlled towns. This makes it even easier for the new drug growers to flood into the drug growing areas. This displacement further serves to consolidate the narco's
power and causes an increase in drug related activities. In many cases, the narco organization will even go so far as to provide crop growing assistance such as fertilizer and farming techni que advice to drug growers. Under these deteriorating circumstances, crop substitution is presented
by the government as an option. However, the reality is no harvest can compete financially with drug cultivation. In addition, programs that encourage growing other crops soon find that the lines of communication (roads, the important accesses from the field to the market) are
controlled by guerrillas and often closed. Developing alternatives such as local processing plants are tried, but prove difficult to maintain because of guerrilla attacks. Air lifting commodities is considered as a course of action but soon proves to be expensive and not cost effective.
In
the end, the
government perceives that it has no option but to declare the area an emergency and turn
major authority over to the army. This serves to further escalate the level of violence. Quickly, existing
divisions between host country drug police and the military units deepen. Each has their role: the police fighting
drug dealers, the army waging their war in the countryside against the guerrillas. Both are competing for resources and
greater operating authority.
The army's point of view is that the guerrillas pose the most dangerous threat to national security, mostly because of existing civilian and military drug involvement and associated corruption, the idea of
directing all available resources at winning the guerrilla war is given serious consideration by government officials in the capital. This serves to demonstrate bow fully involved government officials have become in assisting and protecting the narcotics traffickers.
It is during
Phase II that the drug
dealers begin to gain significant amounts of control and influence over the
government, its armed forces and the guerrilla movement.
Both the insurgents and the government consider the narco element as a necessary evil to be used in order to better their
individual or group financial position and increase their power base. In most cases, countries with rural civil defense forces will see the people in drug growing areas transferring their attention from fighting insurgents to providing protection for drug operations. This change of focus
. It is at the end of Phase II that narco front personnel, in a move to increase their
power and security, will campaign and possibly be elected to official office. Other members of the drug
leaves the isolated rural towns vulnerable to further guerrilla penetration
organization will gain sensitive positions in the government by official appointments to seek to influence the government through front groups
like drug growers' unions. Laundered
narco dollars are used to purchase or establish legitimate corporations
eventually results in
an economy that becomes quite dependent on drug activities to keep the country afloat. PHASE III In Phase III, both
which are as important to the long-term survivability of the drug organization as the drug trafficking itself. This
the governmental and guerrilla factions are in the process of becoming shells. Real power is being effectively transferred to leading narco
elements. Every part of the society has yielded, to one degree or another, to the drug organization within their territory. Narco
elements
turn inward to domestic markets to squeeze out every last peso and firm up local control of the
population. Cross-pollination of domestic and international drug elements occurs. Throughout each phase, the insurgents have tried to
control more of the drug system. At the same time, police and military forces have demanded more from the drug dealers for protection. The
drug lords switch back and forth between the coups as it suits their purposes. It
is this technique of keeping both elements
off balance and dependent on the drug trade that the narcos have mastered. They play each against the other as
if they were musical instruments. Both are maintained at a safe arm's length, their roles increased and decreased as it suits the drug dealers. If
this situation is left unchecked the drug organizations will succeed in their attempt to dominate the
country's institutions. By this late stage the narcos clearly wield more power than the guerrilla apparatus. Although both have
mastered clandestine operations and the ability to survive in challenging environments; by this point, the
reach of the drug dealer's
money, weapons and infrastructure is much longer than that of the guerrillas. In some cases there will even be
increased involvement by the drug organizations in promoting guerrilla and government negotiations, mainly because they view continued
guerrilla instability as a potential threat to their control. As
the threatened government wakes up and tries to apply
serious pressure, the narco organization responds violently with brutal acts of revenge. Some government
officials will then plead for compromise; they will propose that the government and drug organizations coexist. If this idea is accepted it will be
a sure win for the drug dealers. Only
if some brave high government official declares all out war can the
country and its institutions be saved. It is then that the country's moral warriors (civilian, military and police) step out to defy the
odds. It is with these individuals that responsibility for success is placed. Recognizing the drug dealer's strategy, and after several successful
attacks, a special protection package will have to be developed around these key people. The
critical need to strengthen the
judicial system, which does not work well against normal criminal acts, much less those involving drugs, is quickly
realized. It is at this late stage that the narco-guerrilla war has entered its most critical phase, a war of
will and sustainment. The first to quit loses.
Latin America stability at crossroads now- instability could spark prolif
Trinkunas 10 (Harold A., Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, CCMR for the
Naval Postgraduate School, “ASSESSING POTENTIAL NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA: 2006–2016”, July 29, 2010
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700601071926\\CLans)
Currently three key actors are relevant in considering future proliferation networks in Latin America:
Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. Argentina and Brazil are critical because of their relatively advanced nuclear capabilities. These
make them potential participants in a proliferation network, although the probability seems low. Venezuela lacks any capability
but has declared the intention to acquire a civilian nuclear power program. Its leadership also has
repeatedly stated that it considers the United States the principal external threat to the security of the
Bolivarian revolution, which has led some outside observers to raise the possibility that Venezuela may be interested in more than
civilian nuclear power. For the foreseeable future, Argentina and Brazil are committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology within the
region, and they are unlikely to resume efforts to acquire nuclear weapons without some revolutionary change in the international system that
would lead them to perceive an existential threat to the state. The initial rationale for abandoning the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Argentina
and Brazil, the safeguarding of democracy, is fading as their regimes have consolidated. However,
the developing security
community in the Southern Cone, the resolution of all territorial disputes between the major regional
powers (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and ongoing mutual confidence-building measures mean that any territorial
defense or deterrence rationales for nuclear weapons acquisition have faded as well. However, this does not
mean that they will not expand their own domestic civilian programs or export their nuclear know-how to other states, particularly those
seeking nuclear power programs. In both countries, left-center governments with strong nationalist credentials have sought to rekindle their
civilian nuclear programs. President
da Silva of Brazil has spoken of greatly expanding his country’s use of
nuclear power, including building numerous new reactors.14 Brazil’s ongoing struggle with the IAEA over the inspection
of its enrichment facilities, which Brazil has blocked, arguing that it is protecting industrial secrets, has raised eyebrows as well.15 Argentina has
exported nuclear technology four times in its history, and given that it could earn more than 09 July 2013 $500 million from a new sale, the
incentive to do so again is clear. In both cases, rising energy costs have been used to justify the expansion of civilian nuclear power programs.
Another important consideration is that
for these strongly nationalist governments, nuclear power is a symbol
of modernity, technological autonomy, and sovereignty. However, this has to be balanced against the reality that the
Argentine and Brazilian nuclear programs are plagued with cost overruns and delays. In the Argentine case in particular, repeated economic
crises during the 1990s and 2000s have led to a seriously under-resourced nuclear program.16 Assessing Venezuela as a proliferation risk is
more difficult because the only evidence is its leader’s November 2005 declaration of a desire to develop a nuclear power program. However,
President Cha´vez’s record of achieving his declared intentions is strong, which is why one must take
the announcement seriously. Venezuela’s recent accession to MERCOSUR is only the most recent example of a long-held goal that
seemed farfetched when he first took office in 1999. In fact, Venezuela began discussions with its MERCOSUR partners, Argentina and Brazil,
about acquiring nuclear power reactors.17 Perhaps paving the way for its own future activities, Venezuela has taken positions on proliferation
issues that run directly against the mainstream of international public opinion, supporting both Iran’s right to pursue nuclear technology
without constraints and North Korea’s July 2006 large-scale missile tests.18 Venezuela
also has pursued a highly publicized
rapprochement with Iran, a potential nuclear supplier. 19 Venezuela’s stated concern of a U.S. invasion has led it to
officially orient its armed forces toward asymmetric defense of the state. This has translated into changes in doctrine and
educational programs and the creation of a militia, although few changes within the organization of the armed forces are
evident.20 Certainly, nuclear forces would be the ultimate deterrent against outside intervention. Taken
together, these factors have led some outside observers to claim that Venezuela is a potential nuclear proliferation risk, but if we evaluate the
domestic and international political context, it seems unlikely that this will happen. At the international level, Argentina and Brazil have reacted
very cautiously to the Venezuelan nuclear proposal. On the one hand, they would like the business for economic reasons, but on the other they
are concerned about Cha´vez’s ambitions. Venezuela’s fervent support for Bolivia’s nationalization of natural gas assets owned by Brazil and
Argentina has demonstrated that the interests of these countries do not always run in concert. As members of the NPT and the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), Argentina and Brazil are likely to insist on strong international safeguards on any nuclear technology sold to Caracas.21
However, neither
the Kirchner nor da Silva administrations are likely to oppose Venezuela’s nuclear
ambitions publicly, both because they are vulnerable domestically on their left flank, where Hugo
Cha´vez has numerous sympathizers, and because internationally they still have common economic
interests with Venezuela that make them vulnerable to political retaliation from Cha´vez.
Prolif escalates and causes nuclear war
Kroenig 9 (Matthew, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University, was on the Council
on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow in the Department of Defense, former strategist in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, was awarded the Secretary of Defense’s Award for Outstanding
Achievement, Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Co-Chair of the Council’s Term
Member Advisory Committee, has had fellowships from the Council on Foreign Relations, the National
Science Foundation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Security and Cooperation at
Stanford University, and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California,
“Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation”, November 2009,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Beyond-Optimism-and-Pessimism.pdf\\CLans)
Triggers Regional Instability Nuclear proliferation can embolden new nuclear states, triggering regional
instability that could potentially threaten the interests of power-projecting states and even entrap
them in regional disputes. New nuclear weapon states may be more aggressive and this newfound
assertiveness can result in regional instability. I define regional instability as a heightened frequency (but not necessarily the
intensity) of militarized interstate disputes among states in a given geographical region. The threat that regional instability poses to powerprojecting states is different from the concern about international instability expressed by the proliferation pessimists. Pessimists assume that
international instability is bad in and of itself — and they may be right. But, power-projecting states have a different concern. They worry that
nuclear proliferation will set off regional instability and that, because they have the ability to project
power over the new nuclear weapon state, they will be compelled to intervene in a costly conflict.
Power-projecting states could feel the need to act as a mediator between nuclear-armed disputants,
provide conventional military assistance to one of the parties in the dispute, or because they have the ability to put boots on the ground in the
new nuclear state, potentially
be drawn into the fighting themselves. There is direct evidence that nuclear weapons can
contribute to regional instability. Robert Rauchhaus has demonstrated that nuclear weapon states are more likely to engage
in conflict than nonnuclear weapon states. Michael I lorowit2 extends this analysis to show that aggressiveness is most
pronounced in new nuclear states that have less experience with nuclear diplomacy.4’ These related findings are not due to the fact that
dispute-prone states are more likely to acquire nuclear weapons; the scholars carefully control for a state’s selection into nuclear status.
Rather, the findings demonstrate that nuclear
weapons increase the frequency with which their possessors
participate in militarized disputes. Qualitative studies have also provided supporting evidence of
nuclear weapons’ potentially destabilizing effects. Research on internal decision-making in Pakistan reveals that Pakistani
foreign policvmakers may have been emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear weapons, encouraging them to initiate militarized disputes
against India.
Proliferation optimists counter that nuclear proliferation should increase regional stability,
but the most recent empirical investigations undermine the stronger versions of the optimism
argument.3’ While nuclear-armed states may be less likely to experience full-scale war providing some support for the optimist position,
the preponderance of evidence suggests that nuclear-armed states are more likely ro engage in other types of militarized disputes.’ This is true
whether only one state or all of the contentious actors in a region possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, even if
nuclear proliferation does have stabilizing effects as optimists argue,
as long as regional conflict among nuclear-armed
states is possible, the basic argument presented here still holds. This is because power-projecting states may still feel
compelled to intervene in the conflicts that do occur. These are conflicts that they perhaps could have avoided had
nuclear weapons been absent. There is direct evidence that regional conflicts involving nuclear powers can encourage power-projecting states to become involved in nuclear disputes. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was reluctant to aid Israel in the 1973
Yom Kippur War until Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir threatened that, without U.S. assistance, she might be forced to use nuclear weapons against the Arab armies. In response, Kissinger reversed his decision and provided emergency aid to the Israeli Defense Forces. The Soviet Union
also considered a military intervention to help its Arab proxies in the Kippur War, causing the United States to go on nuclear alert, and leading leaders in both Moscow and Washington to consider the very real possibility that a conflict involving a regional nuclear power could spiral into a
expectation that
powerful states will intervene in conflicts involving a nuclear-armed state is so firmly ingrained in the
strategic thinking of national leaders that small nuclear powers actually incorporate it into their
strategic doctrines.
superpower war. Similarly, in 1999 and 2(X)2, the United States became caught in diplomatic initiatives to prevent nuclear war in crises between the nuclear- armed countries of India and Pakistan.
Indeed, the
South Africa’s nuclear doctrine envisioned, in the event of an imminent security threat, the detonation of a nuclear weapon, not against the threatening party, but over the Atlantic Ocean in an attempt to jolt the United States into
intervening on South Africa’s behalf.’ Israel’s nuclear doctrine was also constructed along similar lines. While the Israelis are notoriously silent about t he existence and purpose of their nuclear arsenal, Francis Perrin, a French official who assisted in the development of Israel’s nuclear
program in the 1950s and I 960s, explained that Israel’s arsenal was originally aimed “against the Americans, not to launch against America., but to say ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation, we will require you to help us. Otherwise, we will use our nuclear bombs.” Similarly,
Pakistan’s surprise raid on Indian-controlled Kargil in 1999 was motivated partly by the expectation that Pakistan would be able to retain any territory it was able to seize quickly, because Pakistani officials calculated that the United States would never allow an extended conflict in nuclear
South Asia
. For these reasons,
stability.
power-projecting States worry about the effect of nuclear proliferation on regional
U.S. officials feared that nuclear proliferation in Israel could embolden Israel against its Arab enemies, or entice Arab states to launch a preventive military strike on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. In a 1963 NIE on Israel’s nascent nuclear program, the consensus view of
the IT.S. intelligence community was that if Israel acquired nuclear weapons, “Israel’s policy coward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough.. .it would seek to exploit the psychological advantage of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs.” President Kennedy
concurred. In a letter to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Kennedy wrote that Israel should abandon its nuclear program because Israel’s “development of such (nuclear) weapons would dangerously threaten the stability of the area.” Similarly, in the case of China’s nuclear
program, U.S. officials believed that a nuclear-armed China would “be more willing to take risks in military probing operations because of an overoptimistic assessment of its psychological advantage.” More recently, U.S. officials have continued to fear the effect of nuclear proliferation on
regional stability. In a 1986 Top Secret CIA Assessment, U.S. intelligence analysts predicted that a nuclear North Korea would have “a free band to conduct paramilitary operations without provoking a response.”
Similarly, a U.S. expert testified
before Congress in 2006 that “A
nuclear arsenal in the hands of Iran’s current theocratic regime will be a
source of both regional and global instability.” U.S. officials assessed that regional instability set off by
nuclear proliferation could compel them to intervene directly in regional conflicts. In the early I 960s, U.S.
officials speculated that Israel could potentially leverage its nuclear arsenal to compel the United States to intervene on its behalf in Middle
Eastern crises.’4 Similarly, in 1965, Henry Rowen, an official in the Department of Defense, assessed that if India acquired nuclear weapons, it
could lead to a conflict in South Asia “with a fair chance of spreading and involving the United States.”4 Ar the time of writing, U.S. defense
strategists are planning for the possibility that the
United States may be compelled to intervene in regional conficts
involving a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea and their neighbors. Leaders in power-projecting states
also fear that regional instability set off by nuclear proliferation could entrap power-projecting states
in a great power war.
Other power- projecting states, facing a mirror-image situation, may feel compelled to intervene in a crisis ro secure their own interests, entangling multiple great powers in a regional conflict. In a 1963 NIE, U.S. intelligence
analysts assessed that “the impact of (nuclear proliferation in the Middle East) will be the possibility that hostilities arising out of existing or future controversies could escalate into a confrontation involving the major powers.” President Johnson believed that a nuclear Israel meant
increased Soviet involvement in the Middle East and perhaps superpower war.” If historical experience provides a guide, U.S. strategists at the time of writing are undoubtedly concerned by the possibility that China may feel compelled to intervene in any conflict involving a nuclear-
states, other than the United States, are also
threatened by the possibility that nuclear proliferation will generate regional instability that could
potentially require their intervention.
armed North Korea, making the Korean Peninsula another dangerous flash-point in the uncertain Sino-American strategic relationship
. Power-projecting
During the Cold War Soviet intelligence estimated that a South African bomb, “would lead to a sharp escalation of instability and tension in southern Africa.” The Soviet Union also
assessed that nuclear proliferation in Israel could trigger regional instability that could lead to a broader war. For example, the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Soviet embassies in Egypt and Israel, “The establishment of nuclear weapons production in Israel will make the
situation.. .even more unstable, and is liable to trigger a serious conflict that can spill over the borders of the region.” More recently, South Korean officials believed that they could become entangled in regional instability set off by nuclear proliferation in neighboring North Korea. In the
.” In 2006, a Turkish analyst argued that nuclear
may be enough to ‘explode’ the entire region in almost every meaning of the
mid-I 990s, Seoul prepared military forces for participation in a possible second Korean Var as North Korea’s nuclear program advanced
proliferation
word.
in Iran could be a “spark (that)
Inherency
Status Quo Projects Fail
Status quo projects will fail absent the plan
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International
Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research
focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, “Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico
Energy Cooperation”, January 2013)
In order to get electricity from Texas to Mexico, however, some major investments must take place
in the area of transmission . At the present time the cross - border transmission infrastructure is
highly limited and talks between the two countries aimed at facilitating new cross - border projects
have achieved little real progress since 2010. Nine cross - border in terconnections exist at the time of
writing, with new transmission capacity last added in 2007, with the opening of the Sharyland McAllen Reynosa 150MW connection. Of course transmission not only affects the prospects for electricity
imports into Mexico from Texas, but also exports from Baja Ca lifornia to California, particularly of
electricity from renewable sources such as wind (see below). Mexico and the United States will need to
deepen their cooperation in the area of transmission if these projects are to be brought to fruition.
Mexico’s grid fails – current interconnections maxed out
Wood ‘12
[Duncan. Dir of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Former
Director of the IR Program at Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo in Mexico. “Wind Energy Potential” 2012
www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/.../Border_Wind_Energy_Wood_0.pdf]
For the state of Baja California, this ¶ problem is made even more acute because ¶ there is no
interconnection between ¶ the state and the national grid, making ¶ export of electricity to private
consumers ¶ in other states impossible at the present ¶ time. Mexico’s national grid is in fact three ¶
grids, with Baja California Norte and ¶ Baja California Sur each having their own ¶ independent system.¶ A
further level of difficulty is found ¶ with cross-border transmission. A quick ¶ survey of the above map
shows that there are ¶ only a limited number of interconnections¶ across the border. Furthermore,
only 5 of ¶ these connections are bi-directional. In ¶ Baja California, the Miguel-Tijuana and the ¶
Imperial Valley-Rosarita interconnections ¶ (both 230kV AC) have a combined capacity ¶ of 800 MW, in
Coahuila the Eagle PassPiedras Negras interconnection (138kV ¶ HVDC) has a capacity of only 38 MW,
and in ¶ Tamaulipas the Laredo-Nuevo Laredo (138kV ¶ VFT) and McAllen-Reynosa (138kV HVDC) ¶
interconnections have a combined capacity of ¶ 250 MW. These interconnections are maxed ¶ out and
therefore cannot be considered ¶ for future cross-border electricity trade. In ¶ addition to these lines
operated by CFE, there ¶ are two privately owned transmission lines of ¶ 310 MW (owned by Intergen)
and 1200 MW ¶ (owned by Sempra).¶ The problem of cross-border ¶ transmission has been identified in
a number ¶ of previous reports on wind and renewable ¶ energy in Mexico,5¶ and in 2010 the two ¶
countries set up a task-force to address ¶ the issue.6¶ Although this group has met a ¶ number of times,
there appears to be little ¶ momentum behind the initiative, with each ¶ side blaming the other for
lack of progress .
Current Power Networks can’t handle renewable demand.
WorleyParsons 13, energy, engineering, procurement and construction management services,
http://www.worleyparsons.com/AboutUs/Pages/default.aspx
Globally, the Power Networks sector is facing unprecedented challenges with ageing infrastructure, a
transformation of supply to include renewable and distributed energy sources, and increasing priority
on energy efficiency. The market and commercial environment is also changing with industry
restructuring, new markets, regulatory changes, and economic constraints. At the same time, Smart Grid is evolving
and will have a significant role in addressing and managing these changes, along with others such as the future impact of electric vehicles and
the need to optimize the utilization of existing assets.
Solvency
Mex Says yes
Mexico Will Say Yes; Smart Grid Technology
United States Embassy in Mexico City, 3-14-13, “U.S. Embassy and Partners Open 2nd Annual
U.S.-Mexico Smart Grid Technology and Business Forum”, http://mexico.usembassy.gov/pressreleases/2nd-annual-us-mexico-smart-grid-technology-and-business-forum.html
U.S. Ambassador Anthony Wayne joined Energy Secretary Pedro Joaquin Coldwell, CFE Director General
Francisco Rojas, and a 17-company U.S. business delegation representing the smart grid sector to open the second annual forum
promoting Smart Grid technology in Mexico as a way to bolster U.S.-Mexican connectivity and
competitiveness. Director General Rojas and CFE hosted the forum at the Museo Tecnologico (MUTEC). Speaking at the forum opening,
Ambassador Wayne said, “The United States and Mexico are in a unique position to work together to
strengthen North America’s energy position relative to the rest of the global community. By
committing ourselves to bilateral and multilateral agreements on energy cooperation that advance
our North American energy goals and highlight the importance of the North American energy bloc, we
can increase our already strong interconnectivity and mutual competitiveness in terms of trade,
manufacturing, and overall economic clout.” In his opening remarks, Secretary Coldwell said, “Our
presence here not only speaks to renewing technology and advancing the sector. It is a critical
component of the change that is taking place worldwide in favor of humanism, the power of the
human and his growing freedom.” The forum provided a platform for the U.S. smart grid companies to showcase their
technologies for Mexican government officials from the Ministry of Energy (SENER), The Mexican Electric Utility (CFE), Mexican Energy
Regulatory Commission (CRE) and Electric Research Institute (IIE) as well as private sector officials, while a wide range of US experts working
with the US national institute of standards and technology (NIST) and three national energy laboratories presented their thinking and work on
smart grid developments. Ambassador Wayne was pleased to host the forum participants for a reception at the end of the day.
Mexico is a ready and willing partner for border infrastructure improvements, but the
United States has to be the first mover – plan would catalyze growth in legal trade
O’Neil 2013
Shannon O'Neil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
“Mexico Makes It: A Transformed Society, Economy, and Government” March/April 2013 Foreign Affairs
http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-makes/p30098
BORDER BUDDIES Since NAFTA was passed, U.S.-Mexican trade has more than tripled. Well over $1
billion worth of goods crosses the U.S.-Mexican border every day, as do 3,000 people, 12,000 trucks,
and 1,200 railcars. Mexico is second only to Canada as a destination for U.S. goods, and sales to Mexico
support an estimated six million American jobs, according to a report published by the Woodrow Wilson
International Center's Mexico Institute. The composition of that bilateral trade has also changed in
recent decades. Approximately 40 percent of the products made in Mexico today have parts that come
from the United States. Many consumer goods, including cars, televisions, and computers, cross the
border more than once during their production. Admittedly, this process has sent some U.S. jobs south,
but overall, cross-border production is good for U.S. employment. There is evidence that U.S.
companies with overseas operations are more likely to create domestic jobs than those based solely
in the United States. Using data collected confidentially from thousands of large U.S. manufacturing
firms, the scholars Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James Hines upended the conventional wisdom in a
2008 study, which found that when companies ramp up their investment and employment
internationally, they invest more and hire more people at home, too. Overseas operations make
companies more productive and competitive, and with improved products, lower prices, and higher
sales, they are able to create new jobs everywhere. Washington should welcome the expansion of U.S.
companies in Mexico because increasing cross-border production and trade between the two
countries would boost U.S. employment and growth. Mexico is a ready, willing, and able economic
partner, with which the United States has closer ties than it does with any other emerging-market
country. Familial and communal ties also unite the United States and Mexico. The number of Mexican
immigrants in the United States doubled in the 1980s and then doubled again in the 1990s. Fleeing poor
economic and employment conditions in Mexico and attracted by labor demand and family and
community members already in the United States, an estimated ten million Mexicans have come north
over the past three decades. This flow has recently slowed, thanks to changing demographics and
economic improvements in Mexico and a weakening U.S. economy. Still, some 12 million Mexicans and
over 30 million Mexican Americans call the United States home. For all these reasons, the United States
should strengthen its relationship with its neighbor, starting with immigration laws that support the
binational individuals and communities that already exist in the United States and encourage the legal
immigration of Mexican workers and their families. U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to send
such legislation to Congress, but a strong anti-immigrant wing within the Republican Party and the slow
U.S. economic recovery pose significant barriers to a comprehensive and far-reaching deal.
Nevertheless, the United States and Mexico urgently need to invest in border infrastructure,
standardize their customs forms, and work to better facilitate legal trade between them. Furthermore,
getting Americans to recognize the benefits of cross-border production will be an uphill battle, but it is
one worth fighting in order to boost the United States' exports, jobs, and overall economic growth.
Mexican constitutional reforms prove they’d say yes
Iliff et al 13 (DAVID LUHNOW and LAURENCE ILIFF, February 13, 2013,, WSJ reporters, “Mexico Moves
on Energy in Economic Reset”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578302343638712694.html, JB)
For decades, Mexico's energy policy has largely boiled down to exporting oil for cash to fund state
spending. Now the new government is negotiating with rival political parties to curb that practice and
instead use state monopoly Petróleos Mexicanos to a different end: cheaper energy, said Pemex CEO
Emilio Lozoya.¶ In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the 38-year-old chief said the
administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto was striving to overhaul tax and energy laws this year
that Mr. Lozoya said would result in cheaper energy for consumers and companies that could drive a
more competitive economy.¶ Pemex CEO Lozoya on Mexico's Energy Reform Plans¶ Lozoya on Foreign
Companies Drilling for Mexico's Shale Gas¶ Now, the Mexican government relies on Pemex, one of the
world's biggest oil firms, for 35% of government spending, leaving the company with little left over to
invest in areas like natural gas. Private companies, meanwhile, are largely barred from investing
thanks to Mexico's nationalistic energy laws.¶ The result is an energy-rich country where companies
often pay higher prices for energy than elsewhere. Mexico has large reserves of natural gas, for
instance. But since Pemex doesn't invest enough in gas, the country imports gas from the U.S.—raising
costs to Mexican firms as they try to compete with global players like China.¶ "Energy ought to be
looked at on a competitive basis and not as a foreign-exchange generator," Mr. Lozoya said, pointing
to a prospective investment boost in industries ranging from gas to petrochemicals to fertilizers.¶
Complicating matters, Mexico's oil output has slipped to 2.55 million barrels a day from a peak of 3.4
million in 2004, as easy oil in the Gulf is replaced by more difficult reserves of deep-water oil and heavy
oil onshore. To boost production, the company will need more money, technology and know-how. ¶
Changing Mexico's energy laws is widely seen as an important test for a country that captured the
imagination of investors for linking its economy in a free-trade deal with the U.S. in the mid-1990s, but
which saw its star dim to other emerging markets like China and Brazil in recent years.¶ For Mexico,
beset by drug violence the past few years, such a move would send a powerful signal to investors,
likely driving billions in foreign investment, economists say.¶ "This is all about regaining the reform
momentum, and you don't see that that often in emerging markets today. Taking on those taboos, and
those changes, it would re-establish the Mexican narrative as a reformer and be very positive," said Gray
Newman, chief economist for Latin America at Morgan Stanley MS -2.44% .¶ Change won't be easy. The
oil nationalization in 1938, by Mr. Peña Nieto's own Institutional Revolutionary Party, is seen as a key
event in Mexican identity. Some leftist lawmakers, Mexican contractors and even some foreign oilservice firms that work with Pemex on a fee basis might see change as a threat, analysts say.¶ The
freshly appointed Mr. Lozoya, the youngest ever Pemex chief and who is seen as close to the president,
was careful not to discuss specifics about proposed changes to energy laws in the Tuesday interview,
saying it was up to Mexico's political parties. But he did point out that political parties here from left to
right had already come together in recent months on topics like education and labor reform.¶
"Obviously, our challenge is we need to deliver on the pending reforms and governing responsibly
over the next years, but I do see this as a very good opportunity for Mexico to retake a path of higher
productivity and higher economic growth," he said.¶ Mexico's conservative opposition, the National
Action Party, largely favors a broader opening of the energy business to private investment, while the
leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution has proposed a more limited opening for areas like refining.¶
Mr. Newman believes Mr. Peña Nieto may well deliver a broad-ranging reform. "I don't think the
prospects for reform have been this strong in Mexico in over 20 years," Mr. Newman said.¶ The son of
a former energy minister, Mr. Lozoya has had a tough start as head of Mexico's largest company, which
had 2011 sales of $111 billion. An explosion at a Pemex office building at the company's Mexico City
headquarters last month killed 37 workers. The company said the blast was caused by a buildup of
methane in the building's cellar, but doesn't yet know what caused the gas to accumulate.¶ The
investigation, led by the country's attorney general's office, will take a few more weeks, Mr. Lozoya said.
"We are in mourning, but we're standing and looking forward, and working on our modernization
plans," said the executive, who is the grandson of a revolutionary general and politician.¶ He pointed to
the shale-gas revolution in the U.S., along with deep-water and heavy oil, as examples of how Mexico
can benefit from new technologies that boost energy output, lower prices and create jobs.¶ Mexico
may hold the world's fourth-biggest reserves of shale gas, according to the U.S. government. But
Pemex has drilled only a few wells and not produced any gas. "Mexico ought to be producing more of its
own gas, and eventually exporting it," Mr. Lozoya, a lawyer and economist who got his master's degree
in public policy at Harvard said. "Clearly the geology that you have in some parts of the U.S. extends
into Mexican territory. So it's a matter of just investing and getting it done."¶ "It is important we
support medium-size companies, together with programs from national development banks, so they can
access credit and be suppliers to Pemex, and make sure over the next few years that we develop a
strong oil-servicing industry in Mexico that can grow and be regionally competitive," he said, speaking in
English.¶ The government is considering slowly replacing additives like MTBE in gasoline with
ethanol , he said. Pemex would act as the buyer and gatekeeper to the industry, Mr. Lozoya said.¶
"Pemex may end up paying a little bit more, but it would have a positive impact on the environment
and on jobs domestically, so it would be worth it," he said. "I foresee and I hope that in a couple of
years we'll have a much stronger energy sector with many more medium-size companies present in it;
and that Pemex becomes a much stronger development lever of the country."
Mexico says yes – they have an incentive to approve the plan
Esenaro 4/7/13 (Alberto Esenaro, Veteran Lawyer who helped many US, European and Asian
companies doing business in Mexico and has helped Mexican Government in matters of energy, telecom
and ports , http://beforeyoudobusiness.com/archives/747)
Mexico, although it has what are potentially large amounts of shale gas and oil in its territory, isn’t
producing nearly enough natural gas to meet the country’s growing demand for energy. The result is
that for now and the foreseeable future, Mexico will be needing to import natural gas from the United
States. While this might at first encourage companies to invest in American facilities and energy infrastructure projects north of the border, there are actually
boundless opportunities to invest in Mexico’s energy sector as the Spanish-speaking north American country scrambles to provide energy for its expanding
economy.
US says yes
US says yes
Benson 13, [Erika Benson, partner in Gardere's Government Affairs Practice Group, focuses on providing policy and regulatory
advice to: (i) companies investing in generation and transmission assets; (ii) developers of new and emerging technologies; and (iii)
developers, investors and energy product manufacturers navigating new markets of entry in the Americas, Senior Advisor for the
Americas in the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy]
http://www.gardere.com/Binaries/Press%20and%20Publications/20130318TestimonyBeforeHCITIAreInternationalEnergyTradeandI
nvestment_BENSONPresentation.pdf
It is important for the Committee and state policymakers to develop a transparent, direct and
comprehensive transmission interconnection process framework for electric transmission line
development. This process should be developed with the input of federal policymakers and
regulators that are responsible for the presidential permit process required for
international electric transmission interconnections. 9 Furthermore, it would be beneficial for
any interconnection process that is coordinated with U.S. federal policymakers and regulators also
receive the input from Mexican policymakers responsible for the CFE. Without a clear process and
support from policymakers, Texas may see a duplication of resources and inefficient allocation of
investment capital and other resources for transmission. For example in California, Sempra Energy is building a
transmission line that will only be sufficient to carry the electricity generated from its wind facility in Mexico across the border, but the
Dedicated lines are a start and should
be encouraged, but they are not the only solution for future electricity export or imports. Largescale transmission capacity is required to maximize the intended benefits of system reliability,
generation development and economic growth , and job creation. To the extent that the legislature intends to
line will not be open to other generators wishi ng to enter the California market. 10
minimize state - level impediments to the development of ties into Mexico, these ties could be exempted from the PUC’s Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity process. The CCN process requires a contested case at the PUC and takes many months even when the
transmission line is not controversial. Moreover, many of the elements reviewed in a CCN docket would have already been evaluated in
The ties could be treated
like generation interconnections and ERCOT has a well - established process to assure that such
interconnection, do not adversely affect system reliability.
the p residential permit process, including environmental assessments through the NEPA Review.
Solvency – Fed Key
Federal action is key to uniform implementation of grid integration
Ibarra-Yunez 12 (Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy – Instituto Tecnologico de
Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities for
US-Mexico Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity-2012.pdf?sequence=5)
IEG (2007) notes the importance of national institutions to lead implementation of integration
initiatives (with well understood and defined roles) at the country level, while regional institutions should be used for coordination
and support services, such as data collection and dispute resolution. It notes that proper planning and agreement between
regulators at the early stages of development is of critical importance to the creation of institutional
and market mechanisms to support integration. These include a harmonized regulatory environment,
grid codes, and market rules; competitive access to both wholesale and retail markets; and legal
agreements on issues such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), liability for supply failure,
environmental responsibility, and physical security and operation of the line. This recommendation, however,
runs counter to the state of relative autonomy with which US regional transmission organizations and public utility commissions operate.
Historically, the US power sector has evolved to maintain distinct and exclusive regional entities for power sharing—a system that has
developed regionally so as to minimize its vulnerability to shocks and disruptions such as cascading power outages.
Federal Govt key- Presidential Permits
Dombek 12, Carl Dombek, quotes Spokesperson for Transmission Line, http://www.renewablesbiz.com/author/carldombek
Because the project crosses an international boundary, a presidential permit is required. In addition to
identifying the preferred route for the project, the FEIS includes DOE’s recommendation for the granting of a presidential permit to the line’s
developer, Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission.
“This presidential permit represents the last of the major permits that we need,” a spokesperson for the
line’s developer told TransmissionHub on June 13. “This is a project we’ve been permitting for about 41/2 years so to get the final EIS out is a major milestone for the cross-border transmission line.”
Federal government key to efficiency and renewables
CRS 10, Congressional Research Service, [Adam Vann; Legislative Attorney,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40657.pdf]
Recent events, however, have led some legislators and commentators to push to expand the federal
role in transmission siting. Some have advocated an expanded federal role as a means to encourage
development of green energy technology or for other purposes. Others have suggested that a recent
ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreting the transmission siting section
of EPAct has limited federal siting authority too severely, and that legislation is needed to expand
FERC’s siting authority to guard against future congestion problems. These concerns, and some of the
proposals that address them, are explored further below.
US expertise is key to smarts grids – solves renewable development
Bennett 11 (Nicholas, “Smart Grid Technology – Mexico’s Upcoming Market Boon,” University of
Arizona,
http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/BusinessInternationalEnvironments/Fall2011/student_papers/fina
lnicholasbennett.pdf)
Smart grids are a relatively new innovation in the field of electrical engineering and design; their primary
function is to both improve and expedite the flow of electricity between multiple networks and power
generators. This work is facilitated by installing smart meters, which monitor and relay electrical information to their respective systems. The
primary aim of a smart grid is to make energy more reliable, lower aggregate energy consumption, and
actively correlate with renewable energy resources such as solar and wind energy. Smart grids are
revolutionizing the way we use and receive power, and the rising smart grid market presents a historic opportunity for economic growth.
Mexico’s projections in the smart grid market are strikingly positive, with the market projected to reach $8.3 billion by 2020. Like many Latin
American countries, Mexico’s
problems with power outages, electrical theft, and poor energy infrastructure
present an advantageous climate for change. Therefore, Mexico is poised to make staggering
improvements within the coming decade by reducing these issues while boosting their economy. According to the
Northeast Group, LLC, “Mexico’s smart meter market alone will contribute $5.1 billion in the overall smart grid market value by 2020.” With the
current GDP of Mexico at approximately $874.81 billion, the field of smart grids could increase the Mexican GDP by approximately 1%, a
considerable addition for a single market in just one decade. Many
project the market to continue climbing, especially
with the aid of U.S. expertise and vendors seeking new markets. The U.S.-Mexico Bilateral on Clean Energy and
Climate Change, enacted by President Obama in April, 2009, brings mutually beneficial smart grid technology to both the United States and
Mexico through joint cooperation and 3 information exchange. Smart
grid technology provides an unprecedented
opportunity for Mexico to improve both functionally and economically.
Mexico’s inexperienced with renewable – US experience is key to effectiveness
Bennett 11 (Nicholas, Regional Sales Representative – Terryberry Company, “Smart Grid Technology –
Mexico’s Upcoming Market Boon,” University of Arizona,
http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/BusinessInternationalEnvironments/Fall2011/student_papers/fina
lnicholasbennett.pdf)
Exciting as well are the global connections Mexico will create and strengthen by investing in a smart
grid system. The relatively new process of installing smart grid technology makes the exchange of
information vital to success . Already, Mexico and the United States have enacted policies to work with each other in the smart grid
field. The U.S.-Mexico Bilateral on Clean Energy and Climate Change, enacted by President Obama and President Calderon in April, 2009, brings
mutually beneficial smart grid technology to both the United States and Mexico through joint cooperation and information exchange.7 Their
agreement also focused upon providing opportunities for joint work on renewable energy, exploring cooperation on greenhouse gas
inventories and reduction strategies, and promoting low carbon energy technology development.7 These broad initiatives have since enacted
several cooperative efforts, discussed in the second annual U.S.-Mexico Bilateral on Clean Energy and Climate Change meeting on May 18,
2011. One of the main focal points of the second meeting was the overview of electricity systems and plans to implement Smart Grid
technologies. These meetings demonstrate the growing
partnerships between Mexico and the U.S. They also serve to
establish an initiative which will not only bring jobs and revenue to each country, but also cleaner,
more effective and reliable energy sources.
Solvency – Synchronous Connectivity
Synchronizing grids makes energy a top priority – plan’s key
Ibarra-Yunez 12 (Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy – Instituto Tecnologico de
Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities for
US-Mexico Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity-2012.pdf?sequence=5)
The US-Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change, established by Presidents Felipe Calderon
and Barack Obama
in 2009, also recognizes this priority and “aims to increase electricity grid reliability and resiliency in
both countries, including of cross-border interconnections” (US Department of State 2011). Beyond simply increasing
supply for an importing country while providing a “means of income” for the exporting country, interconnections have been
found to reduce prices and increase reliability (Sarmiento 2010). The B order G overnors C onference has pointed to
“ untapped potential for increasing energy interconnections among border communities” and has
identified “cross-border energy exchanges” as a priority
(BGC 2009). Two key factors
limiting the amount of
trade in electricity between the United States and Mexico are reliability concerns with synchronous
connectivity and legal provisions 83 governing the imports and exports of electricity across the border. Current
interconnections between the United States and Mexico offer relatively small capacities and are mostly used for
power exchanges in the event of an emergency. With the exception of one interconnection between Eagle Pass and Piedras Negras, all ties
along the Texas-Mexico border are asynchronous HVDC interconnections used for emergency support only. Pineau and Froschauer (2004)
assess the level of infrastructure integration and determine the current transmission capacity for cross-border electricity export, as measured
by total transmission capability over total production capacity, to be 17.13, 2.51, and 2.42 percent for Canada, the United States, and Mexico
respectively. The largest share of US-Mexico trade occurs between Baja California and California where two 230 kV ties provide a total capacity
of 800 MW. Numerous laws and network operation reliability standards in Mexico and the United States require local demand to be met first
before exportation is authorized. This means that excess generating capacity beyond what is required to meet the internal load requirements of
each system must be available for exports to occur. Exports from the US are regulated by Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act, which
requires authorization for the trade from the Department of Energy and that the export action must not impair the operational reliability of the
US power system (North American Energy Working Group, 2002). Similarly, imports and exports from Mexico require authorization from CFE or
the Energy Ministry with similar restrictions plus additional requirements. For imports, electricity must only be used for self-supply by the party
seeking a permit, and in the case of exports, the electricity exported must be the result of cogeneration, independent power production, or
small-scale production. Mexico’s National Interconnected System (SIN) is expected to maintain a reserve margin well above 27% through 2015,
to move to 13% after 2015, giving it ample export potential (Figure 4.2). ERCOT (the Texas interconnection) on the other hand is forecasted to
maintain a reserve margin at or below its target level of 13.75%, suggesting a strong incentive for additional trade (ERCOT 2010).
Solvency – Expertise/Coordination
US expertise and coordination’s key
SGI 12 (Smart Grid Insights, “Smart Grid Developments in Mexico: Aimed At Raising International
Competitiveness,” 5-31, http://smartgridresearch.org/news/smart-grid-developments-in-mexico-aimedat-raising-international-competitiveness/#sthash.R4sAtYh1.dpuf)
The goal of smart grid developments in Mexico is comprehensive. It includes increase in grid reliability which is a
requirement for international competitiveness. It also includes a reduction in energy power loss. Energy power loss can be costly to the
Mexican economy. A
promising future development is grid integration of renewable energy sources
throughout the country. All these things including customer service are creating an immediate demand for the deployment of smart
grid technology. The smart grid developments in Mexico are at the initial stage ; however, financial projections place
the cost of development at several million dollars over the next 10 years ending in 2022. In connection with these
developments, the government is identifying and evaluating the technologies, systems and projects
that must be done first. This is an opportunity for U.S. smart grid and technology companies to start
being involved and offer their expertise . This present situation is an opportunity for U.S. smart grid and technology companies
to export their products and services. By getting in touch with the Mexican government through CFE, the state-owned utility company, U.S.
companies can get updates on projects, future trends and the accurate and updated state of the power industry. Aside from getting updates,
U.S. smart grid and technology companies can also present their relevant technologies and services to
representatives of the state utility company. This scenario is also ideal to collaborate with government
representatives, private stakeholders as well as U.S. government organizations. The smart grid developments in
Mexico show such promise of future international competitiveness.
Solvency – Clarity and Commitment Key
Strong commitment key. Absent that, negative perceptions destroy relations
BGC 9 (Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable
Development of the U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, September, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic-guidelines-for-thecompetitive-and-sustainable-development-the-us-mexico)
To successfully fulfill the development potential of the region, while at the same time addressing existing social and institutional
challenges, it is first necessary to reach a widely shared vision for the future of the region and a clear
understanding of what actions must be made to achieve that vision. Without a vision and a strategy
for making this happen, the positive aspects of the border region, such as its economic comparative
advantages, shared heritage, and diversity—can be overwhelmed by the negative aspects of dissimilar
institutions and uneven development. Even worse, without a strong commitment to longterm policies,
disparities will simply deepen and become sources of continuous problems and tensions.
Acknowledging the importance of proactive thinking and long-term action, the Border Governors Conference
(BGC) commissioned El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (El Colef) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars to identify the
elements for developing a vision of the transborder region for the year 2030 based on the principles of regional competitiveness, social and
environmental sustainability, and security. The task also included the identification of the tools needed to establish an actionable policy
framework based on the premises of cross-border collaboration and mutual benefit. The Strategic Guidelines for a Competitive and Sustainable
U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region is the result of this mission. The Strategic Guidelines build on a strong history of cross-border collaboration
among the border states that began in 1981 with the joint declarations of the Border Governors Conference and that culminated with the
Strategic Regional Vision of 2007. These documents laid the groundwork for these Strategic Guidelines and for their approach to longterm
development and policy implementation. However, these Strategic Guidelines are not an end in themselves. They represent
a tool
centered on the development of partnerships built around strategic areas and based on realistic
regional policies that deal effectively with the realities of the U.S.-Mexico transborder region. These
partnerships require the engagement of all the region’s stakeholders, in accordance with the crosscutting and multi-scale nature of the issues faced by the region. The core objective of the Strategic Guidelines,
therefore, is to provide a general framework and specific policy actions in accordance with mutually agreed upon regional development goals.
The scope of the Strategic Guidelines includes the four spatial scales commented above: the totality of the 10-state transborder region, the
cross-border metropolitan corridors, the planning area defined by the NADB and BECC, and the strip formed by the municipalities adjacent to
the international border.
Solvency – Investment Key
US Assistance Key to Mexico RE efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Projects
BECC (Border Environment Corporation Commission), integrating Environmental Solutions for the U.S. Mexico Border, November 2011,
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20
index.pdf
This white paper describes the current deficit in the U.S.-Mexico border region in terms of renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and transportation projects focused on the reduction of greenhouse gases
(GHG). In the presentation, the argument is made that the primary reason this project deficit exists is
due to: 1. limited resources for project development, 2. lack of capacity building, at the most
fundamental level, in the public and publicprivate sectors, and 3. lack of technical assistance program
to address this deficit. Specifically targeting a technical assistance program for renewable energy,
energy efficiency, and transportation projects to achieve GHG reductions would be invaluable in
promoting an environment for effective climate action in border communities. A proposed technical
assistance program could help public sector entities build the bases on which they can develop both
mitigation and adaptation greenhouse gas projects.
Mitigation projects are the priority of the program since they are intended to directly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation projects are important as well, and it is recommended they be
developed as “capacity building” initiatives to assist municipalities better manage the current realities of
climate change. Ultimately, these project types do need technical assistance funds, and the funds will
need a highly capacitated and experienced program manager.
US-MEXICO Border Lacks Environmental Infrastructure, investment Key
BECC (Border Environment Corporation Commission), integrating Environmental Solutions for the U.S. Mexico Border, November 2011,
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20
index.pdf
Although the region is economically distressed, the northern Mexico border zone is considered more
developed than most parts of Mexico, and the southern U.S. border zone is one of the poorest regions
in the country. The economic drivers to migrate north are still considerably strong since wages are
higher in the U.S. border compared to the Mexico side of the boundary.
Utilizing 2007 figures, for the 47 U.S. border counties, the median household income was $38,840,
which is $18,189 below the national average of $55,0294 . Meanwhile for Mexican border
municipalities, the median household income was $8,0255 , which is $30,810 below their U.S. county
counterparts. Considering the tremendous population growth pressures since the early 1990’s,
communities on both sides of the border have co-existed under similar economic and environmental
challenges. And when you view the two sides as one region, it is clearer to see the challenges that have
been experienced by border communities in both countries, especially in the arena of environmental
infrastructure. The environmental problems caused by shared watersheds and air sheds along the
border have been exacerbated due to limited resources and institutional capacity to develop
appropriate planning studies and implement beneficial solutions.
Solvency – A2: Intermittency
US transmission investment solves intermittency
Ibarra-Yunez 12 (Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy – Instituto Tecnologico de
Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Economic and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities for
US-Mexico Electricity Trade and Cooperation,” Policy Research Project Report 174, May,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/17560/prp_174econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity-2012.pdf?sequence=5)
Congestion in the ERCOT region reached a record high in 2008 when system inefficiency reached a total cost of $375 million (ERCOT 2010).
These costs have since receeded, due to reductions in fuel cost, revised market rules, and transmission system improvement, to reach the
lowest level recorded in over a decade in 2008. Transmission improvements since 2009 have included over $2 billion of investment in new
autotransformer capacity and over 1,933 miles of transmission. Additionally, major
investments over the next five years include $9
transmission lines. A major component of these improvements involve the addition
of planned expansions to the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) in the western portion of the state where significant
wind resources exist. Connecting these resources to the most heavily constrained (and highest growth)
counties—namely, Bexar, Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant—remains a significant challenge. While wind energy serves as
11.4% of generating capacity, intermittency and transmission constraints reduce that amount to 1.1%
of available capacity (ERCOT 2010). No major plans exist to build signficant new 94 cross-border
transmission capacity for the purpose of wholesale power exchanges, despite the ackowledged
benefits of connecting new wind resources from neighboring Mexican states. It is well understood that
integrating wind resources across larger geographic regions helps to reduce problems with
billion to add another 7,866 circuit miles of
intermittency by smoothing drops in available capacity . The last major study of potential benefits of additional crossborder ties between ERCOT and CFE was conducted through a joint CFE-ERCOT Interconnection Study in 2003. It concluded that opportunity
exists for mutual benefit in block load transfers at Ciudad Acuña in the state of Coahuila, and asynchronous ties at Laredo and McAllen. A
question remains, however, as to what financing mechanisms, public or private, are most appropriate to pay for the establishment of new
cross-border ties. While benefits associated with grid reliability and security are easy to ascertain, gains from increases in trade from a yet-tobe-utilitized connection are harder to determine.
Solvency – A2: Renewables Fail/No Investment
Specifically, grid problems cause investment – fixes problems with renewable
Wood et al 12 (Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, Samantha Medecigo, Department of International Affairs – Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo
de México, Sergio Romero-Hernandez, Haas School of Business – UC Berkeley, “Wind Energy Potential in
Mexico’s Northern Border States,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute),
May, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border_Wind_Energy_Wood.pdf)
thE tranSMiSSion obStacLE A major difference between the Cannon and Sempra projects is that
Cannon’s goal is to produce wind power for domestic consumption within Mexico. The focus on selfsupply contracts suggests that the prospect of Baja California’s interconnection with the rest of the
Mexican grid will prove a boon for wind power in the area . However, the existence of a connection
between the state and the rest of the country may prove insufficient, as there is still the question of
how to move electrons generated at La Rumorosa to the existing grid in the state. Sempra’s Energía
Sierra Juárez has circumvented this issue by proposing to build its own cross-border transmission line
to connect with the California grid. However, Cannon is currently struggling to find off-takers for its
electricity because the transmission question within the state has not been resolved.
Solvency – A2: No Money
Funding is easy
Leibreich 10 (Michael, Chief Executive – Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “Power Struggles: The
Growing Geopolitical Role of Electricity of Markets,” BNEF, V(42), October, p. Online)
Securing the finance for international transmission -assuming diplomatic and regulatory hurdles are
overcome - ought to be easy, since construction risks are relatively low and the technologies of highvoltage direct current and high-voltage alternating current cables are more mature. With institutional
investors such as pension funds struggling for yield, with 10-year bonds offering 4% or less in most
leading economies, low-risk infrastructure offering 7-9% looks attractive indeed. Even more so if the
construction phase is financed by a utility and the project is only sold onto institutions once it is
operating.
Smart Grid Adv
A- NO EMP ATTACK
Current Power Grid is vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks- impact is catastrophic
USA TODAY 12, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/14/power-gridvulnerable-terrorism/1704803/
After Hurricane Sandy left millions in the dark, a long-delayed federal study Wednesday says the U.S.
power grid is also vulnerable to terrorist attacks that could cause months of blackouts and billions in
economic damages. The nation's grid is spread out across hundreds of miles, and many key pieces of
equipment are either unguarded or so old they lack the sensors to limit outages from cascading,
according to the study by the National Research Council (NRC), a private independent agency operating
under a congressional charter. "We could easily be without power across a multistate region for many
weeks or months, because we don't have many spare transformers," says M. Granger Morgan,
engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and chairman of the NRC committee
that wrote the report. He says a terrorist attack could cause disruptions worse than Sandy and rack up
"hundreds of billions of dollars" in damages. "Most of the report is as relevant today as when we wrote it," he says, adding the
power industry changes slowly. The NRC completed the report in 2007, but the sponsoring agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), decided to classify it entirely. In August 2010, the NRC requested an updated classification, and in August 2012, all but a few pages of the
report were cleared for publication. "It was very frustrating," Morgan says of the delay. He says the committee understood the need to protect
national security and was careful not to provide a "cookbook" for terrorists, relying instead on widely available data. He says the authors are
now "pleased" the report is public. The report focuses partly on high-voltage transformers, saying they're vulnerable both from within and from
outside the substations where they're located. It says they're huge, difficult to move, often custom-built, and hard to replace, because most are
no longer made in the United States. It recommends developing smaller portable ones for temporary use to reduce delays in restoring disabled
power systems. Morgan says DHS has "done a little" to develop and test spare low-voltage transformers but says "there's a long way to go."
DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard acknowledged threats to the grid, but added that the agency"continues to work every day with private sector
and government counterparts to adapt and strengthen our security and resilience against an ever changing threat." The report says the federal
government faces difficulty in addressing weaknesses in the nation's power grid, because more than 90% of the grid is privately owned and
regulated by the states. Still, it calls on DHS or the Department of Energy to study where the U.S. is most vulnerable to extended blackouts and
to develop cost-effective strategies for reducing their length and their impact on critical services. "The
NRC is right to call for more
investment in making our grid both more secure and more resilient in the face of attacks," says Richard
Caperton, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank. He says a
terrorist attack is unlikely but, as Hurricane Sandy shows, "Anything that disrupts power supply can have
catastrophic consequences."
A-to “Feedbacks Solve”
( ) Feedbacks are net positive
Homer-Dixon ‘7
[Thomas - Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Professor in
the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo, PhD in IR from MIT -- 11/14, Address to
the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada, "Positive Feedbacks, Dynamic Ice Sheets, and the Recarbonization of the
Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming", http://www.homerdixon.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgencythomas_homer-dixon.pdf]
Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today. I mentioned earlier that
there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more- or-less directly on temperature, such as the icealbedo feedback, and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle, where warming produces a change in the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such
a good understanding of the latter. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting
of the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada. As the permafrostmelts it releases large quantities of
methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that, in turn, causes more warming. Scientists are also concerned about the
potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that, as the
climate has warmed, the Canadian boreal forest has gonefrom being a carbon sink to a slight carbon
emitter. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. As you likely know, we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and
Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. As the climate warms, bark-beetlepopulations reproduce
through two generations during the summer, and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. Both these changes mean
that beetle populations become much larger overall. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get
into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland, and if they kill that forest, the
forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. I asked Stephen
Schneider, a leading cli- mate scientist at Stanford, about the implications of such a develop- ment. He just shrugged and said, ‘well, we’re
talking about billions of tonnes of carbon.’ Other
potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the
drying of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn; the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia, which have
already been susceptible to wide-spread burning; and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. The Southern Ocean
around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox- ide to the extent it did in the past. Warming has produced much
more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. These winds have churned up the sea and brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water, which
absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. Also, higher
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the
oceans, a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells.
Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. The positive ones are self-reinforcing, and the
negative ones equilibrate the climate and counteract the tendency towards self-reinforcing climate
change. The big question for climate scientists then is: What is the balance is between the positive and negative
feedbacks? A consensus has emerged over the last two years – a consensus again not reflected in the recent IPCC
reports – that
the positivefeedbacks in the climate system are much stronger and more numerousthan
the negative feedbacks. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters, Scheffer, Brovkin, and Cox
carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed- back situation.7 They wrote, ‘[we] produce an
independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem- peratures and
greenhouse gasses.’ In other words, these researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. They went on, ‘we sug- gest that
feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on
a century scaleover and above the IPCC estimates.’ Let’s turn to the issue of dynamic ice sheets. The Greenland ice sheet is
the second largest mass of ice in the world, after that in Antarctica. If we melt Greenland entirely, we get seven metres of sea-level rise. If we
melt the West Antarctic ice sheet, we get another five metres. If we melt the rest of Antarctica, we get an additional fifty or so metres. The
Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt, because it’s the most vulnerable. During the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago,
when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century, much of Greenland melted, and sea levels were four to six
metres higher than they are right now.
A-to “ Species Adapt”
( ) Species can’t adapt-rate of warming is too fast
Costello and Maslin ‘8
[Anthony, Professor of International Child Health and Director of the UCL Institute for Global Health. Mark, Professor UCL Environment
Institute. “Apocalypse Now?” – THE LANCET -- 7/12]
Climate change affects all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide will reach two to three times its mid-19th-century
level by 2100 leading to major changes in seasonal temperatures and rainfall patterns. Normally with this
sort of climate change animals and plants would simply migrate with their preferred climate. However,
the rate of human-induced climate change is so rapid that many plant species cannot migrate fast
enough and also in many places human beings already occupy the space into which the ecosystem would
migrate. Ecosystems most at risk are alpine meadows, cloud forests, arctic tundra, and coral reefs.
( ) Temperature spikes destroy resilience – must slow the rate.
EPA ‘7
[United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change-health and environmental effects: ecosystems and biodiversity.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/ecosystemsandbiodiversity.html -- 12/20]
Observations of ecosystem impacts are difficult to use in future projections because of the complexities involved in human/nature interactions
(e.g., land use change). Nevertheless, the
observed changes arecompelling examples of howrising temperatures
can affect the natural world and raise questions of how vulnerable populations will adapt to direct and indirect effects associated
with climate change. The IPCC (IPCC, 2007) has noted, During the course of this century the resilience of many ecosystems
(their ability to adapt naturally) is likely to beexceeded by an unprecedented combination of change in
climate and in other global change drivers (especially land use change and overexploitation), if greenhouse gas emissions
and other changes continue at or above current rates. By 2100 ecosystems will be exposed to atmospheric
CO2 levels substantially higherthan in the past 650,000 years, and global temperatures at least among the highest as those
experienced in the past 740,000 years. This will alter the structure, reduce biodiversity and perturb functioning of
most ecosystems, and compromise the services they currently provide.
A-to “Aff = Biased Authors”
( ) Our climate models are the most accurate- studies of studies prove
Science Daily ‘8
(4/6, "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm)
The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject
of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University of
Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on
reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the
next 100 years. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler
and Junsu Kim from the Department of
how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To
this end, they compare the output of the models againstobservations for present climate. The authors apply
this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past
two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea,
Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model
generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and
the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching
conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now placea much higher level of
confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past." The many hours of studying models
Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate
and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their
predictions. Given
the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also
provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its
fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the
modelsused for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
( ) Neg authors are worse- they’re just special interest hacks
Hansen ‘6
(Jim. Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s
Earth Institute. “The Threat to the Planet” The New York Review of Books. Pages 11-12.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.columbia.edu%2F~roban%2Flab_2006_fall%2Fhansen.
pdf&images=yes )
Why are the same scientists and political forces that succeeded in controlling the threat to theozone layer now failing miserably to deal with
the global warming crisis? Though we dependon fossil fuels far more than we ever did on CFCs, there is plenty of blame to go around.Scientists
present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The
press and
television,despite an overwhelming scientificconsensus concerning global warming, giveequal time to
fringe "contrarians" supported bythe fossil fuel industry. Special interest groupsmount effective
disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears
to be stronglyinfluenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed
toprovide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested.I used to spread the blame uniformly until, when I was
about to appear on public television,the producer informed me that the program "must" also include a "contrarian" who wouldtake issue with
claims of global warming. Presenting such a view, he told me, was a commonpractice in commercial television as well as radio and newspapers.
Supporters of public TV oradvertisers, with their own special interests, require "balance" as a price for
their continuedfinancial support. Gore's book reveals that while more than half of the recent newspaperarticles
on climate change have given equal weight to such contrarian views, virtually none ofthe scientific
articles in peer-reviewed journals have questioned the consensus that emissionsfrom human
activitiescause global warming. As a result, even when the scientific evidence is clear, technical nit-picking
by contrarians leaves the public with the false impression that there is still great scientific
uncertaintyabout the reality and causes of climate change.
A-to “Warming Not Real”
( ) Global Warming is happening – most recent and best evidence concludes that it is
human induced
Muller ‘12
[Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, “The Conversion of a
Climate-Change Skeptic”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all]
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists,I concluded that
global warming was realand that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans
are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis bythe
BerkeleyEarthSurfaceTemperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average
temperature of the earth’s land has risenby two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase
of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results
from the human emission of greenhouse gases.These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the
I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C.
consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more
sophisticated statistical methodsdeveloped largely by our
us to determine earthland temperature much further back in time.
We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone),
from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent),
frompoor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data
adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome
recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used
lead scientist, Robert Rohde, whichallowed
effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known
explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a
few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such
oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused
the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We
tried fitting the shape to simple math
functions(exponentials, polynomials),to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By
farthe best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2),measured from atmospheric samples and air
trapped in polar ice.
( ) Neg args are empirically denied- positive feedback loops and biodiversity loss is
proven
Lyderson ‘9
(Kari, journalist, Washington Post, “Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates” 2/15 – online)
The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse
gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering selfreinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday. "We are basically looking now at a
future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher
Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University,
said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Field, a member of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the
estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports. The higher emissions are largely the result of the increased burning of coal in
developing countries, he said. Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the
atmosphere as the result of "feedback loops" that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among
these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which
could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists
on a panel at the meeting. The permafrost holds 1 trillion tons of carbon, and as much as 10 percent of that could be
released this century, Field said. Along with carbon dioxide melting permafrost releases methane, which is 25 times more
potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. "It's a vicious cycle of feedback where warming causes the release
of carbon from permafrost, which causes more warming, which causes more release from
permafrost," Field said. Evidence is also accumulating that terrestrial and marine ecosystems cannot remove as
much carbon from the atmosphere as earlier estimates suggested, Field said. In the oceans, warmer weather is
driving stronger winds that are exposing deeper layersof water, which are already saturated with carbon
and not as able to absorb as much from the atmosphere. The carbon is making the oceans more acidic, which
also reduces their ability to absorb carbon. On land, rising carbon dioxide levels had been expected to boost plant growth and
result in greater sequestration of carbon dioxide. As plants undergo photosynthesis to draw energy from the sun, carbon is drawn out of the
atmosphere and trapped in the plant matter. But especially in northern latitudes, this effect may be offset significantly by the fact that
vegetation-covered land absorbs much more of the sun's heat than snow-covered terrain, said scientists on the panel.Earlier
snowmelt,
the shrinking arctic ice cover and the northward spread of vegetation are causing the Northern
Hemisphere to absorb, rather than reflect, more of the sun's energy and reinforce the warming trend.
While it takes a relatively long time for plants to take carbon out of the atmosphere, thatcarbon can be released rapidly by
wildfires, which contribute about a third as much carbon to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels,
according to a paper Field co-authored. Fires such as the recent deadly blazes in southern Australia have increased in recent
years, and that trend is expected to continue, Field said. Warmer weather, earlier snowmelt, drought and
beetle infestations facilitated by warmer climates are all contributing to the rising number of fires linked to
climate change. Across large swaths of the United States and Canada, bark beetles have killed many mature trees, making forests more
flammable. And tropical rain forests that were not susceptible to forest fires in the past are likely to become drier as
temperatures rise, growing more vulnerable. Preventing deforestation in the tropics is more important
than in northern latitudes, the panel agreed, since lush tropical forests sequester more carbon than sparser
northern forests. And deforestation in northern areas has benefits, since larger areas end up covered
in exposed, heat-reflecting snow. Many scientists and policymakers are advocating increased incentives for preserving tropical
forests, especially in the face of demand for clearing forest to grow biofuel crops such as soy. Promoting biofuels without also creating forestpreservation incentives would be "like weatherizing your house and deliberately keeping your windows open," said Peter Frumhoff, chief of the
Union of Concerned Scientists' climate program. "It's just not a smart policy." Field said the U.N. panel's next assessment of Earth's climate
trends, scheduled for release in 2014, will for the first time incorporate policy proposals. It will also include complicated models of
interconnected ecosystem feedbacks.
( ) Consensus is on our side
EDF 9.
[ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 1-13 “GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS AND FACTS” -- http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011]
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming. The most respected
scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing
itby burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White
House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other
National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and longterm reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)The only
debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a
result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we
have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
A-to “Warming = Not Anthropogenic”
( ) Scientific consensus proves warming is anthropogenic
Monbiot ‘7
[George, Prof @ Oxford Brookes U, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning p 5]
But the link has also been established directly. A
study of ocean warming over the past forty years, for example, published in
a precise match between the distribution of heat and the intensity of
manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Its lead author described his findings thus: The evidence is so strong it should
put an end to any debateabout whether humanity is causing global warming. This sounds like a strong
statement, but he is not alone. In 2004, another article in Sciencereported the results of a survey of scientific papers
containing the words ‘global climate change’. The author found 928 of them on the database she searched. None
of the papers, she discovered, disagreed with the consensus position… Politicians, economists, journalists and
others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect. In 2001 the Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s pre-eminent scientific institution, published the
following statement: Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global
climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by
global climate change. We do not consider such doubtsjustified. It was also signed by the equivalent
organizations in fifteen other countries. Similar statements have been published by the US National
Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
the journal Science in 2005, records
A-to “Too late – beyond the tipping point”
( ) Not too late – every reduction key
Nuccitelli 12
[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in
astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has
been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September,
2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html]
We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly
running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However,
2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided
future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we
manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political
climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting
global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can
do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything
greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to
be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass
extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc .).
But we're not stuck on that
track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm
as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a
possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we
have presented here is the best
summary of scientific evidence available , and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible
outcome, it is the most probable outcome . And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a
catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important
component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the
climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).
Smart Grid spills over
US tech spills over to Mexico
Northeast Group 11 [10/10/11; http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mexico-smart-grid-market-to-reach-83-billion-by2020-131504898.html; Mexico Smart Grid Market to Reach $8.3 Billion by 2020; Research Firm based in Washington DC]
"Mexico
is well positioned to develop into a leading smart grid market, both in the Latin America
region and globally. Like other Latin American and emerging market nations, the country faces high
rates of electricity theft and power outages, both of which can be reduced through smart grid technologies.
Mexico is also uniquely situated to benefit from positive spillovers from the U.S. market. These
include smart grid standards, U.S. vendors looking for new markets and a transfer of smart grid
technical know-how," according to Northeast Group.
Renewables Adv
Status Quo can’t solve
Status quo projects will fail absent the plan
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International
Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research
focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, “Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico
Energy Cooperation”, January 2013)
In order to get electricity from Texas to Mexico, however, some major investments must take place
in the area of transmission . At the present time the cross - border transmission infrastructure is
highly limited and talks between the two countries aimed at facilitating new cross - border projects
have achieved little real progress since 2010. Nine cross - border in terconnections exist at the time of
writing, with new transmission capacity last added in 2007, with the opening of the Sharyland McAllen Reynosa 150MW connection. Of course transmission not only affects the prospects for electricity
imports into Mexico from Texas, but also exports from Baja Ca lifornia to California, particularly of
electricity from renewable sources such as wind (see below). Mexico and the United States will need to
deepen their cooperation in the area of transmission if these projects are to be brought to fruition.
Renewable Industry Small
Current Renewable industry small- Plan uniquely key to sustain demand
Wood 12, Duncan Wood, [Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and the
director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de Derecho
Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial board of
Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana de Energia,
Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf
The U.S. and Mexican governments, both individually and jointly, have noted the possibilities for making
a positive impact on the border through mutually beneficial RE projects. USAID-sponsored work, in conjunction with
efforts from Mexico’s Secretaría de Energía (SENER), have identified investment opportunities in both geothermal and wind energy sectors for
exporting clean energy to the Californian market, where unsatisfied demand for renewable energy exists thanks to the Renewable Portfolio
Standard (which mandates one-third of California energy come from RE by 2020).
The Border Governors Conference (BGC) has
identified RE development as a central component of their Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive
Sustainable Development of the United States-Mexico Transborder Region. Energy firms from the
United States, Mexico and Europe are already involved in developing RE resources at the border in the
expectation that demand will continue to rise. There is an obvious interest in this work; what is lacking
is a comprehensive strategy to both integrate these efforts and identify the most effective paths
forward. Key stakeholders in the energy sector have suggested that a focus on renewable energy in the border region requires much more
than a focus on the potential for exporting green energy to the United States. Instead, a more in-depth understanding of how renewable
energy projects impact on the short, medium, and long-term prospects for development in local communities will improve the chances for
Linking RE generation to economic development in
Mexico requires a focus on value chain creation for providers and services. Information needs to flow from
developers to universities and authorities to develop training and certifications for technicians and engineers. Local enterprises have
already responded to an expanding market, but with effective coordination, there is far greater
potential.
sustainable growth in, and community support for, RE projects.
Renewable industry small now- movement to renewables soon
Morales 11, ISIDRO MORALES,, Ph.D., is a professor at the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education
(ITESM), Santa Fe Campus, in Mexico City. http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-MoralesTrade-04292011.pdf
Mexico is more addicted to hydrocarbons in power generation compared to its North American
partners. Fuel oil and gas are currently used to produce 70% of the electricity generation in the country,
while this share is just 8% for Canada and 23% for the United States. The energy mix is much more
balanced in the latter countries, though 50% of electricity in the United States is generated by coal, and
almost 60 percent of electricity in Canada is generated by hydro. The natural resources used to produce
electricity in Mexico, the United States, and Canada are shown in Figure 8. The use of nuclear energy is
higher in the United States and Canada than in Mexico, but in all three countries, the increased use of
renewable fuels — with the exception of hydroelectricity — is about to begin.
Current Power Networks can’t handle renewable demand.
WorleyParsons 13, energy, engineering, procurement and construction management services,
http://www.worleyparsons.com/AboutUs/Pages/default.aspx
Globally, the Power Networks sector is facing unprecedented challenges with ageing infrastructure, a
transformation of supply to include renewable and distributed energy sources, and increasing priority
on energy efficiency. The market and commercial environment is also changing with industry
restructuring, new markets, regulatory changes, and economic constraints. At the same time, Smart Grid is evolving
and will have a significant role in addressing and managing these changes, along with others such as the future impact of electric vehicles and
the need to optimize the utilization of existing assets.
Transmissions key to Renewables
Transmissions are key to developing renewable energy markets in North America
Wood 12, Duncan Wood, [Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and the
director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de Derecho
Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial board of
Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana de Energia,
Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wood_energy.pdf
The North American economic region is experiencing an impact from all of the issues mentioned
above. Climate change, population growth, tightening energy markets and the need for sustainable
development pose a series of challenges for policy makers at both the national and regional levels. A
number of studies, some dating from the early years of the 2000s, have called for the creation of
North American renewable energy markets, with adequate integration of electricity transmission
systems, funding programs and intergovernmental cooperation. The demand for integration of RE
markets is urgent. As nations, states and municipalities struggle to meet carbon emissions targets,
they are looking to their neighbors to satisfy demand for RE and to benefit from synergies across
sectors. Unfortunately, we are still a long way away from such integration. There is still a lack of knowledge about the full extent of
renewable energy resources across the region and differences in regulatory regimes, both within and between countries remains an obstacle.
A comprehensive study and database of renewable energy resources is a vital component for
developing RE in the region that was attempted in 2003 by the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 4 , but which sadly came to nothing. However, it is encouraging that significant
progress has been made in recent years on both the technological and the regulatory fronts, and there is significant interest from the private
sector in exploiting renewable energy across borders in the region.
Cross border transmissions are key to substantial renewable advancements
Piscitello, Garrone, & Wang, 12, Lucia Piscitello, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Paola Garrone, Politecnico di Milano, Dept. of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Yan Wang,
Politecnico di Milano, Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering,
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/8sqn3os3fph4j08s4ic461g60k36.pdf
A wide and sustained diffusion of new environmentally sound technologies across countries is recognized to be a major element of the
endeavor to mitigate climate change (OECD, 2008; Popp 2011). Nonetheless, factors that are conducive to the exploitation of ideas, techniques,
processes and systems developed by other countries are still partially unclear to scholars, policymakers and business actors. More particularly,
the paper is motivated by recent theories and evidences related to the balance between international and domestic knowledge sourcing in new
energy technologies.
Innovation in renewable energy technologies and other climate-friendly sectors is
concentrated in a few countries, and new high-value technologies are developed in a small number of
advanced economies (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2011). This evidence is coherent with climate-economy
models, which assumed that technological change is endogenous to the energy sector, and showed that
knowledge creation is the result of both R&D investments and learning-by-doing dynamics (e.g. van der
Zwaan et al., 2002; Popp, 2004; Popp et al., 20 09). In other words, a well developed energy innovation
system is necessary to produce technological advancements (Sagar and van der Zwaan 2006). In
conjunction with the latter argument, the geographic distribution of renewable energy innovations also
reflects differences in climate-energy policies between countries. While there are examples of innovations developed
in response to foreign regulations (i.e. to take advantage of markets newly created abroad), environmentally-sound inventions are more likely
In
addition, incremental innovation can be stimulated by governments’ demand-pull actions, but
technology-push measures are a necessary condition if non-incremental inventions are the goal (Nemet,
2009).
to respond to domestic environmental policies (Lanjouw and Mody, 1996), particularly in new energy technologies (Popp, 2006).
The plan’s sufficient to resolve climate change
Castellanos 5-3
(Edwin Castellanos, writer for renewable energy mexico, “USA and Mexico’s cooperation in green
energy”, May 3rd 2013, JB)
This week U.S. president Barack Obama visited Mexico on the 2nd and 3rd of May to meet with Mexican
president Enrique Peña Nieto to discuss the most important topics in the collaboration between
countries. In this summit, the most important and controversial points were addressed, including
economic cooperation, education competitiveness, energy strategy and innovation. Obama also
mentioned the importance of controlling drug and gun trafficking and its implications for both countries.
Cooperation is needed to overcome these challenges. “We understand that the root cause of much of
the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including
in the United States,” said Obama. “We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in
Mexico come from the United States,” he added. Yet, the agreement to work together is key to achieve
progress in these areas.
Yet, there exists a certain level of optimism towards the unlocking of potential between the U.S. and
Mexico in order to bring more opportunities for both parties while taking advantage of the role of
each country. The bilateral agreements on international trade have brought about an important
partnership between both players and the goal that has been set is to work together to achieve even
more.
In terms of renewable energy, the U.S. president pledged to secure an energy future including the need
to develop clean energy to fight against climate change. The responsible use of natural resources that
each country possess is a must, he said, in order to secure the sustainable development of any country
and population. Climate change has impacted various ecosystems, climate patterns, and represents a
challenge that humans will have to eventually face. By promoting investment to reduce carbon
emissions through clean and renewable energy, natural resources will be preserved and climate
change can be significantly slowed. ¶ The United States, being one of the biggest producer of
greenhouse gasses in the world has made historic commitments to promote the use of renewable
energy. Similarly, Mexico is a leader in cutting carbon emission and encourages other developed
countries to follow these actions . “Together, let’s keep building new clean energy partnerships by
harnessing wind and solar and the good jobs that come with them. Let’s keep investing in green
buildings and smart grid technologies so we’re making our planet cleaner and safer for future
generations,” said Obama.¶ The meeting between Obama and Peña Nieto ended with very positive
propositions from both sides, encouraging the commitment of both countries to cooperate in the
most important issues that both countries face and ensuring the welfare of future generations.
Limiting Transmission Growth Prevents Renewable Energy Growth
Pentland 11, William Pentland has a M.A. in Journalism from Colombia University, and is the Director
of Energy Markets and Policy at World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, “Transmission Bottlenecks Bad
News for Renewable Energy”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/05/03/transmissionbottlenecks-bad-news-for-renewable-energy/
In 2007, nearly one-third of all the wind turbines in China were deliberately idled because a saturated power grid lacked spare capacity to carry
any electricity the remote wind farms would have produced to consumer markets. While China has largely resolved this issue by expanding the
transmission system’s capacity, it is not yet out of the woods entirely and still imposes rolling wind outages to avoid overwhelming the grid. Like
the prodigious expansion of power production from renewable-energy resources like wind, solar
energy and geothermal has outpaced the ability of the transmission systems to move these new
China,
power supplies to centers of demand. As a result, transmission constraints in the United States and
the European Union are threatening to table large-scale wind and solar energy projects under
development. In some areas where the constraints are especially acute like Oregon and Washington
State, the lack of spare transmission capacity could force wind farms that have already been built to
shut down on a rolling basis in the near future. Unlike China, the United States – and to a lesser extent the European Union –
is unlikely to solve this transmission problem before the damage is done. At least that is the primary conclusion of a new study by the high
priests of energy and environmental policy at the Washington D.C.-based think tank, World Resources Institute. The study, called “High Wire
Act,” evaluates the complex interactions between the transmission systems and renewable-energy markets in the European Union, China, and
the United States. The prognosis is grim. Simply put, everyone has transmission problems, but not everyone has viable strategies for solving
“The main message for policy makers crafting renewable energy policies and for investors
seeking to invest in this $240 billion a year market is a simple one,” the report concludes.
“Transmission constraints have to be addressed upfront to improve the chances of reaping the longterm rewards of a future powered by renewable energy.” In all three markets, transmission has
emerged as a critical bottleneck limiting renewable energy’s cost-effective contribution to the power
mix. In addition, the parameters of the transmission problem are remarkably similar in each of these countries. In each case, the problems
them.
stem from competing political interests of local and “larger society.” “A deep tension between locally borne costs and national or supranational benefits
plays out in three critically important areas: allocating transmission expansion
expenditure, siting decisions for both power generation and transmission, and managing access to
electricity markets,” the report says.
A transmission system reduces emissions of global pollutants.
Rosales, & Gerardo, 11, [Miguel Ángel Ávila Rosales, Comisión Federal de Electricidad; Héctor Gerardo | T&D World Magazine]
http://tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/transamerica-interconnections
In Mexico, the electricity sector has been undergoing a process of deregulation since 1993, with its
power industry changing to a competitive integrated model. One area of particular interest is the
potential for increased cross-border trade of electricity between Mexico and the United States, and,
more recently, between Mexico and Central America. In addition to financial and efficiency benefits,
cross-border trade could generate substantial environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions of
global pollutants such as carbon dioxide and regional pollutants such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen
oxides, depending on the composition of the generating capacity. The level of exchanges of electric energy between
the United States and Mexico has been influenced by a variety of geographic, economic and political factors. Throughout the middle of the 20th
century, demographic and economic conditions led to a significant increase in electric energy transactions between Mexico and utilities in
states near the U.S.-Mexico border. The United States established the Western System Coordinating Council, now called the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC), to promote bulk power system reliability through coordinated planning and operation. The establishment of this
regional council, along with the founding of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), has facilitated the regional coordination of electric
energy exchanges between utilities in the United States and the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) in Mexico. It should be noted that the
United States and Mexico share a common border of about 1,310 km (814 miles) within the WECC region, and ERCOT and CFE share a common
border of about 1,200 km (746 miles).
Relations Adv
Relations Adv- Relations Low Now
Relations low – drug war
Walser, 5/2 (Ray, veteran Foreign Service officer, is a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin
America at The Heritage Foundation) “President Obama, the Drug War, and Mexico: Failure Is an
Option.” The Foundary. May 2, 2013. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/02/president-obama-the-drugwar-and-mexico-failure-is-an-option/
The White House still retains the power to set the national agenda and frame the political conversation at home and abroad. In his last
conversation relating to drug issues in December 2012, President Obama,
when asked about the passage of marijuana
legalization laws in Colorado and the state of Washington, responded that the federal government
had “bigger fish to fry.”¶ These state laws run contrary to federal law and U.S. treaty obligations.
Then-president Felipe Calderon of Mexico angrily fired back, questioning U.S. “moral authority.” When
interviewed by the American Quarterly about his Mexican trip, the President answered no questions about drug trafficking. In Mexico this
week, Obama will talk trade, immigration reform, education, and dance diplomatically around the
drug issue.¶ Fresh friction has emerged between the U.S. and Mexico over rules for counter-drug
intelligence collection and sharing. Mexico’s current president, Enrique Peña Nieto appears to be concentrating on more
centralized control over drug collection and operations on Mexican territory. Concerned about citizen security, Peña Nieto
hopes to reduce the harm done to ordinary Mexicans as drugs flow across his nation’s territory to U.S.
consumers. At the back of his mind also is a recognition that he is dealing with the same
Administration that launched Operation Fast and Furious, which let guns walk across the border, and
that argues marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is no big deal.
Tensions between the US and Mexico over intelligence sharing
Archibold et al 4/30/2013 (Randal, Damien Cave, Ginger Thompson) Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in
Drug Fight Spark Friction. NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-betweenus-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
But shortly after Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December, American agents
got a clear message that the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change.¶ “So do we
get to polygraph you?” one incoming Mexican official asked his American counterparts, alarming
United States security officials who consider the vetting of the Mexicans central to tracking down drug kingpins. The Mexican
government briefly stopped its vetted officials from cooperating in sensitive investigations . The Americans
are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said.¶ In
another clash, American security officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence
center in Monterrey, where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police
commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at
the notion of Americans’ having so much contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the
center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. ¶ There
have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement. But the
recent policy changes have rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years.
Relations low – Mexico blames the US for drug markets
Shirk ’13 David Shirk, Associate professor of political science, NPR, May 4, 2013
I think that there are a lot of people who would agree with that idea. And in some ways, you can see that the drug war, as it's played out over
the last 34 years, in particular as a U.S. proxy war. That said, over the last six years, working with Mexico, U.S. officials have consistently tried to
let Mexico set the agenda. U.S. officials that I spoke to, repeatedly - and Mexican officials - repeatedly expressed the understanding that Mexico
and the United States were working together because they had a shared responsibility to deal with the problem of drug trafficking and
organized crime. But I think U.S. officials are really waiting to see whether they will be able to cooperate with the Pena Nieto administration
and in what areas. Because
there is some sense that the trust and collaboration that was built up over the
last six years is at least on hold , if not in recession. It seems to me - I've spoken with Mexicans, who,
to deal in shorthand, are sick of the drug wars and sick of the cartels and blame them for thousands of
deaths, and yet at the same time, in some ways, they blame Americans for being the market for
those drugs . I mean, first of all, I think many Mexicans are tired of having their country portrayed as a lawless, violent and corrupt place.
That said, I also think that, for many Mexicans, this incredible fight that they've made over the last six years to try to take on organized crime
has not yielded major gains in stopping the flow of drugs in even necessarily breaking down some of the major cartels that operate in Mexico.
So, there is a sense that they've
made all of this effort and it's primarily to prevent U.S. drug consumers in
engaging in an illicit market activity . I think some Mexicans may simply say this is not worth the effort. This is not our fight. Let's
let the drug traffickers get back to business as usual and we can get on with our lives.
Relations Adv- Energy Key
Harnessing Mexico’s renewables at Border States is key to maximize coop.
Donnelly 10, Robert Donnelly, The Wilson Institute, program associate with the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center,
Could joint green-energy development help improve relations between the United States and Mexico?
Speakers at this spring’s launch of “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in
Renewable Energies,” a report released by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, agreed that
cooperating on renewable energy is a positive step. However, the panelists asserted that cooperation
could be maximized by better harnessing Mexico’s renewable resources and by leveraging the economic
complementarities that exist among the border states.
Cooperation over energy infrastructure is THE key issue to broader US-Mexico border
relations
Sweedler et al 5 (Alan, *Assistant Vice President for International Programs at San Diego State
University, Director of the Center for Energy Studies and the Environmental Sciences Program and
Professor of Physics, Founder of SDSU's program on International Security and Conflict Resolution,
Congressional Science Fellow in the US Senate, and a Carnegie Science Fellow at Stanford University in
the area of arms control and international security, Margarito Quintero Núñez, Kimberly Collins, “Energy
Issues in the U.S.-Mexican
Binational Region: Focus on California-Baja California,” http://scerp.org/pubs/m11/chapter%201-5.pdf)
Energy is an indispensable lifeblood of the U.S.-Mexican border region and it is a key issue in the
binational region’s future. The energy sectors in the United States, Mexico, and Canada are undergoing
changes that will affect how energy is produced, transmitted, distributed, and sold throughout North America.
These changes will directly influence energy use and energy-related infrastructure in the U.S.-Mexican
border region. This chapter focuses on national energy issues in the United States and Mexico, border-wide topics of concern, and the
California-Baja California section on the border. Population growth is the main force behind the increasing demand
for energy services in the binational region. The expanding economy is another important factor . These
factors have led to a greater demand for energy services in the border region than is expected for other areas of North America. To meet the
expected demand in northern Mexico, new and upgraded interconnections of the transmission system with the United States will be needed.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) does provide new opportunities for private energy companies, particularly those in the
electric power industry. In addition to the increased need for power, there will be significant pressure on supplies of natural gas and associated
infrastructure, such as high-pressure gas pipelines, distribution systems, and pumping stations. As
prices for fossil fuels and
electricity continue to rise, it is expected that solar energy (both thermal and electric) will also become more
important in the border region than in the past. A secure supply of reasonably priced energy with a
minimal environmental impact will be needed for the U.S.-Mexican border region if it is to remain
competitive in the global economy. Given the expected increase in population and living standards on the Mexican side of the
border, it is difficult to see how power demand can be met without the construction of new generating facilities in the border region. However,
if environmental degradation is to be avoided and quality of life standards improved, the type of generation will be important. Heavy
reliance of fossil fuels, even natural gas, will inevitably degrade air quality, contribute to global climate
change, and stress limited water supplies . There are several ways to enhance crossborder cooperation in the energy field and
provide the energy services needed for border residents in the future. But doing so will require effective cooperation and
coordination between the privatized energy market players and the local and state agencies still responsible for regulating the energy
sector in both the United States and Mexico.
It outweigh alt causes – US engagement’s key
Wood 10 (Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies,”
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute), May,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.
pdf)
This study examines one of the most important and potentially lucrative dimensions of the growth of the
renewable energy sector in Mexico, namely bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States.
The 2009 bilateral framework should be seen in the context of an emerging trend in Mexico towards
renewable energy, and as recognition of the need for the United States to take advantage of this if it is to meet its own carbon emissions
reduction goals. The long border shared by the two countries, so often seen as a point of conflict due to the
thorny issues of migration , drugs and security , holds the potential to benefit both states through
the trade in renewable energy from wind, geothermal, biomass and solar sources. But the promise of collaboration in
the sector goes far beyond the border . The US has been engaged with Mexico in RE issues for over
15 years now on multiple levels, and this has brought tangible results that have had a significant impact
on both Mexico and on bilateral relations.
Relations Adv- Relations Good- Latin Stability
A. Relations key to Latin American stability
Selee and Wilson 12 [Andrew, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center,
Christopher, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico,” Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf]
As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two 3 A New Agenda with Mexico countries will also have
to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of
violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist
threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and there will be numerous
opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities
reshape the region’s political and social landscape.
B. Instability causes global war
Rochlin 94 [James Francis, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College.
“Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America,” p.
130-131, 1994]
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada
possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S.
influence in the region – which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in
Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades
of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring in the
hemisphere. Hence, the
Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic
process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worst-case scenario, instability created by a
regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might
preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately
its important hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern expressed by the director of research for Canada’s
Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global
instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts
at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the next chapter.
Relations Adv- Relations Good- Democracy
A. Mexican relations through immigration key to global democracy
Castaneda ‘3 (Castañeda, Jorge G. Source: Foreign Affairs; May/Jun2003, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p67-81, 15p,
4 Black and White Photographs)
Dealing with Mexico is in many ways the most important regional task facing the Bush administration. The matter
can be summed up simply: President Vicente Fox's consolidation of Mexico's first democratic transfer of power must
be-and be seen to be-a success. There is nothing more important to the United States than a stable
Mexico, and today a stable Mexico means a democratic one. And the United States has a huge role in
making Mexico's transition to democracy a success, or in contributing to its failure. The success or failure of
this experiment will be judged in Mexico ultimately in the light of the country's economic performance-which has not been impressive these
past two years. But Mexicans will also judge the state of their country's relations with the United States. They will look to see whether
Presidents Fox and Bush deliver on the ambitious bilateral agenda they sketched out at their historic February 2001 meeting at Fox's ranch in
Guanajuato, Mexico. On issues of trade, drug enforcement, the border, building a North American Economic Community, energy, and, most
significant, immigration, the two countries set out a bold series of goals to meet by the end of Bush's first term, if not sooner.
B. Extinction
Diamond ’95 (Larry, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
December, 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.
Relations Adv – Hegemony Impact
US-Mexico relations are key to global power projection – the impact is hegemony
Pastor 12 (Robert A., Professor and Director of the Center for North American Studies – American
University, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” The American Interest, July/August, http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)
Most Americans think that the largest markets for U.S. exports are China and Japan, and that may explain the Obama Administration’s Asian initiative. But the truth
is that Canada and Mexico are the top two markets for U.S. exports. Most Americans also think that Saudi Arabia and
Venezuela are the largest sources of our energy imports, but again, Canada and Mexico are more important. And again, we think that most tourists who come and
spend money here are European and Asian, but more than half are Canadians and Mexicans. A similar percentage of Americans who travel abroad go to our two
neighbors. All in all, no two nations are more important for the U.S. economy than our two closest neighbors .
From the perspective of U.S. national security, too, recall for a moment that Mexico and Canada made an historic gamble in signing NAFTA. Already dependent on
the behemoth next door and wary of the imbalance of power, both countries feared that NAFTA could make them more vulnerable. Still, they hoped that the
United States would be obligated to treat them on an equal and reciprocal basis and that they would prosper from the agreement. Canadians and Mexicans have
begun to question whether they made the right choice. There are, of course, a wealth of ways to measure the direct and indirect impact of NAFTA, but political
attention, not without justification, tends to focus on violations of the agreement. The U.S. government violated NAFTA by denying Mexican trucks the right to enter
the United States for 16 years, relenting in the most timid way, and only after Mexico was permitted by the World Trade Organization to retaliate in October 2011.
And for more than a decade, Washington failed to comply with decisions made by a dispute-settlement mechanism regarding imports of soft-wood lumber from
Canada. More recently, the United States decided to build a huge wall to keep out Mexicans, and after a three-year process of reviewing the environmental impact
of the Keystone XL pipeline from western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, this past December 2011 President Obama decided to postpone the decision for another
year. This is the sort of treatment likely to
drive both Canada and Mexico to conclude that depending on the United
States was the wrong decision. Imagine for a moment what might happen if Canada and Mexico came to such a
conclusion. Canada might divert its energy exports to China, especially if China guaranteed a long-term relationship at a good price. Mexico would
diversify with South America and China and might be less inclined to keep America’s rivals, like Iran,
at arm’s length. Is there anyone who thinks these developments would not set off national security
alarms? A very old truth would quickly reassert itself: The United States can project its power into
Asia, Europe and the Middle East in part because it need not worry about its neighbors. A new
corollary of that truth would not be far behind: Canada and Mexico are far more important to the national
security of the United States than Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond the economy and national security, our two neighbors
have societal ties to the United States that make all other ethnic connections seem lean in
comparison. By 2015, there will be about 35 million people in the United States who were either born in Mexico or whose parents were born in Mexico; that
number exceeds the total population of Canada. Canadians in the United States don’t stand out as much as do Mexicans, but nearly a million Canadians live in the
United States. And more Americans live in Mexico than in any other foreign country. In sum, the economy, national security and society of the United States,
Mexico and Canada are far more intertwined than most U.S., Canadian and Mexican citizens realize. Most
Americans haven’t worried about
Mexico in strategic terms since the days of Pancho Villa, or about Canada since the 1814 Battle of Plattsburgh. That’s unwise. Bad relations
with either country, let alone both, would be disastrous . On the other hand, deeper relations could be vastly
beneficial. We don’t seem ready to recognize that truth either.
Relations Adv – A2: Immigration CP/DA Turns
Immigration policy doesn’t affect overall relations
Villarreal 10 (Oscar, Specialist – International Trade and Finance, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations:
Trends, Issues, and Implications,” Congressional Research Service, 3-31,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf)
The economic hardship in certain sectors and regions of Mexico has been a major reason behind unauthorized Mexican migration to the United
States. Mexican President Felipe Calderón made his first official visit to the United States as President-elect in early November 2006, after first
visiting Canada and several Latin American countries. During his visit, Calderón
criticized the recent authorization of
fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and noted that it complicated U.S.- Mexico relations. He asserted
that job creation and increased investment in Mexico would be more effective in reducing illegal migration from Mexico than a border fence.
Calderón signaled a shift in Mexican foreign policy when he noted that while immigration is an
important issue in the bilateral relationship, it is not the only issue , as trade and economic
development are also important.
And, Mexico doesn’t care about immigration – it is perceived as purely domestic
Lasso 99 (Luis, Consul-General of Mexico, “THE IMPACT OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY ON U.S.-MEXICO
RELATIONS,” 3 UCLA J. Int'l L. & For. Aff. 357, Lexis)
Yet, even though the new legislation (and U.S. immigration and border policy in general)
disproportionately affects Mexicans, immigration is not on the bilateral agenda with Mexico. The
government of Mexico and its people are not included in the policy debate because they are viewed as
external actors with no voice or vote on domestic issues. And clearly, U.S. attitudes convey that
immigration is considered an exclusively domestic policy matter that does not belong on the foreign
policy agenda. n15 Mexicans, both public officials and private citizens, may post grievances in
instances of human rights violations associated with border policy, for human rights have managed to
eclipse the domestic realm. n16 However, Mexicans have little to say about the manner in which the
U.S. controls immigration.
Addons
Aff Solves CIR
Aff Solves CIR
Wood 12, Duncan Wood, [Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, professor and the
director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), researcher at the Centro de Derecho
Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM., member of the Mexican National Research System (level 2), a member of the editorial board of
Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica and has been an editorial advisor to Reforma newspaper, technical secretary of the Red Mexicana de Energia,
Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf
Knowledge spillover and the development of human capital: Renewable energy development has
enormous potential for creating synergies with universities, research institutes, and technical and
vocational training institutes that will drive the creation and strengthening of human capital in the border
region. If effective collaboration between governments, business and educational institutions can be
achieved, a mutually beneficial relationship will develop in which local employment levels and wages
rise, businesses have access to local skilled labor, and universities benefit from access to new financial
and technical resources.
AT: Topicality
Energy = Economic Engagement
Energy is engagement.
Sullivan ‘8 (Daniel S. Sullivan, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business
Affairs, Statement Before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, “Addressing Energy Issues In The Western Hemisphere”, Press Release: US State
Department, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0808/S00038.htm, August 4, 2008)
Our two countries have also benefited from a candid exchange of views on biofuels through other
channels, including the U.S. - Brazil CEO Forum, and meetings of business people, academics, and
citizens groups. With Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, I cochair an Economic Partnership Dialogue with Brazil. Other members of the economic team at the State
Department also have traveled on numerous missions to Brazil to talk with government and business
groups about the whole range of our economic engagement , including biofuels. The Deputy
Secretary of Energy departs for Brazil shortly to continue this broad and deep engagement.
Counter interpretation: State Department’s definition
State No Date (State Department of the USA, http://2001-2009.state.gov/e/eeb/92986.htm)
What is Total Economic Engagement?
Total Economic Engagement seeks to integrate and coordinate all U.S. economic instruments and
programs into our regional and country strategies. The Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business
Affairs’ (EEB) broad cross-section of economic disciplines, interagency contacts, and expertise in such
areas as trade, finance, energy, development, transportation, and telecommunications help ensure
this coordination.
We meet – investment in energy is an example of economic engagement
Hormats ‘13
(Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment (Robert D, June 12, 2013 US
Department of State “US Economic Engagement in the South Pacific” Asia Society Global Forum
http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/210563.htm) EFish
But U.S. economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region is not limited to traditional trade and
investment issues. It includes energy as well.¶ As part of the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy
Partnership, announced by President Obama at last year’s East Asia Summit, the U.S. Government has
earmarked up to $6 billion in a line of credit over four years through the Export-Import Bank and the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This will drive trade and investment in private sector and
public-private energy-related projects across the region.¶ In addition to these resources, the United
States will support capacity building programs through APEC and ASEAN, as well as with our bilateral
partners, in the priority areas of interconnectivity, natural gas, renewables, and sustainable
development.
Economic engagement includes energy cooperation – prefer expansive interpretations
Department of State ‘9
(January 21, 2009 to January 21, 2009, Archive. “What is total Economic Engagement?” http://20012009.state.gov/e/eeb/92986.htm) Efish
Total Economic Engagement seeks to integrate and coordinate all U.S. economic instruments and
programs into our regional and country strategies. The Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business
Affairs’ (EEB) broad cross-section of economic disciplines, interagency contacts, and expertise in such
areas as trade, finance, energy , development, transportation, and telecommunications help ensure
this coordination. ¶ EEB is actively involved in the entire range of international economic issues
affecting America’s security and well-being. Our priorities extend from securing reliable, sustainable
energy supplies to increasing market access for U.S. goods and services. Protection of American
interests, such as intellectual property rights, fair play in international business, and shutting down
terrorist access to financial networks, is not only part of our work, it is the foundation on which our
efforts rest.¶
AT: Politics
Plan Popular
Energy cooperation with Mexico bipartisan
Crooks and Thomson ’12 (Ed and Adam, “US and Mexico in landmark oil deal”, Financial
Times, 2-20-2012, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0e0d550a-5bec-11e1-841c00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AFfRW5yA)
However, the agreement is a signal of the commitment by the US and Mexico to accelerate the
development of their resources. It also includes a plan for joint safety inspections by US and Mexican
regulators of oil and gas projects along the maritime boundary, a priority for the US following the 2010
Deepwater Horizon disaster. Most analysts agree that increased US oil production would have little
effect on fuel prices, which are set in world markets. But, the rising price of petrol in the US, driven by
tension with Iran, has become an issue that is being highlighted by Republicans. That has added to the
pressure on the Obama administration to be seen to be moving to help increase oil supplies. Ken
Salazar, US secretary of the interior, described the deal as a “win-win” for the US and Mexico. The
agreement follows a joint commitment made in May 2010 by Barack Obama, US president, and Felipe
Calderón, president of Mexico. The Obama administration has been pushing for increased oil and gas
production in the US, albeit not at the pace sought by the industry and many Republicans . The
administration was criticised for suspending deepwater drilling in the gulf for six months after the BP
spill, and for regulators’ slow pace in subsequently issuing permits. However, the administration has
since moved to sell more drilling rights in the gulf, and is on track to allow oil exploration in the Arctic
waters of Alaska this summer.
More evidence – strong congressional support for the plan
Seelke ‘13
[Clara. Mexico Analyst for the Congressional Research Service. “Mexico and the 112th Congress” 1/29/13
www.crs.gov]
There appears to be strong support in both the Senate and House for maintaining U.S. support to¶
Mexico provided through Mérida Initiative accounts. The Administration’s FY2013 budget¶ request
asked for $234 million in Mérida assistance for Mexico: $199 million in the International¶ Narcotics and
Law Enforcement (INCLE) account and $35 million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. The
Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2013 foreign¶ operations appropriations
measure, S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172), would have met the request for¶ INCLE and provided $10 million in
additional ESF for economic development projects in the¶ border region. S. 3241 included restrictions
on aid to the Mexican military and police. The House¶ Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill,
H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), would have¶ increased INCLE funding by $49 million to match the FY2012
enacted level for that account and¶ met the request for ESF.¶ In the absence of a final FY2013 foreign
appropriations measure, Congress passed a continuing¶ resolution, H.J.Res. 117, to fund most foreign
aid programs—including assistance to Mexico—at¶ FY2012 levels plus 0.6% through March 27, 2013.
Mexican engagement is politically popular
Palmer 12 – Reuters contributor (Doug, “Boehner urges deeper US engagement in Latin America”,
5/8/12; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/usa-trade-boehner-idUSL1E8G81HM20120508)
WASHINGTON, May 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' top Republican on Tuesday called for deeper U.S
economic engagement with Latin America, but also expressed concern over Iranian influence in the
region and the "alarming willingness" of some governments to abandon international norms."In both
Colombia and Mexico , and the entire hemisphere, the U.S. must be clear that we will not disengage in
the fight for free markets and free, secure people," U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner
said in remarks prepared for delivery at the U.S. State Department."We must be clear that we will be
there, with our friends and partners in the region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free,
stable, and prosperous hemisphere," Boehner said, speaking to the Council of Americas, an organization
representing companies that do business in the region. Boehner is due on Tuesday to receive an award
from the group for his work last year on winning congressional approval of free trade agreements with
Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The pacts were negotiated during the Republican administration of
former President George W. Bush, but President Barack Obama, a Democrat, did not submit the
agreements to Congress until late 2011, after negotiating changes to make them more palatable to
Democrats and securing a commitment for renewal of a worker retraining program known as trade
adjustment assistance. "When the Colombia Free Trade Agreement enters into force (on May 15), it will
be an important moment for the prosperity of our hemisphere. It is equally important that the Panama
Free Trade Agreement be fully implemented in the months ahead," Boehner said, referring to the
Obama administration's ongoing work with Panama to implement that agreement. Boehner said it was
important the United States "keep the momentum going" by negotiating new agreements to open
markets to American exports , and said he was disappointed Obama has not sought legislation known
as "Trade Promotion Authority" which would help the White House do that.Meanwhile, Boehner called
Iran's attempt to gain influence in the region a "major threat" to democracy and prosperity.Iranian
President Mahmoud Admadinejad's visit to Venezuela and Cuba "underscored the designs Iran has for
expanding its influence in Latin America, and its eagerness to forge bonds with governments in the
Western Hemisphere that have demonstrated a lesser interest in freedom and democracy," Boehner
said. In an apparent reference to Argentina's expropriation of Spanish oil giant Repsol's subsidiary YPF
and the billions in unpaid debt obligations the country still owes foreign investors, Boehner said the
United States "must also be clear about what we expect from all of our neighbors." "We will insist that
every nation honor the rule of law, meet its obligations, and respect international norms. That means
paying debts to bondholders; honoring legal commitments and the decisions made by international
arbiters; and respecting private property," Boehner said. "Some governments in the region have
demonstrated an alarming willingness to drift away from such norms when it suits their objectives.
When this occurs, it's harmful not only to the people of those countries, but to the potential of all of the
Americas. And it cannot be excused."
2AC Oil Disad
No Link- Mexico doesn’t affect global markets
Barnes ’12 – Bonner Means Baker Fellow (Joe, “The Future of Oil in Mexico: Oil and U.S.Mexico Bilateral Relations”, James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University,
4-29-2011)
Still, it is important to put the projected decline in Mexican oil production into perspective. Mexico
may be an important producer, but its petroleum output represents less than 5% of the world total. In
terms of the Western Hemisphere, any decline in its production over the next 25 years is likely to
offset by increased productions elsewhere, notably Brazil and Canada. An eventual turnaround in
Venezuelan production—almost certainly associated with Hugo Chavez’s exit from power—is also
possible. Venezuela, unlike Mexico, possesses vast oil reserves; it could, under the right circumstances,
significantly increase its output. Venezuela, not Mexico, today surely represents the great “lost
opportunity” of hemispheric petroleum production. Opening up additional U.S. coastal areas and nature
preserves in Alaska could also help partially offset the decline in Mexico. By way of yet another
comparison: The projected decline in Mexican production is significantly less than the decline in North
Sea production between 1999 and 2007. This is not to downplay the importance for the United States
of volume and diversity of supply to world oil markets. It does suggest, however, that the slow decline
of Mexican production is unlikely to precipitate a crisis in international oil markets . This is particularly
true as many observers are already predicting decreasing Mexican output. World markets are well
aware of the troubled condition of Mexico’s oil sector. The only surprise would be if Mexico were to
increase its petroleum output.
2ac Dip Cap
And Latin America is the vital internal link into an effective US foreign policy
Barshefsky et al ‘8 (Charlene Barshefsky, James T. Hill, and Shannon K. O’Neil, Council on Foreign
Relations, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, “U.S.-Latin America Relations:
A New Direction for a New Reality”, May 2008)
For over 150 years, the Monroe Doctrine provided the guiding principles for U.S. policy toward Latin
America, asserting U.S. primacy in the foreign affairs of the region. Over the past two decades, those
principles have become increasingly obsolete . Washington’s basic policy framework, however, has
not changed sufficiently to reflect the new reality. U.S. policy can no longer be based on the
assumption that the United States is the most important outside actor in Latin America. If there was an
era of U.S. hegemony in Latin America, it is over . In most respects, this shift reflects positive
developments within Latin America itself. The region has undergone a historic transformation politically,
with military-authoritarian rule giving way to vibrant, if imperfect, democracy in almost every nation.
Economically, Latin America is now one of the more open market regions in the world and a crucial
global provider of energy, minerals, and food . None of this is to say that Latin America has entirely
overcome its history of political tumult or done enough to alleviate poverty, improve competi- tiveness
and human capital, or correct extreme inequality. But it does mean that U.S. policymakers must
change the way they think about the region . Latin America is not Washington’s to lose; nor is it
Washing- ton’s to save. Latin America’s fate is largely in Latin America’s hands. A failure to acknowledge
how Latin Americans define their own challenges has created new political strains in recent years. It has
also caused U.S. policymakers to overlook the ways in which the United States can meaningfully
contribute to Latin America’s progress—fur- thering the United States’ own interests in the process. By
truly beginning to engage Latin America on its own terms, Washington can mark the start of a new era
in U.S.-Latin America relations. It is a cliche´ to bemoan Americans’ lack of interest in Latin America.
Still, this disinterest remains vexing given the region’s proximity to the United States and the remarkable
interconnectedness of U.S. and Latin American economies and societies. In recent years, as
Washington’s attention has been focused on crises elsewhere in the world, the connec- tions have only
deepened. From 1996 to 2006, total U.S. merchandise trade with Latin America grew by 139 percent,
compared to 96 percent 1 for Asia and 95 percent for the European Union (EU). In 2006, the United
States exported $223 billion worth of goods to Latin American 2 consumers (compared with $55 billion
to China). Latin America is the United States’ most important external source of oil, accounting for
nearly 30 percent of imports (compared with 20 percent from the Middle East), as well as its main
source of illegal narcotics. And as a result of both conditions in Latin America and demand for workers in
the United States, migration from the region has accelerated. Latinos now account for 15 percent of the
U.S. population, nearly 50 percent of recent U.S. population growth, and a growing portion of the
elector- ate—allowing Latino voters increasingly to shape the U.S. political agenda . Cross-border
community and family ties, as well as the Spanish- language media, mean that Latin America remains
part of many Latinos’ daily lives and concerns. For all of these reasons, Latin America’s well- being
directly affects the United States. But even with such integration, the opening of Latin American
economies and the globalization of Latin American societies means that U.S. policy is now but one of
several competing factors capable of influencing the region. Latin American states, especially the larger
ones, do not consider their interests to be primarily determined by diplomatic, trade, or security ties
with the United States. Brazil has made inroads into groupings such as the South-South Dialogue with
South Africa and India and the Group of 20 (G20), while countries such as Chile and Mexico have struck
trade and investment agreements with the EU and a number of Asian countries, China most
prominently. The economic and political diversification of Latin America is reflected in Latin American
attitudes as well. Esteem for U.S. global and hemispheric leadership is at its lowest level in the region
in recent memory. In 2002, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 82 percent of Venezuelans,
34 percent of Argentineans, and 51 percent of Bolivians had a favorable view of the United States; those
numbers had fallen to 56, 16, and 43 percent by 2007. The percentage of Latin Americans who approved
of U.S. ideas on democracy decreased from 3 45 percent in 2002 to 29 percent in 2007. This general
distrust of the United States has allowed Presidents Hugo Cha´vez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia,
Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and even Felipe Caldero´n of Mexico to bolster their domestic popular support
by criticizing Washington. Most Latin Americans still prefer a mutually respectful and productive
relationship with the United States, but the factors driving Latin America’s desire for greater
independence are likely to shape the region’s posture toward the United States well into the future.
2ac Neolib
A2: K – General
The alternative cedes the political and causes nationalist policies – pro-engagement
discourse is key
Bonner and Rozental 9 (Robert C., Former Commissioner – U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Former Administrator – Drug Enforcement Administration, and Andrѐs, Former Deputy Foreign Minister
of Mexico; Former President and Founder – Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, “Managing the
United States-Mexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Problems,” Pacific Council on
International Policy, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/admin/document.doc?id=31)
Both countries continue to face pressure from nationalist constituencies that favor unilateral
measures (on the U.S. side) or much more limited engagement with their neighbor (on the Mexican
side). Cooperation can only be sustained if those who see the benefits of collaboration are as vocal in
their advocacy as opponents of engagement are in their criticisms. Mexico’s current, aggressive
approach to combating drug trafficking organizations, in particular, will not be politically sustainable
over the long run unless the government makes significant progress in weakening these organizations
and curbing their power and that, in turn, will require significant assistance from the United States
A2: Neolib K – No Link/Aff Solves Offense
Their link evidence is about renewables, NOT electricity grids – the aff solves the
worse forms of neolib
DSD 7 (Department of Sustainable Development – Organization of American States, “Regional
Electricity Cooperation and Integration in the Americas: Potential Environmental, Social and Economic
Benefits,” August,
http://www.oas.org/dsd/Documents/RegionalElectricityCooperationandIntegration.pdf)
.2.Social benefits
The expansion of electricity services, and very specifically the increase in rural electrification, is one of
the principal gains from regional electricity cooperation. This will facilitate a better respond to local
needs , including sanitation, job opportunities, and education. The increase of available electricity services contributes
to poverty alleviation by improving access to better education and health care. For instances, according to
data from the Pan-American Health Organization there is positive correlation between energy use, including electricity, and sociologic
indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy at birth and analphabetism (Audisio, 2006). Also, electricity
cooperation can
contribute to the expansion of information services, which potentially create opportunities for public
participation , facilitating in that way the promotion and strengthening of democracy and gender balance at local,
national and regional level (Dubash, 2002). The technical harmonization from regional electricity cooperation can
lead to better performance of utilities ensuing more access and quality of services. In the particular case of the urban poor,
this can represent a substantial improvement of its living condition, including better shelter and employment /
entrepreneurship opportunities which constitute a crucial element for LAC considering that 70 percent of the poor lives in cities.10 In this
regard, electricity cooperation represents a relevant factor for potential income generation as consequence of the improvement on services
and the expansion of the market. Electricity
cooperation will foster national and regional security by providing
reliable services and by contributing to the access and management of strategic information systems
that can benefit activities such as natural disaster mitigation and general security issues. Also, it can
create a regional climate for business social responsibility and stimulate greater technological
contribution to society , including academies, industries and governments.
A2: Neolib K – Plan Boosts Quality of Life
The plan boosts Mexico’s quality of life
Wood 10 (Duncan, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies,”
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Mexico Institute), May,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.
pdf)
Although the second and third of these concerns have been dominant in recent discussions of
renewable energy, the first should not be overlooked. In fact it has played a much more important role
in the history of cooperation in renewable energy and has had a profound impact on the lives of
Mexicans. Renewable energy technologies can give access to electricity to rural communities that lack
connections to the national grid. Such access is fundamental in many ways to granting a basic standard
of living, but it is particularly important in enhancing the prospects for small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs). Providing electricity to a small farmer can give him the capacity to better irrigate
his fields, to work later into the evening once he has electric light, to refrigerate perishable goods such
as fruits, fish and meat so that he does not have to take his goods to market each and every day, and
allows the farmer to think beyond the mere harvest of produce to products that have a higher degree
of value added.
2ac MEXICO POLITICS DA
2AC
Pemex Reform won’t pass
Estevez 6-26-2013
Dolia, “Most Mexicans Oppose President Peña Nieto's Plans To Open Up Pemex To Private Investment,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2013/06/26/most-mexicans-oppose-president-pena-nietosplans-to-open-up-pemex-to-private-investment/
But Mexicans are less than ready to support Peña Nieto’s most ambitious and controversial reform to
date. A new poll by the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), a research institute,
shows that 65 out of every 100 Mexicans are against opening up Pemex, the world’s seventh-largest oil
producer with annual sales of more than $100 billion. “Energy, particularly oil, continues to be the
stronghold of Mexican nationalism,” said CIDE.
Peña Nieto is counting on the Pact for Mexico, an alliance of the country’s top three political parties, to
try to get the reform passed. The proposal, which is expected to involve reforming the Constitution, will
need two-thirds support from Mexico’s Congress; the PRI, his party, does not hold a simple majority in
either house. Peña Nieto reported that he’s negotiating to get the political support he needs to break
the state monopoly. However, some analysts believe that the Pacto, which succeeded in getting
through a monopoly-busting telecom reform in May, will not hold up this time . The left-leaning Party
of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, warned that they will oppose Pemex’s reform. Marcelo Ebrard,
a popular former mayor of Mexico City and likely PRD Presidential candidate in 2018, challenged Peña
Nieto to a televised debate on the oil overhaul. Former PRD Presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc
Cárdenas, Lazaro Cárdenas’ son, presented a counter proposal to “modernize” Pemex without changing
Article 27 of the Constitution to undo the historical ban on privatizing the company. His proposal was
endorsed Tuesday by top PRD politicians, including Ebrard and Mexico City Mayor Miguel Angel
Mancera, and the party’s congressional leaders.
Nieto doesn’t have political capital and scandals thump it
Ackerman 2013
John M., professor at the Institute for Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
and a visiting scholar at American University, “The Mexico Bubble,”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/01/the_mexico_bubble_enrique_pena_nieto?wpisrc=o
bnetwork
According to the hype, Peña Nieto has already transformed the political landscape in Mexico after
only four months in office. Time magazine has named him one of its "100 Most Influential People in the
World," claiming that he "combines Reagan's charisma with Obama's intellect and Clinton's political
skills." The Financial Times raves that with the death of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Peña Nieto may now
take up the torch of Latin American leadership and revive the "Washington Consensus" that
predominated in the region during the 1980s and called for drastic restrictions in social spending and
the implementation of "trickle-down" neoliberal economic policies. The Washington Post editorial board
suggests that "Washington should be cheering Mexico's gridlock busting -- and taking it as an example."
Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman, of the New York Times, has called Mexico the "Comeback Kid" and
Shannon O´Neil argues in Foreign Affairs that Mexico has now "made it."
Such exaggerations have no basis in reality . Even after months of an expensive, high-profile media
blitz, Peña Nieto has begun his administration with the lowest public approval rating of any Mexican
president over the last two decades. Only 50 percent of Mexicans approve of his presidency today,
much less than the 70 percent who supported the first non-PRI president, Vicente Fox, at the beginning
of his term, according to Reforma newspaper. Peña Nieto's approval rating is even lower than that for
presidents Ernesto Zedillo and Felipe Calderón at the disastrous crisis-ridden beginnings of their terms,
according to the same source.
A recent poll also shows increased public skepticism in Peña Nieto's, "Pact for Mexico," Today, only 21
percent of the population believes that this pact will benefit them while 31 percent are convinced that
it will harm them. This same independent poll reveals that the majority of the population perceives the
agreement to be in the interests principally of the political parties and big business. Only 35 percent
think that the country as a whole will benefit.
It is important to remember that Peña Nieto only received 38.2 percent of the vote in the 2012
presidential elections and that the voting base of his party (Party of the Institutional Revolution-PRI) is
principally located in the poorest, least educated, and most isolated rural sectors of the population. All
of the most "modern" and "middle class" sectors of the population voted overwhelmingly against
bringing the PRI and its pretty-boy candidate back to power, according to independent exit polls and
demographic surveys. For instance, the only time Peña Nieto dared to hold a campaign event with
college students during last year's presidential race, he was aggressively run off the campus amid shouts
that he was an "assassin" and a "thief."
Peña Nieto's strategyhas been to compensate for this weakness in public support by co-opting the old
political opposition and turning his back on his critics in society. But this approach has recently come
up against a brick wall .
For instance, in their haste to demonstrate quick legislative results, the politicians forgot to consult with
civil society before pushing through a controversial education reform at lightning speed last December.
As a result, today thousands of teachers are on strike throughout Mexico's poorest southern states of
Chiapas, Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Michoacán in protest against a reform which they correctly claim
threatens to drastically reduce job security, introduce excessive standardized testing, entrench
inequality between schools in wealthy and poor areas, and privatize public education. In the state of
Guerrero, local citizen militias, parents, and youth groups have even joined with the teachers in a broadbased coalition against Peña Nieto's broader neoliberal economic agenda.
Indeed, the Pact for Mexico itself may soon entirely break apart . A new scandal involving the use of
Peña Nieto's federal social programs to purchase votes has led the two leading opposition parties, PAN
from the right and PRD from the left, to threaten abandoning the pact altogether unless the president
takes action against his own top officials. This will be an important test of political will for Peña Nieto to
see whether he is able to prioritize accountability over political expediency.
US will aid Mexico in combatting the drug trade – Merida sets the mark
Felbab-Brown 13 (Vanda is a Brookings Institution expert on international and internal conflicts and
nontraditional security threats, “Peña Nieto’s Piñata: The Promise and Pitfalls of Mexico’s New Security
Policy against Organized Crime”, Brookings Institution, February 2013,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/02/mexico%20new%20security%20po
licy%20felbabbrown/mexico%20new%20security%20policy%20felbabbrown.pdf) ~ew
Although Washington continues to be wary of the new security policy in Mexico, the United States
government has indicated an important willingness to elevate the importance of reducing violence
inMexico. There are precedents for such a shift in U.S. anti-crime priorities abroad. In Central America,
for example, the U.S. government has come to give more attention to addressing violence suffered by
ordinary people and reducing overall citizen insecurity. Its primary vehicle for combatting criminality in
Central America, the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), shifted by 2011 to focus not
only on disrupting the movement of criminals and contraband and supporting the development of
strong, capable, and accountable governments in Central America, but also on creating safe streets for
the citizens in Central America and fostering the rule of law.36 The U.S. Mérida Initiative to support
Mexico’s anti-crime efforts equally evolved from its original emphasis on technological transfers and
heavy equipment toward greater support for institutional building in the law enforcement and justice
sectors and an emphasis on building communities that are resilient to penetration, intimidation, and
cooptation by criminal groups. The changed focus was captured in the new label the first Obama
administration gave its Mexico assistance package—Beyond Mérida.37 Prioritizing violence reduction
is a greater leap for U.S. anti-crime efforts abroad than the previous shifts and one that requires a
more radical break with the history and tendencies of U.S. supply-side counternarcotics policy and
outside-assistance anti-organized-crime policies—but it is the right strategy.
PAN-PRI election fights destroy the Pact for Mexico and block Pemex reform
Gardner 7/7
Simon Gardner, Reuters, 7/7/13, “Mexico reform drive at stake as regions vote”,
http://www.trust.org/item/20130707151532-gpuc6/?source%20=%20hpbreaking
By Simon Gardner MEXICO CITY, July 7 (Reuters) - Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's sweeping
economic reform plans hang in the balance in local elections on Sunday with a strong opposition
showing seen as crucial to preserve a cross-party pact. Nearly half of Mexico's 31 states are voting for
a mix of local parliaments and municipal governments, but all eyes are on the race for governor in the
state of Baja California, a stronghold of the conservative National Action party (PAN). The PAN lost
control of Mexico in last year's presidential elections, being relegated to the third force in Congress,
but Pena Nieto must keep them on board to help him push through planned overhauls of state oil
giant Pemex and the tax system. Baja California is one of the PAN's few remaining bastions and if the
party can hold the state it could be just what Pena Nieto needs to keep alive the so-called Pact for
Mexico he forged with opposition leaders upon taking office in December. PAN lawmakers already
have accused Pena Nieto's centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, of trying to steal the
election by buying votes, and have warned that any sign of fraud could scupper the political accord. "If
the elections don't go freely and democratically, it is clear the pact will come to no good," said
Francisco Dominguez, a PAN senatoron congressional commissions debating the shape of energy and
fiscal reforms. "It's very simple. If there are complaints, if there are irregularities, we will act." Baja
California, which nestles along the U.S. border in northwest Mexico, was the first state the PAN
wrested from the PRI 24 years ago as it eroded the party's stranglehold on power before ending a 71year ruling streak in 2000. Although a poll late last month gave the PAN an eight-point lead over the
PRI in Baja California, therace is expected to be tight, with some voters in the state weary of more
than two decades of rule by the same party.Moreover, the PAN has been locked in public, petty
infighting since last year's drubbing, when voters castigated the party for failing to curb violence
betweenwarring drug cartels that has claimed more than 70,000 lives since 2007. That bloodshed has
continued, and the election campaign has been marred by the murder of a number of candidates. Jose
Maria Martinez, a PAN senator presiding over a committee to observe the electoral process, said this
week the elections would be the "most violent" in Mexican history. BETTER THE STATUS QUO? PAN
chairman Gustavo Madero will be under the spotlight, and if Baja California is lost, it risks plunging the
party into a leadership crisis and endangering the pact - a fact not lost on Mexicans looking to Pena
Nieto to revive the economy. "The most convenient thing would be for the PAN to win, so it at least
holds this governorship after last year's defeat and so the pact remains in place," said Pedro Feria, 32,
an out-of-work lawyer who supports the PRI. "What I want is for them to focus on creating job
opportunities. I've been looking for a year now. They should create policies to help people progress,"
he added, sitting in the blazing sun on a park bench in downtown Mexico City. The pact has already
pushed a wide-reaching education reform and a major shake-up of competition in the telecoms sector
through Congress, with a separate bill aimed at spurring bank lending expected to pass in coming
weeks. But the central planks of Pena Nieto's hopes to raise economic growth to 6 percent a year
from barely two percent since the millennium began are the reform to improve the tax take and the
plan to open up Pemex to more private investment. Those measures may be in doubt if the pact falls
apart. The PAN's Madero has laid the ground for post-electoral fight, pinning accusations of vote
buying, fraud and corruption against the PRI on a giant map of Mexico during the campaign.Adding
fuel to the fire, a PAN candidate running in the eastern state of Veracruz said a few days before the
elections that he had been kidnapped and questioned about party politics. When asked about the
incident, PRI chairman Cesar Camacho said he suspected the Veracruz case had been made up in an
attempt to discredit the ruling party and that reports were surfacing to generate a "general sense of
disorder and discontent." "It seems like an advance justification of defeat," he said.
1AR – Won’t Pass
Internal strife and political clash will prevent Pemex reform from passing
Economist 7/9
The Economist, 7/9/13, “Why might Mexico’s president want to lose an election?”,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-5
MEXICANS went to the polls in almost half the country’s states on July 7th for a round of local elections.
All eyes were on Baja California, the only state to be electing a new governor. In a close race, President
Enrique Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) looked to be in with a chance of snatching
control of the state from the National Action Party (PAN), which has held it for 24 years. Preliminary
results suggest that in the end the PAN managed to cling on to power. So why might Mr Peña be
breathing a sigh of relief that his PRI candidate lost the race?
When his presidency began on December 1st, Mr Peña unveiled the “Pacto por Mexico”, an agreement
between the three main parties to pass a broad package of reforms for which the country had been
crying out for years. The effect of the Pacto has been dramatic: in contrast to the legislative logjam seen
during much of the past decade, Mr Peña’s government has pushed through a slew of important new
laws. The past six months have seen an education reform, an anti-monopolies law to attack the fiefs of
Carlos Slim and Televisa, and a legal reform to free up the courts. Many more are planned.
Yet the Pacto is at risk. Some members of the two main opposition parties, the conservative PAN and
the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), are beginning to wonder if it’s such a good
idea to vote for all the president’s initiatives. Though the Pacto contains policies that all parties broadly
agree on, its success is making the president and the PRI rather popular. Meanwhile, internal rivalries
are tearing the PAN apart, and the PRD is facing a crisis after Andrés Manuel López Obrador, its
presidential candidate last year, announced that he would establish a new, rival left-wing party. As the
July 7th elections approached, some members of the opposition began to argue that, if the results were
bad, they should withdraw from the Pacto, and pursue a more obstructive line against the president.
Mr Peñamight therefore be relieved that preliminary results suggest that his party’s candidate lost the
battle of Baja California. Winning a single state, and in return risking the Pacto, could have been quite
a Pyrrhic victory.That’s not to say that the Pacto is safe. For one thing, a recount under way in Baja
California may yet change the result.Secondly, with the elections out of the way the government is
about to pursue its most controversial reforms yet, to allow more private investment in the energy
sector and to raise taxes. With Mr López Obradorpreparing street demonstrations against these
initiatives, it will be more tempting than ever for the main leftist opposition party to bail out of the
Pacto. Although the battle of Baja California appears to have been successfully fought and lost,
Mexico’s president faces a long, politically heated summer.
Public opposition makes Pemex reform fail
Estevez13 foreign correspondent, former bureau chief for El Financiero
[Dolia, “Most Mexicans Oppose President Peña Nieto's Plans To Open Up Pemex To Private Investment”
Forbes.com, 6-26-13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2013/06/26/most-mexicans-opposepresident-pena-nietos-plans-to-open-up-pemex-to-private-investment/]
But Mexicans are less than ready to support Peña Nieto’s most ambitious and controversial reform to
date. A new poll by the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), a research institute,
shows that 65 out of every 100 Mexicans are against opening up Pemex, the world’s seventh-largest oil
producer with annual sales of more than $100 billion. “Energy, particularly oil, continues to be the
stronghold of Mexican nationalism,” said CIDE.¶ Peña Nieto is counting on the Pact for Mexico, an
alliance of the country’s top three political parties, to try to get the reform passed. The proposal, which
is expected to involve reforming the Constitution, will need two-thirds support from Mexico’s Congress;
the PRI, his party, does not hold a simple majority in either house. Peña Nieto reported that he’s
negotiating to get the political support he needs to break the state monopoly. However, some
analystsbelieve that the Pact, which succeeded in getting through a monopoly-busting telecom reform
in May, will not hold up this time. The left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, warned
that they will oppose Pemex’s reform. Marcelo Ebrard, a popular former mayor of Mexico City and
likely PRD Presidential candidate in 2018, challenged Peña Nieto to a televised debate on the oil
overhaul. Former PRD Presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Lazaro Cárdenas’ son, presented a
counter proposal to “modernize” Pemex without changing Article 27 of the Constitution to undo the
historical ban on privatizing the company. His proposal was endorsed Tuesday by top PRD politicians,
including Ebrard and Mexico City Mayor Miguel Angel Mancera, and the party’s congressional leaders.¶
Pemex claims there is a need to boost annual investment by 46%, to $37 billion, to tap undeveloped
shale-gas deposits and deep-water reserves. Peña Nieto says that while he wants investment to come
from private capital, he insists that Mexico’s oil and gas reserves will remain under the state’s control,
i.e. will not be sold to private firms or privatized.¶ But many Mexicans are skeptical. They believe that a
better alternative would be for the government to stop taking such a high tax from Pemex —40% of
total government revenues — to allow it to reinvest instead of leaving it struggling to fund investment.
Then there is the ever present problem of high-level corruption in Pemex that accounts for billions in
losses. The press has reported on government officials being paid millions of dollars by drug-connected
contractors for juicy contracts with Pemex. The lavish lifestyle of the oil workers union leader, Carlos
Romero Deschamps and his children, has also come out in the open. Newspapers published Facebook FB
-0.65% images of Paulina Romero, Romero Deschamps’ daughter, boasting about her world travels
aboard private jets accompanied by her three English bulldogs — Keiko, Boli and Morgancita, dining in
first class restaurants with Vega Sicilia wines, and sporting Hermes luxury hand bags. His brother, José
Carlos Romero Durán, was also featured driving a $2 million limited edition red Enzo Ferrari sport car, a
gift from his father, whose trade union monthly salary is $1,864. Opposition politicians are conditioning
talks on the oil overhaul to the government cracking down first on high level corruption, starting with
Romero Deschamps.
No pass – insiders know that it will fail to help Pemex attract sufficient investment
Mander 6/27
Benedict Mander, FinancialTimes, 6/27/13, “Energy: Focus on Pemex raises hopes of private investors”,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6aeb8e5a-c79c-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz2YZCf3y7x
The development of these reserves is becoming increasingly urgent since Mexico’s oil production has
fallen from 3.4m barrels a day in 2004 to about 2.5m b/d, in large part because of over-dependence on
its massive Cantarell oilfield, which is running dry.
But the ability of foreign oil companies to help reverse this trend will depend on the success of
constitutional reform. Mr Peña Nieto has made this a priority, since foreign companies have been
prohibited from getting Mexican oil out of the ground since the 1938 nationalisation.
While many see this as Mexico’s best chance for energy reform in the past 75 years, it is far from being
a done deal. A reform package is expected to be submitted to Congress by September. It remains
unclear what it will contain.
“We don’t know if it’s going to change enough for it to be attractive to invest,” says an executive at an
international oil company.
Pemex’s capital investment in the past decade has quadrupled to almost $25bn, with most of it
destined for exploration and production.
That may be a huge amount for one company, but it is not nearly enough for the development of the
oil sector of a country the size of Mexico, comment analysts.
Just to start producing in deep waters would require investments of $10bn a year, according to Mr
Mereles.
“It’s just not possible for Pemex to do this alone. We are going to need hundreds of companies coming
in,” says one industry insider.
Pemex reform will be pushed back – state debt, education reform, and financial
reform all come first
Reuters, 6/12
Reuters, 6/12/13, “Mexico Congress to hold special sessions, buttressing reforms”,
http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-congress-hold-special-sessions-buttressing-reforms-025354932.html
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Congressional leaders of Mexico's main parties said on Wednesday they had
agreed to hold two special sessions of Congress in July and August to tackle outstanding initiatives,
paving the way for key energy and fiscal reforms to move forward in the autumn.
President Enrique Pena Nieto plans to send measures aimed at boosting Mexico's paltry tax take and
overhauling ailing state-oil monopoly Pemex to Congress during the second regular session of Congress,
which begins in September.
But an overhang of outstanding initiatives from the first congressional session, which ended in April,
threatened to push back the much anticipated reforms.
The two extraordinary sessions agreed to on Wednesday would be held in the second halves of July
and August respectively, said Emilio Gamboa, who heads the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party
(PRI) in the Senate.
Representatives of the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the conservative National
Action Part (PAN) also agreed to the plan.
In the July session, lawmakers will discuss measures that would give more power to the transparency
institute, regulate state debt, appoint a new leader for the election authority and create a new anticorruption body.
In August, the legislators plan to draw up secondary laws to implement recently approved measures
aimed at improving education and boosting competition in the telecoms sector, which is dominated by
billionaire Carlos Slim.
Both special sessions are due to take place after charged regional elections in 14 states slated for July 7.
Opposition parties have accused the PRI of misusing state funds to win votes in states they govern,
which has shaken the so-called "Pact for Mexico," signed by the government and major parties to push
through reforms.
A financial reform aimed at boosting credit was also unveiled by the president in May but has not yet
been approved.
The public hates Nieto and his Pemex reform proposal -- leaders are forced to oppose
it too to not garner public support
BBC 7/2
BBC News, 7/2/13, “In pictures: Mexico's Pemex protests”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latinamerica-23145802
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto'spromise to overhaul state-owned oil firm Pemex has sparked
angry protests in the capital, Mexico City. The demonstrators suspect the government is planning to
privatise Pemex, which has long been a symbol of national pride for many Mexicans. The slogan
"Pemex is not for sale" was emblazoned on hats and scrawled on walls during the march. The
government says it wants to allow Pemex to raise more private capital to pay for much-needed
infrastructure development and further exploration of Mexico's undersea reserves. Some of the
protesters donned the V for Vendetta mask that has become the ubiquitous symbol of protests from
Turkey to Brazil.Police were out in force to protect the city's landmarks, but the rally passed off
peacefully. The issue remains one of the clearest dividing lines between Mr Pena Nieto and his leftwing opponents, and could be a deciding factor in local elections due this weekend.
Big opposition in Mexico to PEMEX reform
Estevez, June 26 2013, native of Mexico who lives and works in Washington D.C. as a Foreign
Correspondent. From 1989 to 2005 was bureau chief for El Financiero, Mexico’s leading
financial newspaper and covered the NAFTA negotiations, Dolia, Most Mexicans Oppose
President Peña Nieto's Plans To Open Up Pemex To Private Investment,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2013/06/26/most-mexicans-oppose-presidentpena-nietos-plans-to-open-up-pemex-to-private-investment/Dolia Estevez 13’
In London last week, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said he will push for a
“transformational” reformof Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Mexico’s state-owned
monopoly in oil and gas exploration and production. “There are different options on
what the reform should be, but I am confident … It will be transformational,” Peña Nieto
told the Financial Times, adding that the reform would include “the constitutional changes
needed to give private investors certainty.”
Foreign oil companies were expropriated by Mexican President Lazaro Cárdenas in 1938, and ever
since Mexico’s vast oil resources — 13.9 billion barrels of crude-oil and possibly the world’s
fourth-largest shale-gas reserves– became forbidden to outsiders. The Wall Street Journal
said the announcement highlights a “willingness to break with the past among young,
reformist members” of the PRI, Peña Nieto’s party. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell
are reported to be ready to return to Mexico, if Congress passes the measure. Both
were among the group of American and British companies expropriated 75 years ago.
But Mexicans are less than ready to support Peña Nieto’s most ambitious and controversial reform to
date. A new poll by the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), a research
institute, shows that 65 out of every 100 Mexicans are against opening up Pemex, the world’s
seventh-largest oil producer with annual sales of more than $100 billion. “Energy,
particularly oil, continues to be the stronghold of Mexican nationalism,” said CIDE.
Peña Nieto is counting on the Pact for Mexico, an alliance of the country’s top three
political parties, to try to get the reform passed. The proposal, which is expected to involve
reforming the Constitution, will need two-thirds support from Mexico’s Congress; the PRI, his party,
does not hold a simple majority in either house. Peña Nieto reported that he’s negotiating to
get the political support he needs to break the state monopoly. However, some analysts
believe that the Pacto, which succeeded in getting through a monopoly-busting telecom reform in
May, will not hold up this time. The left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD,
warned that they will oppose Pemex’s reform. Marcelo Ebrard, a popular former mayor
of Mexico City and likely PRD Presidential candidate in 2018, challenged Peña Nieto to a televised
debate on the oil overhaul. Former PRD Presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Lazaro
Cárdenas’ son, presented a counter proposal to “modernize” Pemex without changing
Article 27 of the Constitution to undo the historical ban on privatizing the company. His
proposal was endorsed Tuesday by top PRD politicians, including Ebrard and Mexico City
Mayor Miguel Angel Mancera, and the party’s congressional leaders.
Pemex claims there is a need to boost annual investment by 46%, to $37 billion, to tap
undeveloped shale-gas deposits and deep-water reserves. Peña Nieto says that while he
wants investment to come from private capital, he insists that Mexico’s oil and gas reserves will
remain under the state’s control, i.e. will not be sold to private firms or privatized.
Butmany Mexicans are skeptical. They believe that a better alternative would be for the government
to stop taking such a high tax from Pemex —40% of total government revenues — to allow it to
reinvest instead of leaving it struggling to fund investment. Then there is the ever present
problem of high-level corruption in Pemex that accounts for billions in losses. The press
has reported on government officials being paid millions of dollars by drug-connected
contractors for juicy contracts with Pemex. The lavish lifestyle of the oil workers union
leader, Carlos Romero Deschamps and his children, has also come out in the open.
Newspapers published Facebook FB +1.4% images of Paulina Romero, Romero
Deschamps’ daughter, boasting about her world travels aboard private jets
accompanied by her three English bulldogs — Keiko, Boli and Morgancita, dining in first
class restaurants with Vega Sicilia wines, and sporting Hermes luxury hand bags. His
brother, José Carlos Romero Durán, was also featured driving a $2 million limited
edition red Enzo Ferrari sport car, a gift from his father, whose trade union monthly
salary is $1,864. Opposition politicians are conditioning talks on the oil overhaul to the government
cracking down first on high level corruption, starting with Romero Deschamps.
1AR – Union Thumper
Teachers union protests hurt political capital
Montes 2013
Juan, “Strikes by Mexican Teachers Challenge New President,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578438882863242710.html
Last week, tens of thousands of teachers, some armed with metal bars and Molotov cocktails, marched
in Guerrero's capital, Chilpancingo. They again blocked for hours the highway that connects Mexico City
with the Pacific port of Acapulco, hurting a key economic and tourist hub. The demonstrations have
been held sporadically since the overhaul bill was signed.
A protracted conflict could undermine Mr. Peña Nieto's political capital as he is seeking wide
consensus for his ambitious agenda , which he put into action with the education-revamp bill just after
taking office on Dec. 1. It would also raise doubts over whether the education overhaul will be fully
implemented, analysts say. Government officials say the protests won't stop the changes from
proceeding.
1AR – Drug Thumper
Obama plans to aid Nieto in drug policy
Brewer 7/8 (Jerry, “Mexico's Law Enforcement and Police Policies Questioned”, Mexidata.info, 8 July
2013, http://www.mexidata.info/id3656.html) ~ew
Peña Nieto has vacillated from enforcement postures against drug traffickers and drug kingpins, to
pursuing violent criminals with more of a focus on so-called "traditional crime."His stated desires, to
move priorities away from drug arrests and seizures and simply towards violence reduction, have
created concern among US political leaders.
President Barack Obama speaks of close cooperation with Mexico, while moving "to a more humanistic
counternarcotics policy, and plans to strengthen communities in the border region with resources to
be dedicated to tackling substance abuse and violence through health and education programs." This
described as policies focused almost entirely on security, which too include broader social issues that
fuel organized crime and the drug trade. And this appears to be much of Peña Nieto's message.
Climate Co-op Popular
Climate change initiatives are popular—momentum
McCain 12
(Christina McCain, Ph.D., heads EDF's climate change initiatives in Mexico. She is a
formally trained tropical forest ecologist and works as a policy expert on tropical
forests and climate change, with an emphasis on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). “Mexico’s Congress looks to pass climate
change law this spring,” Environment Defense Fund, 2/1/12,
http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2012/02/01/mexicos-congress-looks-to-passclimate-change-law-this-spring/)
Particularly over
the last several years, the country has shown political willingness to address climate
change, with a pledge to halve its emissions by 2050 from 2000 levels, and a number of sweeping climate
change bills brought up in the Senate.Though the other climate bills never became law, the current bill’s overwhelming
approval in the Senate by a broad coalition of sponsors (76-2 with 5 abstentions) shows a stronger
momentum than we’ve seen .¶ While the political composition of Mexico’s lower chamber may mean the bill will not have as broad
support in the Chamber of Deputies as it had in the Senate, it may benefit from that momentum.¶ Meanwhile, President Felipe Calderón has
climate change is a top priority in his administration, and in mid-January signed a formal agreement with the U.S. to
“advance towards a green economy.”¶Mexico’s passing this bill to enshrine domestic action on climate change into law
guarantees the country’s efforts to curbing climate change can extend far beyond the current
president.
made clear
Plan popular—support from all parties
RTCC 13
(Responding to Climate Change (RTCC) is a Non-Governmental Organisation and an
official observer to the United Nations climate change negotiations dedicated to
raising awareness about climate change issues. “Mexico’s climate change laws,”
Responding to Climate Change, 2/19/13, http://www.rtcc.org/in-focus-mexicos-climate-changelaws/)
Mexico was the standout country in 2012 on climate change.¶ It passed a comprehensive climate change law – The
General Law on Climate Change – with the support of all major political parties , a real achievement in a usually
partisan Congress.¶ In parallel, Congress approved legislation to prepare for the implementation of so-called
REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).¶ This progressive stance is
indicative of Mexico’s positive approach to tackling climate change .¶ In 2005, Mexico successfully
lobbied to become part of the “+5″ group of countries to participate in the UK’s G8 Summit outreach
on climate change and subsequently hosted the 2006 meeting of the “Gleneagles Dialogue”, an informal forum on climate change
involving the G8 and major emerging economies.¶In the UN space, Mexico put forward proposals for a Green Fund,
hosted the annual UN negotiations in Cancun in 2010 and, as a member of both the OECD and the developing country bloc, it has acted as a
bridge between the rich and poor countries, helping to build trust.