SDI 2013 – MEXICO GRIDS AFF
*** SOLVENCY
Plan
The United States federal government should increase investment aimed to develop cross-border and
interconnected grid, transmission, and distribution infrastructure in Mexico.
Solvency – 1AC
Solvency
Absent US expertise about grid construction, Mexico renewable energy and trading fails
Esenaro 6-11 (Albert, Federally Licensed Lawyer in Mexico, Legal Specialist on Telecom, Energy, International
Business, and IT in Mexican Law, “Mexico Energy Grid Construction Provides Opportunity for Foreign
Companies,” JD Supra Law News, 2013, http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mexico-energy-grid-constructionprovides-42394/)
While Mexico has long been an energy producer thanks to its plentiful oil reserves, foreign investment in its energy
market has been rather difficult due to the fact that the oil industry was nationalized and is now under the thumb
of PEMEX, the Mexican oil monopoly. At first glance, this might mean that when private investors from abroad see that there’s
going to be some energy grid construction in Mexico, they might not get too excited. However, there’s a very good reason why
foreign companies should get excited about this planned energy grid construction that’s happening in the country south of the
United States: this energy grid will be powered by solar resources, not fossil fuels . The solar market in Mexico is
located on cheap land that’s right in the middle of the southern sun-belt in the desert states of Chihuahua and
Sonora; furthermore, the area receives so much sun that some experts are saying that a small patch of land (25 square kilometers)
will provide sufficient solar power to supply all of Mexico’s electricity needs . Because legislation has been passed in
Mexico’s government to reduce carbon emissions by 30% in the next seven years, companies have been switching over to renewable energy
resources. Natural gas in Mexico is in limited supply, so there’s been a big push to develop solar power. But what does this mean for foreign
companies? Well, first of all, Mexico is planning on making the grid far bigger than it needs to be to meet present demand
so that surplus energy produced can be exported to the United States . The U.S. has been described as a “guzzler of
electricity”, and during U.S. president Obama’s recent visit to Mexico City, the American head of state spoke of energy partnerships between
the two neighbors. This means that companies that specialize in cross-border transport infrastructure will have a lucrative
market exporting energy from the solar fields in Mexico to the United States. Furthermore, PEMEX doesn’t control renewables,
and there is only one utility to deal with, the CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad). This means that independent companies that
produce solar power can set up shop in Mexico and start contributing towards the grid . This might sound easy, but
already there have been several investors who have been unsuccessful with their solar companies in Mexico: although the land
is cheap and sun is plentiful, the
country doesn’t have the solar infrastructure or know-how just yet and solar
producers are more or less on their own to learn the ropes . Some, unfortunately, have gone in with a profound lack of
knowledge and have used obsolete solar panel technology . “You’ve got to bring your own support when you come to this
country, there is nobody here that knows solar, there is nobody here that knows wind ,” said John Skibinski, CEO of
Global Renewables Group, which has a subsidiary in Mexico.” “It’s new to the country and it requires training, development as well as
pilot installations. We’ve done that for the utilities, the banks and the government we’ve shown with pilot installations how we can reduce
GHG emissions. They are highly interested in new technology – they don’t want solar panels that are 15 years old, 100W panels not going to cut
it and they are already looking at 115W.” “I have seen 50 independent power producers apply for power plant generation –
two of them got approved,” he said. “The other 48 were on the wrong place on the grid . You’ve got to do your
homework when you want to put in an installation into Mexico . A utility will deny your application if it doesn’t fit
their needs, they are very good at what they do in terms of their grid.” As seen in the remarks above, companies that know what
they’re doing will have plenty of opportunities: foreign specialists in solar power can build power plants, and they
can also train, consult, and share knowledge with local Mexican firms.
New transmission infrastructure is key to energy trading and renewable development
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)
Transmission: the Crucial Element
Around the world, the development of the wind energy sector has depended on the availability and close proximity of
transmission lines. Unlike conventional sources of generating electricity, which can be located close to population centers and existing
transmission lines, wind (as well as solar and geothermal) plants must have transmission lines built to allow them to get
their electrons to market. Surveys of wind producers around the world have shown that development is hindered more by
transmission challenges than any other single factor . In Mexico this problem is made more severe by the fact that the
CFE has a constitutional monopoly over transmission and therefore there are no other outlets for wind Independent Power Producers (IPPs) if
CFE refuses to provide capacity. Moreover, CFE is prohibited from using public funds to build new transmission capacity if the energy
generators cannot prove that they are willing and ready to pay for the electrictity transmission service. On the other hand, many electricity
generators who want to build plants cannot get the financing they need unless they can prove that transmission capacity will exist
by the time they come online. In the case of Oaxaca, this problem has been resolved through close cooperation between IPPs, the
CFE and the CRE, which have developed an effective method of estimating future transmission demand through the use of open seasons. In an
open season system, a period of time is determined (often one year) during which electricity companies can indicate their intention to build new
plants and their need for transmission capacity. At the end of this time, the transmission authority (in this case the CFE) uses the results to justify
its investment in constructing new lines. 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.
Solvency – Expertise key
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/finalnicholasbenne
tt.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/finalnicholasbenne
tt.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 – 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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.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.
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.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 smallscale 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-aimed-at-raisinginternational-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-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-theus-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 cross-cutting 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%20index.pd
f
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%20index.pd
f
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 coexisted 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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.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 billion to
add another 7,866 circuit miles of 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
intermittency by smoothing drops in available capacity . The last major study of potential benefits of additional cross-border
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-to-be-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 self-supply 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 high-voltage 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.
*** US/MEXICO RELATIONS ADV
Relations Adv – 1AC
Advantage
: US-Mexico Border 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 .
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.
US-Mexico relations in the border region are failing – cooperation over resources spills over which solves
terrorism and biodiversity – clarity’s 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)
The 1,952-mile Mexico-U.S. border is unique. Only nine international land boundaries are longer, and only the longest of these
(Canada’s border with the United States) can claim the same flow of legal commerce and travel – almost $300 billion in trade each year.
Millions of people legally cross the frontier annually; because many of them do so several times a week, the total number of
crossings into the United States from Mexico exceeds 200 million per year. No other major national boundary sees anything like
this volume of traffic. The pacific nature of relations between the United States and Mexico also sets the border apart
from most other long land boundaries. It has been nearly a century since the last hostile action (U.S. raids in search of Pancho Villa after
his attacks on Columbus, New Mexico during the Mexican Revolution), decades more since the last major rectification of the frontier (the
Gadsden Purchase of 1853-4) and 161 years since a forcible seizure of territory (at the conclusion of the U.S.-Mexican War in 1848). The border
is policed – and where the boundary is not a river, often fenced – but it remains demilitarized. Interdependence is an abiding feature of
the U.S.-Mexico relationship, and this interdependence is particularly pronounced along the border itself, where most communities are
twin cities. In the case of Nogales, the towns on each side of the border share the same name; in the case of Calexico and Mexicali, they are
simply different combinations of the same words (Mexico and California). Hundreds of thousands of people from these communities commute
across the border for work, shopping, and visits with friends or relatives. Interdependence raises the stakes for both countries.
Because trade flows are so immense, misguided policies can impose tens of billions of dollars of costs each year on consumers.
Poor security coordination along the frontier could prove deadly and even, in the case of a serious terrorist threat,
disastrous. Sound joint management of shared resources can lead to sustained and ecologically sustainable
development in the border region, whereas mismanagement of these same resources by either government will produce
scarcity and environmental degradation. Finally, federal policies in both countries that ignore interdependence or reflexively promote
sovereignty over other considerations split border communities. In this report, we urge both governments to confront the challenges
of border management directly and immediately. We identify the policies they should adopt now to secure the border,
expedite legitimate crossings, manage shared resources, and foster economic development . We also articulate the ultimate goal to
which they should aspire, offering a conception of border management that can guide them as they adopt specific policies. Full Report 9 We
envision a system of border management that moves people and goods between the United States and Mexico far more quickly and efficiently
than the present arrangement but that also makes both nations more secure. This new system would expedite trade, encourage the
emergence of regional economic clusters, promote wise stewardship of shared natural resources, enhance efforts to preserve ecosystems that
cross the national boundary, and invite communities that dot and span the frontier to exploit opportunities for mutual benefit. Ultimately, the
border should be as “thin” as technologically and politically possible for those engaged in legitimate travel or commerce while remaining difficult
to penetrate for those engaged in criminal activity or unauthorized transit. Management of this shared boundary should serve as a
model for binational collaboration in confronting shared challenges. Few policymakers, legislators and opinion leaders fully
and misunderstanding of the situation at the border create a major
understand the border. Indeed, misperception
public relations challenge. Those seeking to improve management of this shared boundary and the region around it must inform
policymakers by describing the situation on the ground before their recommendations will make sense. In the next section of this report,
therefore, we offer our diagnosis of the situation on the ground today. We emphasize not only the deficiencies in border management but also the
“bright spots” along the frontier where cooperation has been exemplary. Significant cooperation between Mexico and the United
States already exists along the border, but it is incomplete, uneven, and unsystematic .
Sustaining the border region’s environment is key to overall biodiversity
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-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-theus-mexico)
Due to its vastness the
U.S.-Mexico border region encompasses an important wealth of natural resources and diverse ecosystems.
Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems, deserts, rangelands, and several forest types constitute sensitive and
invaluable natural features . For example, the Chihuahuan Desert supports 350 of the 1 500 known species of cacti in the world. Many
of these species are found only in single valleys. In the western region, the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation
of any desert in the world. A prominent feature of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts is the occurrence of mountain ranges separated by
extended valleys. These ranges provide habitats not present in the valleys and host species that contribute to the biodiversity of the
border territory. Urban settlements, along with agriculture and cattle ranches, generally occupy the valleys. Big waterways, like the Rio
Grande or the Colorado River, traverse the international border and support millions of people in large cities and rural towns.
The Rio Grande or Río Bravo, as it is known in Mexico, flows through five Mexican states and three U.S. states, and a dozen Native American
nations. All rely on it for irrigation. From the headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, through the semi-arid Colorado Plateau and the arid
Chihuahuan Desert, to its final subtropical ending in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Rio Grande sustains a diversity of critical ecosystems
and is crucial for wildlife , including animals as diverse as beavers, bears, kangaroo rats, and migratory birds. The Colorado River also
sustains a very biodiverse region encompassing six U.S. states and two Mexican states. The ecosystems along the Colorado are facing
unprecedented pressure from economic activities. The ecosystem’s water needs are rarely considered as agricultural production, industry, and a
rapidly growing urban population use all but a trickle of the river’s water. The Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries, which
are largely dependent on the estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and freshwater inflows from the Rio Grande. The coastal habitats at the mouth
of the Rio Grande are particularly important as breeding grounds and maturation areas for commercial fisheries in
the Gulf of Mexico. In the Pacific coastal area, a saltwater lagoon and slough mark the seaward end of the Tijuana River within the Tijuana
River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR). Established in 1982 to restore and preserve the integrity of the estuary as a functioning
ecosystem supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife resources, this protected area encompasses 2 500 acres of beach, dune, mudflat, saltmarsh,
riparian, coastal sage, and upland habitats. The reserve is home to eight threatened and endangered species, including the lightfooted clapper rail and the California least tern among others.
Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and ecosystems
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is ¶ irreversible.Human activities
haveelevatedtherate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995).
What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have
discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer ¶ (Novotny et al.
2002). As species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶human. Earth’s speciesare a vast genetic storehouse that
may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen – cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from
wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural
forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶
other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the
content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to
improve agricultural resilience , the inspiration for¶ manufactured products, and thebasis of the structure and function of the
ecosystems¶ that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and
livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). ¶ Less
tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their
own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even
more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009).
The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical
cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of
biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past
decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of
ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less
from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems
will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about
the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over
which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every
community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?Extinction
is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps
90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds
available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first?The field of conservation
planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and
Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not
protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing
biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species.
In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot
be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas
have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk
of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability
and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers described ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of
extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status.
A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers1990).After adopting hotspots
as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two
strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( ¶>¶ 0.5% of the world’s
total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspotson
the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but
revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these
regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots
but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered
another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region
that failed to meet the “less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
Independently, US border cooperation over electricity creates an effective response to a bio-terror attack – no
impact defense
CSIS 4 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, “U.S.-Mexico Border Security and the Evolving Security
Relationship,” CSIS Mexico Project, April, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0404_bordersecurity.pdf)
Before the September 11 and anthrax attacks in the United States in the fall of 2001, the potential for major terrorist attacks in North America was
not considered to be high. But those lethal surprise attacks on innocent civilians, and many developments since then, have
continually elevated the level of threat that the American people now confront. The retaliatory war waged successfully against
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the continuing military occupation of that country by coalition and other forces, the U.S. invasion and
subsequent occupation of Iraq, and other developments in the war against terror have greatly elevated awareness of the need to prepare for a
possible future attack. Managing Binational Bioterrorist Threats The threat of biological terrorism continues to be one of the
gravest concerns of U.S. authorities at the national, state, and local levels. These concerns have led to the perception that there is a
potential risk that Al Qaeda or other Islamist terrorist groups could attempt to exploit the long and porous U.S.Mexican border to infiltrate terrorists and biological weapons of mass destruction into the United States. The
relative ease with which illegal immigrants and illicit drugs are transported into the United States from and through
Mexico, and the wealth, skills, and experience of trafficking organizations, indicates that the threat of biological
terrorism through Mexico deserves sustained and serious attention. Moreover, the threat can only be addressed
seriously through extensive and increased collaboration by intelligence and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the
border. Increasingly, too, Mexican authorities have recognized that coordinating a response to a cross-border bioterrorist attack must involve
national, state, and local authorities in public health and other fields in both countries. For example, the high migratory flows and
generally long incubation periods of some biological pathogens would make it nearly impossible to isolate
communicable diseases within either country if a dangerous outbreak of disease occurred. Because of the enormous
flow of people back and forth along the border, public health calamities on either side inevitably would soon affect large populations on both
sides. Responsibility for anticipating and preparing for such disasters must be shared. Cooperation among medical, public health, emergency
preparedness, and first response organizations in both countries must be developed. Moreover, the level of awareness and fear of biological
terrorism has reached unprecedented levels in Mexico as well as in the United States. Despite the fact that there were no real anthrax attacks in
Mexico in the aftermath of those in the United States in the fall of 2001, Mexican public health officials were required to respond to a number of
hoaxes. At the peak of the anthrax crisis in the United States, the Mexican Ministry of Health received over 200 phone calls daily from worried
citizens. And, in August 2002, a bioterrorist scare in the border town of McAllen, Texas, required 70 people to be evacuated and forced officials
to close the main thoroughfare between Mexico and the United States. Mexico has entered into several bilateral and multilateral initiatives to
enhance its preparedness and response capabilities. At the multilateral level, Mexico is a member of the G-8’s Global Health Security Action
Group (GHSAG), which was created in 2001. In that capacity, Mexico has engaged in information sharing with member countries—Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, and Russia—and has participated in multilateral exercises to test international
bioterrorism response mechanisms, such as the Canadian-led Exercise Global Mercury, which simulated a smallpox outbreak. Bilaterally,
Mexico’s efforts have focused on developing enhanced disease surveillance capability along the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Mexican Ministry of Health, and border health officials
collaborated on the Border Infectious Disease Surveillance (BIDS) project. The BIDS project was initiated in 1997 in response to binational
consensus among public health officials on the need for a system for surveillance of infectious diseases along the border. The initiative has led to
the development of a network of selected clinical sites that conduct surveillance for infectious diseases along the border region. Mexico’s
participation in the BIDS project has led to greater interaction among public health officials on both sides of the border. More recently, Mexico
demonstrated its commitment to improving cross-border preparedness and response capability by offering to host the U.S. Office of Naval
Research conference on infectious disease and bioterrorism. Although government agencies on both sides of the border have
undertaken steps to prepare for biological attacks, the discussion of how government at various levels should prepare and be able
to respond remains
arguably more theoretical than practical . U.S.-Mexico Critical Infrastructure Protection The threat of
catastrophic terrorism has prompted U.S. homeland security officials to undertake a series of measures to secure the
nation’s critical infrastructure: food, water, agriculture, and health and emergency services; energy sources (electrical, nuclear,
gas and oil, dams); transportation infrastructure (air, roads, rails, ports, waterways); information and telecommunications networks; banking and
finance systems; postal and other assets; and other systems vital to our national security, public health and safety, economy, and way of life. The
resultant protective measures, however, cannot be undertaken in isolation if they are to effectively protect the U.S.
homeland. The intense integration and geographical proximity of Mexico and the United States makes bilateral
cooperation on critical infrastructure protection an imperative . As such, the secure infrastructure chapter of the smart border
accords committed the two governments to cooperation on surveying and protecting critical infrastructure in the border region. Critical
infrastructure in Mexico—both in the northern border region and elsewhere in the country—could be targeted by terrorists
attempting indirectly to do harm to the United States. Mexican infrastructure critical to U.S. interests includes a diversity of strategic
sites, ranging from oil and natural gas production facilities and pipelines, water supplies, power generating stations and grids, and other facilities
that, if destroyed or incapacitated for any length of time, would have significant adverse effects on both the United States and Mexico.
Bioterrorism results in extinction
Sandberg et al 8 – Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. PhD in computation
neuroscience, Stockholm—AND—Jason G. Matheny—PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at Johns
Hopkins. special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh—AND—Milan M.
Ćirković—senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade. Assistant professor of physics at
the University of Novi Sad. (Anders, How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?, 9 September 2008,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction)
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing
the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear
winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies . Advances in synthetic biology might make it
possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer
pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are selfreplicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in the
extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens
with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of
engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of causing human extinction . While
such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's
Law.
Relations Adv – U – Relations Low
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-drug-war-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-between-us-and-mexicothreatens-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/Border Key
Energy cooperation at the border is key – affects majority of US-Mexico interactions
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-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-theus-mexico)
A third definition is one that fundamentally defines the Border Governors Conference. Despite the independence of the two nations, the six
Mexican states and the four U.S. states that lie on the international boundary form a true transborder region, sharing
many common challenges and concerns. Shared issues involve transportation, logistics, energy , water, public services, and
socio-economic development, among others. Administrative systems are not the same in Mexico as they are in the United States, and the two
countries’ federal systems differ significantly regarding the autonomy granted local and state governments. Nevertheless, a prosperous,
highly functioning border region is in the interest of all 10 states, and it is not viable for the state governments to defer borderrelated matters to their respective federal or municipal governments. Providing regional platforms for innovation, entrepreneurialism, trade, and
global engagement, major transborder corridors traverse the region and are anchored by populous metropolitan areas. An example of one such
corridor is the Knowledge Corridor, connecting the Monterrey metropolitan area in the state of Nuevo León with the metropolitan areas of San
Antonio, Houston and Dallas in Texas. The Sun Corridor, connecting the metro areas of Phoenix, Tucson, and Nogales in Arizona with Nogales,
Hermosillo, and Obregón in Sonora, is an emerging transborder corridor. These and other corridors tend to consolidate linear urban systems that
already have highly interconnected businesses and knowledge centers. From a regional perspective, corridors provide another understanding of
the transborder region, as they represent the centers of intense and dynamic exchange between Mexico and the United States. No matter which
definition is used, the transborder region is central to U.S.-Mexico relations . There are three major reasons why an
efficient, highly functioning border is key to U.S.-Mexico relations. First, border states’ economies have been among the most
dynamic and fastest-growing of both countries. Second, the border is the point of entry for the vast bulk of
merchandise trade. Third, a surprisingly large share of Mexico-U.S. interaction occurs in the transborder region.
Though each of these points is important in itself, taken together they emphasize the fact that a healthy border region serves
both U.S. and Mexican national interests. Additionally, these points suggest that improved U.S.-Mexico relations are possible
through the promotion of more productive and prosperous economies on both sides of the borde r.
Relations Adv – Delay Fails/Now Key
This year/congress 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)
Mexico and U.S.-Mexican
relations are experiencing a time of transition . This transition may bring about advances in some
this process, the 113th Congress is likely to closely
monitor conditions in Mexico, as well as U.S.-Mexican cooperation on key issues as part of its legislative and oversight capacities.
areas of the bilateral relationship, while setbacks may occur in others. Throughout
Relations Adv – Energy Key/A2: Alt Causes
Closer collaboration’s key – outweighs alt causes
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)
The second general policy recommendation is to enhance current programs designed to build human capital in
renewable energy. Through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program, the work of the USAID and through the US‐Mexico TIES program, investments in
human capital are bringing long term benefits to Mexico’s renewable energy sector, and more should be done in this regard, both through
facilitating more and closer collaboration between university level programs and through support for Mexico‐based training
programs in the issue area. Renewable energy stands out as one of the most positive items on the bilateral agenda
between Mexico and the US today. Whereas the media coverage of Mexico is dominated by drugs, migration and
violence, the potential for Mexican renewable energy to contribute to development, employment and growth there, as well as helping to satisfy
growing demand for clean energy in the US, should be seen as a truly positive example of what can be achieved through sustained and well‐thought‐out
bilateral cooperation. With continued attention from agencies and firms on both sides of the border, the Mexican
renewable energy sector holds enormous potential to contribute even more in the future .
Relations Adv – Energy Key/Hegemony Impact
Energy cooperation’s key to the overall relations and US leadership
Roberts and Walser 13 (James M., Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for
International Trade and Economics – The Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Ray, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin
America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies – Heritage Foundation, “The Hagel,
Kerry, and Brennan Senate Confirmation Hearings: U.S. Policy for the Western Hemisphere,” Heritage Foundation,
1-18, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/kerry-hagel-and-brennan-senate-confirmation-hearings-uspolicy-for-the-western-hemisphere)
Mexico’s fight against organized crime has cast a doleful shadow over U.S.–Mexican relations . New Mexican
President Enrique Peña Nieto promises to restore citizen security and continue overhauling Mexico’s police and judiciary. Often overlooked
in the U.S. is Mexico’s emerging economic status—the world’s 11th largest economy and growing. If Mexico opens its energy
sector to equity participation with American companies (with their advanced deepwater, fracking, and horizontal drilling
technologies) and makes other serious reforms, it can reverse an alarming decline in its oil production and tap massive shale gas deposits.
The U.S. should continue to help Mexico fight organized crime with a continuation of the Merida Initiative, enhanced military-to-military ties,
and serious attention to building real citizen security. The U.S. and Mexico need to act jointly in troubled Central America,
particularly in the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) to combat trafficking organizations and shore up weak police and
judicial institutions. Investing in border infrastructure, avoiding protectionist flare-ups, and exploring new cross-border energy
alternatives can also cement a stronger U.S.–Mexico relationship . The U.S. will find it hard to project global
leadership without a democratic, prosperous, and stable Mexico .
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.the-americaninterest.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
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
Canada and Mexico
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 – Nuclear Terror Impact
Relations solve border terrorism and drug networks
Storrs 6 (K. Larry Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of
CRS, 1/18/2006 “Mexico’s Importance and MultipleRelationships with the United States”,
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33244_20060118.pdf)//JG
Sharing a 2,000-mile border and extensive interconnections through the Gulf of¶ Mexico, the United States and
Mexico are so intricately linked together in an¶ enormous multiplicity of ways that President George W. Bush and
other U.S.¶ officials have stated that no country is more important to the United States than¶ Mexico. At the same
time, Mexican President Vicente Fox (2000-2006), the first¶ president to be elected from an opposition party in 71
years, has sought to strengthen¶ the relationship with the United States through what some have called a “grand ¶
bargain.” Under this proposed bargain, the United States would regularize the status ¶ of undocumented Mexican
workers in the United States and economically assist the¶ less developed partner in the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA),¶ while Mexico would be more cooperative in efforts to control the illegal traffic of ¶ drugs,
people, and goods into the United States.¶ The southern neighbor is linked with the United States through trade and ¶
investment, migration and tourism, environment and health concerns, and family and ¶ cultural relationships. It is the
second most important trading partner of the United ¶ States, and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and
border communities. It¶ is a major source of undocumented migrants and illicit drugs and a possible avenue ¶ for the
entry of terrorists into the United States. As a result, cooperation with Mexico ¶ is essential to deal effectively with
migration, drug trafficking, and border,terrorism,¶ health, environment, and energy issues.
The impact is an attack on US soil
McCaul 12 – JD @ St. Mary’s, former federal prosecutor
(Michael, “A LINE IN THE SAND: COUNTERING CRIME, VIOLENCE AND TERROR AT THE
SOUTHWEST BORDER,” UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Lexis)//BB
Terrorism remains a serious threat to the security of the United States. The Congressional ¶ Research Service reports
that between September 2001 and September 2012, there have been 59 ¶ homegrown violent jihadist plots within the
United States. Of growing concern and potentially a ¶ more violent threat to American citizens is the enhanced
ability of Middle East terrorist¶ organizations, aided by their relationships and growing presence in the Western
Hemisphere, to¶ exploit the Southwest border to enter the United States undetected. This second edition ¶ emphasizes
America’s ever-present threat from Middle East terrorist networks, their increasing¶ presence in Latin America, and
the growing relationship with Mexican DTOs [Drug Trafficking Organizations] to exploit paths ¶ into the United
States.¶ During the period of May 2009 through July 2011, federal law enforcement made 29 arrests for ¶ violent
terrorist plots against the United States, most with ties to terror networks or Muslim ¶ extremist groups in the Middle
East. The vast majority of the suspects had either connections to ¶ special interest countries, including those deemed
as state sponsors of terrorism or were ¶ radicalized by terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. American-born al Qaeda
Imam Anwar al ¶ Awlaki, killed in 2011, was personally responsible for radicalizing scores of Muslim extremists ¶
around the world. The list includes American-born U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, the accused ¶ Fort Hood
gunman; “underwear bomber” Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab; and Barry Bujol of ¶ Hempstead, TX, convicted of
providing material support to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In ¶ several documented cases, al Awlaki moved his
followers to commit “jihad” against the United ¶ States. These instances, combined with recent events involving the
Qods Forces, the terrorist ¶ arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Hezbollah, serve as a stark reminder
the¶ United States remains in the crosshairs of terrorist organizations and their associates. In May of 2012, the Los
Angeles Times reported that intelligence gleaned from the 2011 raid on ¶ Osama bin Laden’s compound indicated
the world’s most wanted terrorist sought to use¶ operatives with valid Mexican passports who could illegally cross
into the United States to ¶ conduct terror operations.3¶ The story elaborated that bin Laden recognized the importance
of al ¶ Qaeda operatives blending in with American society but felt that those with U.S. citizenship who ¶ then
attacked the United States would be violating Islamic law. Of equal concern is the¶ possibility to smuggle
materials, including uranium, which can be safely assembled on U.S. soil¶ into a weapon of mass destruction.
Nuclear war
Ayson 10 - Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the
Victoria University of Wellington
(Robert, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7,
InformaWorld)//BB
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are
not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear
terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or
more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place
allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising
the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in
the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may
require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear
terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack
on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the
picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of
terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that
could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example,
how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear
terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear
laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction
given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be
“spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a
wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most
important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear
terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully
responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally
countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington
would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly
Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear
Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s
relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers,
would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring
would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with
Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these
developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur
in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could
Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible
perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil
might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For
example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president
might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In
such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that
Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be
admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
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
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.
increased investment in Mexico would be more effective in reducing illegal migration from Mexico than a border fence.
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.
*** ENERGY TRADING ADV
Energy Trading Adv – 1AC
Advantage
: Energy Trading
Energy trade between the US and Mexico is insufficient – new transmission’s key to broader energy trading
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
With the exception of power transfers across the California border, international exchanges with Mexico are currently limited to
rare emergencies, such as Texas’ deep freeze February 2-4, 2011.9 ERCOT, which manages 85% of the state’s electric load, purchased power
from Mexico to alleviate the energy shortage. There is considerable interest, however, in increasing the capacity for cross-
border transmission, particularly by states enacting aggressive renewable portfolio standards that could be met by
wind and solar resources in northern Mexico . California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative has identified Baja California as
one of its most cost-effective and easily accessible potential suppliers (Wood 2010). However, according to the USAID, current plans
to expand transmission capacity along that stretch of the border are insufficient ; moreover, it is unclear who should
pay for such investment, be it the suppliers, the Mexican Federal Electricity Commission, California’s Imperial Irrigation District, or a third
party (Garrison 2010). According to a report by the Pacific Council for International Policy, lack of a “binational plan for electricity
generation or transmission” is a significant barrier to resolving this dilemma (PCIP 2009).
Grid collapse inevitable – cooperative energy trading is key
Terry 12 (Alison, Master’s candidate at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies,
“Policy and Practice in North American Energy Security,” International Affairs Review, XX(3), Spring,
http://www.iar-gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/North%20American%20Energy%20Security.pdf)
Threats to energy security can take the form of natural disasters , cyber attacks , or regional disputes involving
exporting countries. Each of these situations has the potential to disrupt supply flows and impair the functioning of
critical infrastructure. Hurricane Katrina served as an integrated shock because it simultaneously interrupted flows of oil,
natural gas, and electricity throughout North America.2 Canada and Mexico assisted the US Federal Emergency Management
Agency with disaster response. This event demonstrates that cooperative continental defense strategies can help to ensure
energy security. The idea of energy interdependence is particularly relevant to North America because the United States, Canada, and
Mexico import and export energy from one another . Rather than operating the North American energy markets individually for each
country, the United States, Canada, and Mexico should develop regional markets that can overlap easily across the
international borders .3 For example, Canada is currently the largest supplier of energy to the United States.4 In 2010, 25.1 percent of net
US oil imports came from Canada and 8.5 percent came from Mexico.5 The United States provides 65.9 percent of Mexico’s net natural gas
imports.6 Although the three countries cannot completely satisfy their energy needs in a North American triad, the relationship of energy
sharing could act as a stabilizing force for the continent in the face of tenuous import-export relationships in the
international energy trade.
US transmission assistance is key to black-out proof energy transfers
Bawa 12 (Harmeet, Head of Communications – ABB's Power Products and Power Systems, “Strengthening the
electricity bond between the US and Mexico,” http://www.abb-conversations.com/2012/12/strengthening-theelectricity-bond-between-the-us-and-mexico/)
Interconnections between countries help optimize power systems, bring energy efficiency benefits and increase
power security for consumers. The Sharyland asynchronous interconnection, located on the banks of the Rio Grande River, was the first of
its kind when commissioned in 2007, to support emergency electricity needs and commercial power exchange between Texas and Mexico. The
150-megawatt high-voltage direct current (HVDC) tie interconnector is designed to enable two-way electricity transfers between completely
independent power grids. It also allows sharing of reserves, facilitates cross-border trading and increases the reliability of both grids. The back-toback system has a capacity to deliver 150 megawatts (MW) of power in either direction. In addition to the fast and precise ‘active’ and ‘reactive’
power control features integrated with HVDC technology, the interconnection is also equipped with a ‘black start’ capability,
which enables the grid to be restored quickly in the event of a power outage and allows power to be used from the
other end of the link. The link also has a built in ‘firewall’ functionality which prevents disturbances from
spreading between the grids . It is also capable of unmanned or remote operation from a dispatch center in the ERCOT
network on the US side. ABB will now build another 150 megawatt (MW) back-to-back HVDC converter station in Mission, Texas, adjacent to
the existing site and the two stations will work in parallel to provide a combined transmission capacity of up to 300 MW. This enhancement in
power supply will support economic growth in the region and will strengthen the local grids on both sides. ABB will additionally deliver highvoltage equipment including power transformers and thyristor valves. The station is scheduled to go into operation in 2014. Most of
Mexico’s electricity generation comes from conventional thermal plants , mainly fuelled by natural gas. As per EIA (US Energy
Information Administration) the electricity trade between the US and Mexico dates back to 1905, when private utilities in remote towns on both
sides, exchanged electricity across low-voltage lines, to help each other meet demand. As the sector developed more cross-border transmission
lines were constructed though relatively limited in capacity and U.S.-Mexico electricity trade has remained small. Mexico has been a marginal
net exporter of electricity to the US since 2006 and power sales from Mexico to California offset exports from Texas to Mexico in 2010.
Preliminary 2012 data however indicates that Mexico has begun to import more electricity from the US and electricity sales from Mexico to the
US could also increase in the mid-term, as the US Department of Energy recently issued a Presidential permit for a 230 kilovolt
transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border. When completed, this link will supply electricity from a Mexican
wind farm to the California market.
Grid interconnectivity is key – enhances grid security and generates additional investment into renewables
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
Growth in energy demand and generating capacity is outpacing growth in the transmission and distribution
system—a situation that poses real challenges on both sides of the United States-Mexico border. The six Mexican states
and four US states that comprise the border region face similar energy issues and constraints to each country as a whole. Decreasing reserve
margins and peak demand trends suggest the need to add generating and transmission capacity in both countries—a
concern that can potentially be mitigated by increases in electricity trade and power sharing. Electricity grid interconnection can
reduce domestic supply concerns and enhance overall grid reliability in addition to yielding environmental benefits through
the promotion of renewable source generation. No entity has conducted a study of the entire US-Mexico border region as a single geographic
region on the topic of energy use. As a result, this chapter seeks to compile relevant data from various studies to provide a holistic view of the
main trends and indicators of importance in the border region. Additionally, it analyzes recent developments in the consumption and demand for
electricity in the United States-Mexico border region and its impacts for a North American integration scenario—specifically, within the border
states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. This analysis
finds that an optimized, integrated grid would increase overall grid reliability and induce capital investment in
generation and transmission capacity.
The impact is blackouts –
They’re coming soon – new grid expansion’s key
Mead 6-9 (Walter Russell, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities, Bard College,
“California Closer to Blackouts?,” American Interest, 2013, http://blogs.the-americaninterest.com/wrm/2013/06/09/california-closer-to-blackouts/)
The Golden State’s power supply is struggling to keep up with demand , and the state was just hit with some bad news on
that front last week. One utility announced on Friday that it would not be reopening a shuttered nuclear facility in Southern
California. The San Onofre nuclear plant was closed last year over safety concerns after a radioactive steam leak; the plant’s operators vowed
to fix the problem and reopen, but 17 months later have decided to close San Onofre for good. Nuclear power carries with it a small chance of
very big risk. Safety should be the top priority at these facilities, and the utility had good reason to close San Onofre. According to the LA Times,
an “unprecedented” number of tubes in the reactor failed pressure tests, and “thousands more tubes in both of the plant’s units showed signs of
wear.” But this decision could take a toll on Californian consumers, who are already paying for a $780 million project that replaced
steam generators at San Onofre a few years ago. The utility spent more than $500 million trying to repair the facility before scrapping it, and it’s
unclear if ratepayers will eat that cost as well. But the loss of San Onofre isn’t just driving up prices for electricity, it’s also
straining the supply . The facility produced 2,246 MW, enough to power more than two million homes . The EIA
reports that California has brought on enough new generators to offset the San Onofre closing, but this won’t be enough; the electricity grid
needs to be expanded to accomodate this new supply. And the California energy problem doesn’t stop there . The
state’s reliance on renewable energy has exposed it to intermittency problems. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, how will
the state get the power it needs? California needs to act quickly to fix its looming energy problems, or it might return to
the “rolling blackouts” epidemic that hit the state in the early 2000s.
That makes economic collapse inevitable
Jagdfeld 12 (Aaron, President and CEO of Generac Power Systems, “India-Style Blackout Could Strike The U.S.”
Forbes, 8-6, http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/08/06/india-style-blackout-could-strike-the-u-s/)
More people in the United States were affected by power outages last year than at any time in the industrial age. Yet what we faced during
the past year pales in comparison to the largest electrical outage in world history that knocked out power to nearly 700
million people last week in India, crippling their economy. The U.S. is one of the most developed nations in the world. Our dayto-day interactions are guided by technologies and innovations that rely uponthe power grid. But as we continue to develop
technological mastery, our power grid is aging and fragile, and itssusceptibility to outages means our way of life could
break down in an instant. Unlike generations past, our lives and businesses are now connected through a vast network of
computers and data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity. Our homes are bigger, with more luxuries and
appliances than ever. We count on power in ways our parents couldn’t imagine. Power quality is the measure of reliable power in
our homes and businesses, and it has been declining steadily since 1990. During this time, demand for power has increased by
25%, but the infrastructure needed to transmit power to homes has increased by a mere 7%. We have become a digital society, but
areburdened with an analog power grid—one that is inefficient and susceptible to weather, surging demand, and even
terrorist attack. Each outage comes at a cost; the average cost of a one-second outage among industrial and digital firms is about $1,477. That
means the U.S. economy loses between $104 billion and $164 billion each year topower outages. Losses like that affect all of
us. An outage lasting days, as in India, would represent hundreds of billions of dollars lost, taxing our already fragile
economy. Fixing our power grid is no simple feat. The best estimates put the price tag for a new grid at two trillion dollars, or about 14% of our
current gross domestic product. There is no legitimate national plan to create a new grid, nor are there public funds available to fix the grid we
have. American utility companies are as constrained as the government when it comes to meaningful investment in grid improvement. The 3,200
utility companies that touch the power grid are regulated by an equal number of agencies, many of which exist solely to minimize cost to
consumers. This is undeniably good for consumers in most cases, but it has left us with a broken power grid that no one is responsible for (or
capable of) fixing. To address the frequent power outages we’ve been experiencing, we must secure a massive commitment of resources from
both public and private sectors. In the absence of such a commitment, Americans must prepare for outages, blackouts, brownouts
and chaotic power reliability. We must commit ourselves to the knowledge that long-duration power outages are not something that
happens elsewhere. India is only geographically distant from us; its current power outage is actually far closer than we might think. Preparation
will take many forms. Families must have a supply of food and water that is not dependent on electricity to store or prepare. Businesses must
back-up data and maintain secure facilities that don’t require grid-based power to remain viable. But these are the very first steps. What about the
necessities of modern life, such as lighting, heat, air conditioning, communications, or more importantly, medical devices? For those we must
turn to off-grid sources of power. There is no perfect solution to address our electrical grid’s disrepair or our nation’s increasingly poor power
quality. Fixing the grid is staggeringly expensive at a time when our nation’s budget is tight. The cost of an Indian-sized outage isn’t
simply expensive; it’s a cost we cannot bear. Meantime, we should prepare for the next outage.
Guarantees war – prefer conclusive statistics
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Program -- DOD, Economics of War & Peace: Legal
and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith &Brauer, p. 213-15)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a
moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defencebehaviour of interdependent states. Research in this
vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins
(2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are
associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next.
As such, exogenous shocks such aseconomic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that
leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalc ulation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
(Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows the global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles
impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996,
2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain
pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to
gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trigger expectations either on its own or because it triggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a
national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly
during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession
tends to amplify the extent to which international and external self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg& Hess, 2002, p. 89). Economic decline has
also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Bloomberg, Hess, &Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill
across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. 'Diversionary theory'
suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996, DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find
supporting evidence showing that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact
that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has
provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak
Presidentialpopularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship
positively correlateseconomic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic, and national levels. 5 This implied connection between
integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation
is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those
mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.
They go nuclear
Merlini, Senior Fellow – Brookings, 11 [CesareMerlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States
and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He
served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of
the Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic
relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and
technology. A Post-Secular World? Survival, 53:2, 117 – 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first
scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system .One or more of the acute tensions apparent today
evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states , perhaps even involvingthe use of nuclear weapons .The crisis
might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced,
and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first.
Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would selfinterest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism,
including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have
potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and
identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes,
competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
And, Blackouts cause nuclear meltdowns
Capiello 11(Dina, Huffington Post, “Long Blackouts Pose Risk To U.S. Nuclear Reactors” 3/29/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/blackout-risk-us-nuclear-reactors_n_841869.html)
A 2003 federal analysis looking at how to estimate the risk of containment failure said that should power be knocked
out by an earthquake or tornado it "would be unlikely that power will be recovered in the time frame to prevent core
meltdown." In Japan, it was a one-two punch: first the earthquake, then the tsunami. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled
plant, found other ways to cool the reactor core and so far avert a full-scale meltdown without electricity. "Clearly the coping duration is an issue
on the table now," said Biff Bradley, director of risk assessment for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will have to go back in light of what we just observed and rethink station blackout duration." David Lochbaum, a former plant
engineer and nuclear safety director at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, put it another way: "Japan shows what happens
when you play beat-the-clock and lose." Lochbaum plans to use the Japan disaster to press lawmakers and the nuclear power industry to
do more when it comes to coping with prolonged blackouts, such as having temporary generators on site that can recharge batteries. A
complete loss of electrical power, generally speaking, poses a major problem for a nuclear power plant because the
reactor core must be kept cool, and back-up cooling systems – mostly pumps that replenish the core with water_ require
massive amounts of power to work. Without the electrical grid, or diesel generators, batteries can be used for a time,
but they will not last long with the power demands. And when the batteries die, the systems that control and monitor
the plant can also go dark, making it difficult to ascertain water levels and the condition of the core . One variable not
considered in the NRC risk assessments of severe blackouts was cooling water in spent fuel pools, where rods once
used in the reactor are placed. With limited resources, the commission decided to focus its analysis on the reactor
fuel, which has the potential to release more radiation. An analysis of individual plant risks released in 2003 by the NRC shows that
for 39 of the 104 nuclear reactors, the risk of core damage from a blackout was greater than 1 in 100,000. At 45 other plants the risk is greater
than 1 in 1 million, the threshold NRC is using to determine which severe accidents should be evaluated in its latest analysis. The Beaver Valley
Power Station, Unit 1, in Pennsylvania had the greatest risk of core melt – 6.5 in 100,000, according to the analysis. But that risk may have been
reduced in subsequent years as NRC regulations required plants to do more to cope with blackouts. Todd Schneider, a spokesman for FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Co., which runs Beaver Creek, told the AP that batteries on site would last less than a week. In 1988, eight years after labeling
blackouts "an unresolved safety issue," the NRC required nuclear power plants to improve the reliability of their diesel generators, have more
backup generators on site, and better train personnel to restore power. These steps would allow them to keep the core cool for four to eight hours
if they lost all electrical power. By contrast, the newest generation of nuclear power plant, which is still awaiting approval, can last 72 hours
without taking any action, and a minimum of seven days if water is supplied by other means to cooling pools. Despite the added safety measures,
a 1997 report found that blackouts – the loss of on-site and off-site electrical power – remained "a dominant contributor to the risk of core melt at
some plants." The events of Sept. 11, 2001, further solidified that nuclear reactors might have to keep the core cool for a longer period without
power. After 9/11, the commission issued regulations requiring that plants have portable power supplies for relief valves and be able to manually
operate an emergency reactor cooling system when batteries go out. The NRC says these steps, and others, have reduced the risk of core melt
from station blackouts from the current fleet of nuclear plants. For instance, preliminary results of the latest analysis of the risks to the Peach
Bottom plant show that any release caused by a blackout there would be far less rapid and would release less radiation than previously thought,
even without any actions being taken. With more time, people can be evacuated. The NRC says improved computer models, coupled with up-todate information about the plant, resulted in the rosier outlook. "When you simplify, you always err towards the worst possible circumstance,"
Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said of the earlier studies. The latest work shows that "even in situations
where everything is broken and you can't do anything else, these events take a long time to play out," he said. "Even when you get to releasing
into environment, much less of it is released than actually thought." Exelon Corp., the operator of the Peach Bottom plant, referred all detailed
questions about its preparedness and the risk analysis back to the NRC. In a news release issued earlier this month, the company, which operates
10 nuclear power plants, said "all Exelon nuclear plants are able to safely shut down and keep the fuel cooled even without electricity from the
grid." Other people, looking at the crisis unfolding in Japan, aren't so sure. In the worst-case scenario, the NRC's 1990 risk assessment predicted
that a core melt at Peach Bottom could begin in one hour if electrical power on- and off-site were lost, the diesel
generators – the main back-up source of power for the pumps that keep the core cool with water – failed to work and
other mitigating steps weren't taken. "It is not a question that those things are definitely effective in this kind of scenario," said Richard
Denning, a professor of nuclear engineering at Ohio State University, referring to the steps NRC has taken to prevent incidents. Denning had
done work as a contractor on severe accident analyses for the NRC since 1975. He retired from Battelle Memorial Institute in 1995. "They
certainly could have made all the difference in this particular case," he said, referring to Japan. "That's assuming you have stored these things in a
place that would not have been swept away by tsunami."
Extinction
Lendman ‘11 (Stephen – BA from Harvard University and MBA from Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania, “Nuclear Meltdown in Japan” 3/13/11 http://rense.com/general93/nucmelt.htm)
nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with
extinction. If present trends continue, theair we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon
becontaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague
humanity has ever experienced." More below on the inevitable dangers from commercial nuclear power proliferation, besides added military ones. On March 11, New York Times writer Martin Fackler
headlined, "Powerful Quake and Tsunami Devastate Northern Japan," saying: "The 8.9-magnitude earthquake (Japan's strongest ever) set off a devastating tsunami that sent walls of water (six meters
For years, Helen Caldicott warned it's coming. In her 1978 book, "Nuclear Madness," she said: "As a physician, I contend that
high) washing over coastal cities in the north." According to Japan's Meteorological Survey, it was 9.0. The Sendai port city and other areas experienced heavy damage. "Thousands of homes were destroyed, many roads were
Striking at 2:46PM
Tokyo time, it caused vast destruction, shook city skyscrapers, buckled highways, ignited fires, terrified millions, annihilated
areas near Sendai, possibly killed thousands, and caused a nuclear meltdown, its potential catastrophic effects far exceeding quake and
tsunami devastation, almost minor by comparison under a worst case scenario. On March 12, Times writer Matthew Wald headlined, "Explosion Seen at
impassable, trains and buses (stopped) running, and power and cellphones remained down. On Saturday morning, the JR rail company" reported three trains missing. Many passengers are unaccounted for.
Damaged Japan Nuclear Plant," saying: "Japanese officials (ordered evacuations) for people living near two nuclear power plants whose cooling systems broke down," releasing radioactive material, perhaps in far greater amounts
than reported. NHK television and Jiji said the 40-year old Fukushima plant's outer structure housing the reactor "appeared to have blown off, which could suggest the containment building had already been breached." Japan's nuclear
regulating agency said radioactive levels inside were 1,000 times above normal. Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami
, under a worst case core meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be
threatened with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live in. On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued
damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover
a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that
such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to
contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within
Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In
For the past 23 years, it has been
clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one
reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
"No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One
nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if
specialized concrete" as at
their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "
Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from
being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said
Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No.
The possibility of an extreme
catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have
1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious.
occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island
that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan's quake fallout may
cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion,"
massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an
apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia, China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die, potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far
that, in fact, occurred. As a result,
outside East Asia. Moreover, at least five reactors are at risk. Already, a 20-mile wide radius was evacuated. What happened in Japan can occur anywhere. Yet Obama's proposed budget includes $36 billion for new reactors, a
shocking disregard for global safety. Calling Fukushima an "apocalyptic event," Wasserman said "(t)hese nuclear plants have to be shut," let alone budget billions for new ones. It's unthinkable, he said. If a similar disaster struck
California, nuclear fallout would affect all America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America. Nuclear Power: A Technology from Hell Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott agrees, telling this writer by phone that a
potential regional catastrophe is unfolding. Over 30 years ago, she warned of its inevitability. Her 2006 book titled, "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" explained that contrary to government and industry propaganda, even during
normal operations, nuclear power generation causes significant discharges of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every
nuclear plants are atom bomb factories.
year. Moreover,
A 1000 megawatt reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually. Only 10 are needed for a bomb able to devastate a large city,
besides causing permanent radiation contamination. Nuclear Power not Cleaner and Greener Just the opposite, in fact. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, a vast
infrastructure is required. Called the nuclear fuel cycle, it uses large amounts of fossil fuels. Each cycle stage exacerbates the problem, starting with the enormous cost of mining and milling uranium, needing fossil fuel to do it. How
then to dispose of mill tailings, produced in the extraction process. It requires great amounts of greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate. Moreover, other nuclear cycle steps also use fossil fuels, including converting uranium to
hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the enrichment process itself, and conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful
life require large amounts of energy. There's more, including contaminated cooling water, nuclear waste, its handling, transportation and disposal/storage, problems so far unresolved. Moreover, nuclear power costs and risks are so
enormous that the industry couldn't exist without billions of government subsidized funding annually. The Unaddressed Human Toll from Normal Operations Affected are uranium miners, industry workers, and potentially everyone
living close to nuclear reactors that routinely emit harmful radioactive releases daily, harming human health over time, causing illness and early death. The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable, depending only on
the amount of cumulative exposure over time, Caldicott saying: "If a regulatory gene is biochemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin to incubate cancer, during a 'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting from two to
sixty years." In fact, a single gene mutation can prove fatal. No amount of radiation exposure is safe. Moreover, when combined with about 80,000 commonly used toxic chemicals and contaminated GMO foods and ingredients, it
causes 80% of known cancers, putting everyone at risk everywhere. Further, the combined effects of allowable radiation exposure, uranium mining, milling operations, enrichment, and fuel fabrication can be devastating to those
exposed. Besides the insoluble waste storage/disposal problem, nuclear accidents happen and catastrophic ones are inevitable. Inevitable Meltdowns Caldicott and other experts agree they're certain in one or more of the hundreds of
reactors operating globally, many years after their scheduled shutdown dates unsafely. Combined with human error, imprudently minimizing operating costs, internal sabotage, or the effects of a high-magnitude quake and/or tsunami,
an eventual catastrophe is certain. Aging plants alone, like Japan's Fukushima facility, pose unacceptable risks based on their record of near-misses and meltdowns, resulting from human error, old equipment, shoddy maintenance, and
poor regulatory oversight. However, under optimum operating conditions, all nuclear plants are unsafe. Like any machine or facility, they're vulnerable to breakdowns, that if serious enough can cause enormous, possibly catastrophic,
harm. Add nuclear war to the mix, also potentially inevitable according to some experts, by accident or intent, including Steven Starr saying: "Only a single failure of nuclear deterrence is required to start a nuclear war," the
consequences of which "would be profound, potentially killing "tens of millions of people, and caus(ing) long-term, catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of Earth's protective ozone layer. The result
would be a global nuclear famine that could kill up to one billion people." Worse still is nuclear winter, the ultimate nightmare, able to end all life if it happens. It's nuclear proliferation's unacceptable risk, a clear and present danger as
long as nuclear weapons and commercial dependency exist. In 1946, Enstein knew it, saying: "Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power
of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." He envisioned two choices - abolish all forms of nuclear power or face extinction. No one listened. The Doomsday
Clock keeps ticking.
Energy Trading Adv – Grid Construction Key
Grid construction key//possible QPQ solvency
Richford 6-14 (Megan, Executive Marketing Assistant – North American Production Sharing, “Vision for
Renewable Energy in Mexico Looks Promising,” Cision, 2013, http://news.cision.com/north-american-productionsharing--inc-/r/vision-for-renewable-energy-in-mexico-looks-promising,c9428687)
When it comes to renewable energy investments, Mexico is at the forefront for foreign investors who are looking
to manufacturing in Mexico while the country moves to more solar and wind projects. In fact, the renewable energy
movement in Mexican manufacturing is huge when it comes to how this country is pursuing power sources other than fossil fuels. Also, there
are recent U.S. and United Nations studies that points to Mexico leading the way in developing more "green" energy
programs. Mexican manufacturing goes green At a time when manufacturing in Mexico is booming, there is an associated trend for the country
to spend more on natural energy projects to help boost the overall production and sales of clean-energy technologies and processes. Moreover, the
UN Environment Program (UNEP) praised Mexico for its processes for creating more low-carbon green energies that is designed to make the
country more focused on green energy manufacturing both today and in the future. The UNEP also stated in a news release how Mexico is
jumping on this global trend to go “green” with the development of more solar and wind manufacturing and technology performance. Mexico
surges in green energy investment The UNEP report on regional surges in green energy investment pointed to spending growing steadily in
Mexico as investments continue to pour in from the U.S. and other foreign countries that understand the importance of emerging economies when
it comes to cost-competitiveness for wind and solar power manufacturing. In fact, a U.S. Department of Energy report notes how investments
in environmentally friendly energy sources are shifting to developing nations such as Mexico with its energy grid
construction that is also providing huge investment openings for U.S. and other foreign company investment . For
instance, Mexico has an international reputation as an energy producer . However, the country is moving away from just focusing
foreign investments on its vast natural oil reserves. In turn, Mexico is presenting investors with an opportunity to invest in its
new energy grid construction projects that are powered by wind and solar sources over previous methods that focused more
on oil and other fossil fuels. Promoting solar resources in Mexico Mexico’s government has been at the forefront in the trend to reduce carbon
emissions by more than 30% during the current decade, states information from the country’s energy agency that is currently promoting the
development of wind and solar power sources to meet the country’s growing electricity requirements. Another aspect of Mexico’s
planning for more natural energy investments and partnerships is linked to a plan that will export surplus energy
produced in Mexico to nearby partners in the U.S. In turn, this Mexico – U.S. natural energy partnership is
spawning new interest for overseas investors who view the exporting of energy as a lucrative new green market for
investment. Overall, Mexico continues to be at the cutting-edge when it comes to the development of solar and wind
energy sources and other renewable resource programs.
Energy Trading Adv – Grid Constriction Key/No Trading Now
US-Mexico energy trading is limited – grid construction is key
EIA 5-17 (US Energy Information Administration, “Mexico Week: U.S.-Mexico Electricity Trade is Small, with
Tight Regional Focus,” Today in Energy, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11311)
U.S. electricity trade with Mexico represents a small fraction —less than a hundredth of a percent—of total U.S.
electricity use. A small amount of electricity trade with Mexico exists in California, New Mexico, and Texas, where
transmission lines cross the border (see map): Between Southern California and Baja California, electricity is generally imported from a
few power plants on the Mexican side to supply demand in the San Diego area. A small portion of the Baja California, Mexico, grid
participates in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, which covers the western United States as well as Alberta and British Columbia in
Canada. At even lower voltage levels, a few ties connect southern and western Texas with the Mexican states of Tamaulipas and
Chihuahua. However, these ties are asynchronous, meaning that the transmission systems on either side can operate independently. Trade
mainly occurs during periods of constrained supply within the ERCOT (Texas side) or Mexican transmission systems. Electricity
trade between the United States and Mexico has existed since 1905, when privately owned utilities located in remote towns on
both sides of the border helped meet one another's electricity demand with a few cross-border low voltage lines. Transmission across the U.S.Canada border, meanwhile, is more integrated. Mexico has been a very small net exporter of electricity to the United States
since 2006. Power sales from Mexico to California more than offset exports from Texas to Mexico in 2010, although 2012 data suggest that
Mexico has begun to import more electricity from the United States. The flow of electricity from Mexico to the United States
could increase, as the Department of Energy recently issued a presidential permit to a subsidiary of Sempra International for construction,
operation, maintenance, and connection of a 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border. When
completed, the transmission line will supply electricity from a Mexican wind farm to the California market . Unlike in the
United States or Canada, the vast majority of power plants in Mexico and the entire transmission and distribution network
are owned and operated by a government-owned monopoly, the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) . After Mexico
passed the Electricity Public Service Act in 1992, independent power producers were allowed to construct electric power plants and sell power to
CFE, leading a number of U.S. companies to build power plants in Mexico across the border from Southern California.
Energy Trading Adv – Low Electricity Prices
Lowers electicity prices
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
Given the main listed provisions does not totally explain the almost null electricity trade at the sub-regional level, between Texas
ERCOT and Mexico (taken as one integrated market), mainly in asynchronous, direct current DC manner; and a more integrated
synchronous DC and AC (alternating current) connects between Baja California in Northwestern Mexico and California (Baja California is part
of the US Western Electricity Coordinating Connection or WECC). Turning electricity
from a public good towards a tradable
good has rendered benefits in more integrated systems in the world, such as Nordic countries, Western Europe, but also
Canadian provinces with the United States, in terms of reliability and security for the systems, but also because it has included open access
to better technologies and sources of energy that move prices downwards and extend electricity sourcing strategies
to private, mostly industrial, users. Additionally, Canadian energy carries the renewable and green tag as a complementary good/service
for regional US markets to reach green objectives (Goodman 2010).
Energy Trading Adv – Back Up Services
Cooperative grid development is key to back-up services – that prevents a blackout
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
In the case of Baja California, emergencies in California or south of the border have been possible in a more integrated
way, since the Mexican Baja state is part of WECC and has no problems compulsorily connecting with CFE across the peninsula, because it
operates separate from the rest of the Mexican grid. CFE has a signed long-term contract with San Diego Gas and Electric and
Southern California Edison, of 220 MW with a firm Purchasing Power Agreement (PPA) since 1984 (interview with Mr. Arias, January 9, 2012).
So a second level of integration is to invest in deeper connects , again, for back-up services , both north and south of
the California border but where electricity flows are more continuous and day-to-day, with both DC and AC
connectors. Thirdly, a more cooperative infrastructure development could be ensued in parallel across the borders,
where the two systems are not planned to be integrated but costs of infrastructure expansion are allocated in each
country, such as in some parts of Canada that then invests in connections (Goodman 2010). This could be a case of cooperation in
national investment projects while keeping them independent but where ancillary services and convergence of
wheeling and price practices are shared. A related case is the possibility to have a trading interest across the border for which a
subsidiary has installed capacity in the partner country for supplying or mostly importing and marketing (given regulatory restrictions in
exporting), but this needs unbundling of the grid operator. This has been possible in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia with US states or
regional markets. Finally, there is a case of energy pools and integrated systems where the critical problem is gaming of shared projects by
partners that could have incentives to renege their share of a transnational project expansion costs (Laffont and Martimort, 2005).
Energy Trading Adv – A2: US-Mexico Not Compatible
US and Mexico are complementary energy partner – spurs reliability and emergency support
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
It is widely acknowledged that industrial,
commercial, and residential consumers on both sides of the US-Mexico border
can benefit from the trade of electricity. The UN-DESA (2005) report characterizes energy security along six dimensions: energy
supply, economic, technological, environmental, social and cultural, and military/security; and it notes that electricity interconnections tend to
have associated benefits and costs within these dimensions. Energy trade
between any two independent systems can improve
reliability and reduce cost through transfers of power for emergency support , reserve reduction and sharing,
bilateral purchases and sales, and spot market transactions. Key drivers that create an economic justification for trade
include difference in technology and fuels, improved generation asset utilization, differences in daily and seasonal
demand 81 patterns, differences between retail tariffs and wholesale prices, and temporal differences between marginal prices in
wholesale trade. Load profiles for CFE and ERCOT , for example, display large complementarities due to seasonal
variations in peak demand, total energy sales, and load factor. This creates a strong economic incentive to initiative trade by
reducing the need and associated cost of building peak load capacity.
[NOTE: *CFE is Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) is a company created and owned by the Mexican
government ** ERCO is the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to
23 million Texas customers]
Energy Trading Adv – Engagement Solves
Engagment 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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
Literature on the effects of power market integration provide ample documentation, through theoretical and empirical
study, of the mutual benefit available to neighboring countries. Electricity interconnections between the United
States and Mexico can provide benefits to consumers in the form of reliability and emergency support (such as in the
case of outages in Texas), reserve reduction and power sharing (leading to more efficient use of existing generating facilities,
and by allowing for bilateral energy sales (allowing prices to converge towards a lower final price). The US-Mexico border
region is a particularly suitable candidate for integration because of the near universal high demand growth scenario
facing the region as a whole. In the coming decades, all state governments will face the requirement of meeting new
capacity requirements through the construction of new generating assets , through gains in efficiency, or from the importation of
electricity from other areas. Imports hold addition benefits to states such as California and Texas that face structural (market design) or regulatory
(environmental laws) impediments to the construction of new domestic capacity. As a result, the existence of ample renewable
resource potential—wind, solar, and geothermal—in Mexico’s northern states could provide consumers in the United
States with a low carbon energy supply while producers in Mexico would realize gains from trade . Similarly, as has been
studied in the ERCOT market, seasonal and hourly price differentials between ERCOT wholesale prices and CFE’s marginal cost of production
108 suggest additional gains from trade may be available to producers on both sides of the border. Texas is clearly the state with the most to gain
from integration due to the size of its capacity requirements and the short-term forecast of inadequate reserve margins. However, it may also be
the state most unwilling to explore synchronous connections with other regions due to its historical preference for autonomy and independence
from FERC oversight. If integration is to be considered in future planning, it will be important for several steps to be taken by
regulators. Namely, UN-DESA (2005) describes several preconditions for successful integration initiatives to materialize. These include the
exchange of information about demand forecasts and needs between regulating entities, coordination of resource and infrastructure
planning to identify congestion zones and opportunities for the siting of new generation assets, engagement of government agencies
from both countries in the decision-making process at the ISO level, and the establishment of feasibility studies to
determine how cross-border electric transmission facilities would be financed . The forecast for electricity demand growth in
the region shows clear economic benefits of integration, and as a result, barriers to increased integration are primarily legal and political.
Energy Trading Adv – Lower Electricity Prices
Grid connections in North America STABILIZE electricity prices – theoretical evidence supports
Ibarra-Yunez 12 (Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy – Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Chapter 5: The Grid, International Pools, and Exchanges,” 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)
While much focus has been given to the role of the transmission system, the
transmission grid represents only about 6% to 10% of costs of
producing electricity for many power systems, but given the nature of sunk costs and network externalities, making the long- run investment is
a complex project with less than clear profitability outcomes . As a natural monopoly, it is likely that the transmission grid
will be publicly owned. How then can competition be created in the electricity markets? The answer lies with the role of the
generators. Competition among generators is the key to creating an efficient market based energy system . Bye and Hope
(2005) provide a description of the proper design and operation of a market-based power market. They list five basic
requirements:
1. A market for trade;
2. Instruments for risk hedging;
3. Short-term markets to balance supply and demand;
4. Markets for investment in new capacity; and
5. Markets for trade in environmental energy products.
Thomas (2005) judges the results of Britain’s liberalization of its electricity system by the criteria of whether or not efficient retail and wholesale markets have been
created. The government’s priority was to ensure the separation of transmission from generation. Competition among privately owned generation companies was
expected to significantly reduce prices. High entry barriers to new generation capacity resulted in the failure of the British wholesale market to promote competition
and reduce prices. While prices have been lowered in the British market, it has been due to exogenous factors, such as decreases in the price of fossil fuels and the
undervalued sale of power stations by the British government. The literature on existing integrated energy markets identifies many cases of success and failures. The
experience of the Scandinavian countries is generally judged the penultimate success story of an integrated energy pool with an efficient market-based system of
generator competition. Nord Pool meets four out of five of Bye and Hope’s five basic criteria for a market-based power system. The authors maintain that Nord Pool
does not meet the requirement for investment in new capacity due to concerns over environmental degradation by expanding capacity. This has resulted in price
increases, but not yet to the level triggering further expansion. Dugstad and Roland (2003) analyze the formation of the Scandinavian electricity market. While judged
the most successful international pool in existence, Nord Pool still faces challenges, particularly in the area of new capacity building. Electricity prices in Scandinavia
have significantly decreased since Nord Pool’s creation; however, that has been due to the utilization of surplus capacity in the national systems. Conflicting political
agendas concerning the environment have stalled the building of new generating capacity to serve the Nordic market. The most significant point of this literature is the
assertion that a “market-based system will not work without the support of a welldesigned regulation” (p. 143). Competition was assumed to decrease the role of
regulation. In practice, the tendency is however for an increased role of the regulator in competitive markets. As
we strive to design a successful
transnational North American grid, we must integrate the theoretical work of authors like Joskow, Tangeras, Bye, and Hope with the
more specific case studies of the Scandinavian, British, and Spanish experiences. Furthermore one must carefully consider elements of the political and economic
climate of North America that will determine what the optimal structure is for North America. 5.5 Application of Bye Requirements to the North American Grid Bye
and Hope’s (2005) five requirements for a market-based power system are largely present in North America . The
market for trade is evident in the volume of binational trade that already occurs between Canada and the United States and the growing demand
for power along the United States-Mexico border. Since load is the most important factor determining the price of
electricity , drastic climate differences among and within the three North American countries ensure that there will be high demand among consumers and
wholesale buyers for increased trade. Recent blackouts and congestion in the Pacific Northwest are also evidence that that there is a market for increased trade even
between the United States and Canada. Instruments
for risk hedging are also present in North America. While many markets in the
United States no longer trade electricity futures, they do use forward contracts in over the counter markets to protect themselves
against price volatility. Other North American markets take advantage of weather derivatives. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange, for example, started a
market for Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days derivatives in 1999, and by 2005 it had reached a trading volume of 30,000. Weather derivatives are a
major component of trade between Canada and the United States and will continue to play a key role in the expansion of trade in that part of North America (Oum,
Oren, and Deng 2006). As
far as Bye and Hope’s third requirement, short-term markets to balance supply and demand, a number of ISO’s
for example provides day-ahead market prices as well real-time
market prices on an interval basis.
throughout the United States provide real time market prices. ERCOT,
Energy Trading Adv – War
Independently – energy trading solves all war
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)
Between 1929 and 1933, in
response to a vicious recession sparked by a credit bubble, European powers embarked on a
rivalry which would see world trade collapse to nearly nothing within four years - creating the conditions which ultimately
led to the outbreak of the Second World War (see Figure 1, the famous Kindleberger spiral). Had the countries been bound
together more closely by trade in energy, they would have found it much harder to reverse their economic
linkages and fight each other . While no one is suggesting that the current increase in global trade tensions will end with a world war,
the implications for geopolitics and trade liberalisation of upping the integration of the world's energy systems is more than just academic. in
particular, the expansion of electricity grids across borders is emerging not just as a huge area of investment
opportunity, and as something that will directly affect the extent to which the world can reduce emissions - but also as geopolitical
glue . It is a positive trend, early in its development, and a ray of hope amidst the worrying allegations about unfair
trade in wind and solar hardware that I covered in this space last month. Could cross-border transmission really have such a big
impact? Well, the challenge of upgrading grids to cope with renewable energy has certainly moved closer to the forefront of the
minds of both investors and policy-makers in the last year.
Energy Trading Adv – General
Transmission sparks investment, err aff and lowers prices
Ibarra-Yunez 12 (Dr. Alejandro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy – Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (Mexico), “Chapter 5: The Grid, International Pools, and Exchanges,” 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)
Currently, there are competing views on transmission expansion. Some argue expansion should be avoided at all costs to be replaced
by energy savings via smart grid technologies and more distributed generation, while others favor a vision of a “transmission
superhighway” connecting the entire North American market and allowing more renewable energy sources to plug
into the grid (Fox-Penner 2010). Our hypothesis is that increased trade of electricity among the United States, Canada, and
Mexico will lead to lower prices and to an increase in the utilization of clean energy as a provider of electricity . We
also expect to find another relationship between the utilization of clean energy resources and price. One particular sample (Denmark) has
suggested that legal structures, which require a substantial investment in clean energy resources, can lead to a smaller decline, or even an
increase, in price, at least in the short run. The integration of renewable energy sources to the transmission system poses a
unique challenge to grid expansion. (Chapter 9 spells out all intricacies of renewable energy markets in North America.) In short,
renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind power, are typically located in rural areas, far from the most
energy-hungry locations such as cities. The transmission grid was built to transport power from large power plants to
dispersed load centers. Transporting power from small, remote locations generating intermittent power was not
originally thought of as part of the transmission system. Expanding the transmission grid into a complex mesh by
way of a “transmission backbone” into areas where renewable such as solar and wind have a high potential for
development could greatly enhance the possibility of bringing these sources to consumers. With the establishment of this
backbone producers would only be responsible for their smaller connection to the larger grid, thus providing incentives to develop these
renewable sources (Booz Allen Hamilton 2007). In addition, the intermittent nature of these types of energy sources exacerbates the difficulty of
transmission expansion, since it is unclear at what capacity lines should be built to bring these sources to the grid. In general, experts have
argued for overbuilding rather than underbuilding the grid. No matter how it is accomplished, grid expansion always
increases total social welfare when compared to not expanding (Schill et al. 2011). However, the same problem of financing and cost recovery
exists in the case of renewable energy. Building a renewable energy plant requires less time than it takes to expanding the transmission grid. But,
without a guarantee of access to the grid, producers are reluctant to build . (Booz Allen Hamilton
2007).
*** WARMING ADV
Warming Adv – 1AC
Advantage
: Global Warming
It’s real and anthropogenic
EDF ‘9
[Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based nonprofit environmental advocacy group, “Global Warming Myths and Facts,” 1/13/2009,
http://mrgreenbiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/global-warming-myths-and-facts-2/]
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 long-term 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. MYTH Even if global
warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers. FACT A well designed trading program will harness American
ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy. Claims that fighting global warming will
cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping
emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will
depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a
modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment. Experience has
shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches.
For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction
of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation
that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and
severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now. MYTH Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse
gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)? FACT Although water vapor traps
more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on
controlling CO2. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as
well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people;
rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an
amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and
accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has
warmed. The best way to lower temperature and thus reducewater vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions. MYTH
Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth. FACT Any
beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption. Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific
projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water
supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather
events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and
throwing agriculture into turmoil. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think
that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated ; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a
few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species. Higher levels of
CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover,
higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural
ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt. The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a
world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates
millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected. MYTH Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has
warmed up in the past. FACT The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it. People are
causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown
that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands
of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming . Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other
greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along
with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more
than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures
throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were
stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth
did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to
the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon. We know that the planet has been warming
over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation
that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
MYTH We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before. FACT Although humans as a whole
have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts. The
current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and
grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has
changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex
technological infrastructure. What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the
atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001) The
consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire . Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying
coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the
world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean
et al. 2001) In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were
evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising
waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost.
Relocation plans are in the works. <continues…> Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout
the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While
the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear. MYTH Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global
warming to me. FACT While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer
winters. Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate
skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was
only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an
indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet. MYTH Global warming can’t be happening
because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking. FACT In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The
best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking. Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic
miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global
scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That
expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a
global warming trend. In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is
variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating:
glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most
alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local
Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than
the global average, this tipping point is not far away. The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior
of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a
short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain
ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be
used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of
the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues. MYTH Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to
come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now? FACT Climate prediction is fundamentally
different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a
climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the
present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be
below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures
during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are
usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot. Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the
past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future
climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in
order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
The impact is billions of deaths.
Cummins ‘10
(Ronnie, International Director – Organic Consumers Association and Will Allen, Advisor – Organic Consumers Association, “Climate
Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century”, 2-14, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
the world needs to
reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos, crop failures,
endless wars, melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically reduce CO2 and
The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and rising 2 ppm per
year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else survival for the present and future generations is
in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures
means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario, billions will die of
thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, other countries
will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air
Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down on GHG polluters
(including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no" Congressmen-both Democrats and
Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel lobby appear determined to maintain
"business as usual."
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 campus
and collaboration with UC San Diego. The U.S. transmission 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 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 ecofriendly 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."
Specifically, US-Mexico 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/finalnicholasbenne
tt.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 powerbrokerin
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 beginningBefore 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 long-term 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 StarSpangled 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.
Warming Adv – Technical Assistance Key
Technical assistance for renewables significantly reduces greenhouse gases
COCEF 12 - La Comisión de Cooperación Ecológica Fronteriza
(“Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico Border
Region,”
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20index.pd
f)
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 ¶ theprimary reason this project deficit exists is due to: ¶ 1. limited resources
for project development, ¶ 2. lack of capacity building, at themost 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 beinvaluable ¶ 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.
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).
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 recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methodsdeveloped largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde,
whichallowed 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 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 self-reinforcing
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 vegetationcovered 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 forest-preservation 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 it by 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 long-term 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 the
journal Science in 2005, records 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.
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 Meteorology at the
University of Utah investigate 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 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.p
df&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
campaignsto 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 “ 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 higher than 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 “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 ice-albedo
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 strongerand 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.
*** ADD ONS
2AC Add-on – Mexico Energy Shortages
Grid infrastructure prevent Mexico energy shortages
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_174-econ_reg_challenges_US_Mex_electricity2012.pdf?sequence=5)
The six Mexican states and the four US states that comprise the border region face similar energy issues and constraints to
each country as a whole. Policy concerns over power sector adequacy in the border region, however, is more immediate given that
population growth in the region exceeds national averages and this trend is expected to continue over the next
decade. Demand for electricity in the northern Mexico border states is expected to increase an average of 6.5% per year,
compared to 5.6% for the rest of the country (CFE 2010). As a whole, the population in the 100 km defined zone on each side of the border grew
from 6.9 million people to just over 13 million people between 1983 and 2005 (EPA 2012). The most recent population projections for
the region—also reported in the 2005 State of the Border Region report—estimate that the region’s population will grow to
between 16 and 25 million people by 2030 . Ninety percent of the border population resides in 15 paired, interdependent sister cities,
while the remaining 10% live in smaller tribal and indigenous communities or in rural areas. Over 40% of the region’s population resides in the
California-Baja California region, which is home to the major border cities of San Diego, Tijuana, and Mexicali. These increases in
expected demand will require investments in new and upgraded infrastructure to handle the generation,
transmission, and distribution services needed to 87 serve the growing populations. In particular, a large share of new
capacity is planned for high efficiency natural gas power plants that will require additional investments in the pipelines and
pumping stations necessary to carry fuel supplies. The EIA predicts a shift in residential demand “to warmer regions with greater cooling
requirements,” while at the same time demand for clean sources of energy in particular will be driven by renewable portfolio standards (RPS)
adopted at the state level. Texas, for instance, aims to reach 10,000 megawatts by 2025, while California recently expanded its renewables target
to 33% by 2020, the most ambitious RPS in the country.
That collapses Mexico’s economy
Garcia 8 (Arturo, chairman of the Latin American Petrochemical and Chemical Association, “Mexico's coming
energy crisis all but overshadows the petrochemical industry's investment problems,” ICIS, 11-5,
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/11/10/9169337/mexicos-impending-energy-crisis-has-severe-implications-forthe-economy-and-petrochemicals.html)
YOU WOULDN'T believe it, but petrochemicals are not a problem in Mexico any more. Mexico
faces a fundamental problem that
makes the petrochemical industry's challenges of little concern compared to the looming energy crisis and its economic impact . If
Mexico runs out of crude oil and gas in about five to eight years, then there will be no feedstock to supply any new petrochemical facility or
refinery. The following data show the size of the problem - not only for petrochemicals and refined products, but for state-owned oil company
Pemex and for Mexico's entire economy. The decline in crude oil production is drastic, and continues to accelerate. In 2004, Pemex
produced 3.4m bbls/day of oil. Today, that figure is down to just 2.8m bbls/day. This means that in just four years, Mexico lost 47% of its crude
oil production. In particular, Cantarell, the main oil basin, experienced a more dramatic decline from 2.2m bbls/day to 1.1m bbls/day. Until July
2008, crude oil volume reduction was compensated through high crude oil prices - the value of oil exports in 2006 amounted to $21.9bn and in
2008 will jump to an estimated $30.4bn. But crude prices have collapsed and are below half their peak of $147/bbl, from July. In the meantime,
imports of hydrocarbons and derivatives continue to grow. By the end of 2008, 50% of all gasoline consumed in Mexico will come from imports.
But the bigger problem is that by adding all other imports of derivatives to gasoline, th e country is now spending more than $15bn
(€12bn)/year - equivalent to 50% of total revenues from crude oil exports - to import the gasoline and other crude oil derivatives .
This situation will only get worse because consumption of derivatives continues to grow. And with crude collapsing,
lowering Mexico's export revenues, the country will use all of its foreign currency to buy these derivatives. It is still important to be realistic and
to anticipate the worst-case scenario. There are five fundamental factors that will lead to "the perfect storm" for Mexico . 1.
The decline in crude production will continue as efforts to increase production will not be enough to compensate for depletion. 2. Imports of
gasoline and other oil derivatives soon will be equivalent to revenue from crude oil exports. 3. Prices of crude oil have collapsed, meaning much
less export revenue 4. Mexico's so-called Energy Reform, which has been approved by Congress, will not make any difference to the problem. 5.
The financial crisis is global. No-one is safe, and Mexico's economy will face a big hit in consumption and GDP growth. This
situation will put Mexico in a situation where it faces "cash flow restrictions" because the government depends on oil export
revenues for meeting 40% of its annual budget.
That causes unrest and turns the US economy
Fox News 9 (“What Happens to the U.S. if Mexico Collapses?,” 2-17,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/02/17/what-happens-to-us-if-mexico-collapses/#ixzz2Zw66rDY)
Mexico is the 12th largest economy and second largest trading
partner with the U.S . And I don't know if you have noticed this. Grab a fire extinguisher. It's on fire. Close to 6,000 people were killed by rival drug gangs
which is twice as many as in 2007. Texas is terrified that the violence is going to spill over the border . In a minute, I will explain how the whole
world is going to change if Mexico collapses. The number one place for kidnappings is Mexico City. Who do you think number two is for
GLENN BECK, HOST: OK. There is California. Let's try this one.
kidnapping? You know, I was thinking Bogota, Columbia. Maybe some place in Somalia. Well, close. It is Phoenix, Arizona where there were almost 400 reported
kidnappings last year and many more went unreported. Excuse me? John McCain was on the campaign trail for how many months, and we never heard about this and
it's happening in his backyard? No one is talking about it, because it's not in anybody's best interest, you know, except yours and mine. I think it's in your best interest
to know all of the facts and what it means to you. Texas officials are now planning for the worst-case scenario of, what do you do if Mexico just collapses? State
Senator Dan Patrick is joining me now. Hey, Dan, how are you? SEN. DAN PATRICK (R), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: Hi, Glenn. Thank you for your passion on
everything. It comes through. BECK: Thank you. Thank you. PATRICK: Thank you, Glenn. BECK: I have been, and I know you have been, too - talking about the
border, not because ... PATRICK: Yes. BECK: ... much to many people's chagrin here in America that I don't hate Mexicans. I don't hate people who are different than
me. Almost everybody on the planet is different than me. I mean, look at me. PATRICK: Right. BECK: The problem
is this is a dangerous
situation . People feel disenfranchised. Mexico is on the verge of collapse. You've got massive murder problems and drug
problems. What are you are guys worried about? And how are you preparing in Texas for a possible push into America from people just fleeing a drug state?
PATRICK: Well, Glenn, we had hearings a couple of weeks ago. And I asked our Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw of Texas if he feared the collapse of
Mexico and did we have a plan. And he didn't deny the fact that it is a concern. And since that subcommittee meeting we had a few weeks ago, he has been working
with Gov. Perry and I'm meeting with him in a few days, as a matter of fact, to see their progress on developing a plan. You will love this term, Glenn. The United
States has a plan called "mass migration" as opposed to the collapse of Mexico. And we need a plan here in Texas because there are two scenarios, Glenn. One is a
slow collapse, an
economic collapse of Mexico in which hundreds of thousands would come here over a period of time. The second is what I call a
Colombian collapse of Mexico, an assassination of the president, the drug cartels taking over the country, civil war breaking out on the
streets , people fleeing for their lives, not for a job. We have to be prepared in the United States for both and Texas must be prepared.
2AC Add-on – Warming
Warming’s anthropogenic and causes extinction – US-Mexico cooperation on renewable energy’s key to solve
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)
As the world debates the future of climate change in international forums, most countries are implementing their own
mitigation strategies at the national and local levels while at the same time looking to their neighbors for opportunities to establish
regional plans for climate change response and energy security. In Europe, region‐wide policy and carbon emissions reduction strategies have
been in place for a number of years. Ideas for regional carbon markets in North America have been discussed for a long time, but little has been
achieved. In April of 2009, however, Presidents Obama and Calderon, of the United States and Mexico respectively, signed the
U.S.‐Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change. The two leaders agreed on the importance
of promoting clean energy, combating climate change and the value of collaborating to reach these goals . Some
observers in the US may have been surprised by this development because the energy issue of which most foreign observers immediately think
with regards to Mexico is, of course, oil. The continuing problems of PEMEX and declining production from its mature fields have been one of
the most important issues coming out of the country in recent years. However, although it is most often seen as a classic hydrocarbon nation,
Mexico has in recent years emerged as a leading country in the region, and more broadly in the developing world, in the areas of
clean energy and emissions controls. As President Felipe Calderon has attempted to present himself to the world as a
leader in climate change initiatives (most recently in Copenhagen in December 2009) with the idea for a Fondo Verde (Green Fund),
many Mexicans expressed surprise that their country could be seen as a leader given the overwhelming national political and economic
importance given to oil. But Calderon was building on a reputation established in successive international meetings, most notably in Bali in 2007
when Mexico was ranked 4th out of all nations for its commitment to mitigating climate change, by the policy group Germanwatch, in their
Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI)1. This reputation had been won by a variety of initiatives from the local to the national level, from
both the public and the private sectors. Though Mexico has since slipped down the rankings to 11th place, it still maintains a favorable
image in terms of its commitment to mitigating climate change, and ranks third out of all newly industrializing countries. In order
to meet the expectations that President Calderon has worked so hard to build up concerning climate change mitigation
strategies, Mexico now has to invest heavily in both energy efficiency projects and in the development of a
renewable energy sector in the country that takes advantage of Mexico’s considerable resources. Large scale investment by the state,
by the private sector both national and foreign, reforms to the legal framework surrounding renewable energy, and a change in
the mentality of Mexican political and economic elites is needed in order to make this happen, but there is good
reason to be optimistic. The potential is certainly there in Mexico, and there is considerable interest from foreign
investors and governments. This study examines one of the most important and potentially lucrative dimensions of
the growth of the renewable energy sector in Mexico, namely bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the U nited
S tates. 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.
US engagement with Mexico in the area of renewable energy has been driven by three main concerns . First, the US
government has focused much of its efforts over the last 15 years on using renewable energy applications to improve living standards and
business opportunities for Mexicans living in rural areas. Second, the contribution of RE to climate change mitigation strategies
has become a central pillar in US work in the area. Mexico’s impressive potential for RE offers great hope for the
reduction of current dependence on fossil fuels. Third, the possibility of satisfying the US growing demand for RE from Mexican
sources has not been lost on decision‐makers in both countries, and collaborative work has progressed toward this goal. 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. The argument of this paper is that, though many of the opportunities created by bilateral cooperation in the past
have gone unexploited by US actors, the long‐term impact of this cooperation has been highly beneficial, both for Mexico
as a country, producing jobs, new sources of alternative energy, and economic opportunities. For the United States,
the development of the RE sector in Mexico offers hope to states such California as they seek to satisfy growing
demand for renewable energy. Continued cooperation in the areas of geothermal wind, solar, and biofuels are
therefore vital if Mexico’s true potential is to be fully realized. Renewable energy and the global challenge
It is by now common knowledge that the world is facing a climate change crisis caused by the effects of fossil fuel driven
industrialization. A significant rise in global temperatures, combined with more severe weather conditions, more
frequent floods and droughts, are bringing a paradigm shift to the way we think about our relationship with the planet. For the
first time in over 150 years policy makers are thinking seriously about decreasing dependency on fossil fuels and looking for alternatives that may
be more expensive in the short and medium terms, but ultimately more sustainable. 7 All of this has happened at the same time as two other,
related phenomena. The first is that the global population is reaching new highs and by 2040‐50 will total over 9 billion
people. Experts predict that 85% of the world’s population will be located in the developing world, which will mean
a rapidly growing demand for goods and for energy. Both of these factors will result in a need to increase energy
efficiency as well as find new sources of energy. What’s more, this massive jump in population will coincide not only with climate change
but also with increasingly difficult conditions for hydrocarbons exploration and production. As most of the world’s “easy” oil has already been
discovered, oil companies and nation states are turning to alternatives such a non‐conventional oil reserves (tar sands, complex fields) and
reserves that in the past would have been considered unrecoverable, such as in very deep ocean waters. Furthermore, political conditions in many
of the world’s oil rich regions are uncertain, unstable and often unfriendly to private oil companies and to the countries of the West. Climate
change and natural disasters The urgency of finding alternatives to fossil fuels has been confirmed in recent years by
mounting scientific evidence that we are undergoing a noticeable anthropogenic shift in the world’s weather and
temperature. Not only are a range of indicators showing that the planet is warming, but the retreat of the polar ice
caps, the melting of glaciers, and most importantly in the short term extreme weather conditions and increased
incidence of natural disasters have highlighted the consequences of maintaining the status quo in our patterns of
energy consumption and industrial development. It is estimated that we have experienced a 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over
the past 100 years and that by the end of the current century global temperatures may have risen by as much 7 or 8 degrees. Even with the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is contemplated by the most ambitious mitigation strategies, global temperatures may rise by as much
as 6%. This would have a dramatic and disastrous impact on both developed and developing nations and will
threaten the existence of both humans and animal and plant species . Though the connection between man‐made
greenhouse gases and global warming was denied for many years by industry and governments alike, it has now been accepted that
something must be done to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere . Given that 86% of all
global energy comes from fossil fuels, and that these fossil fuels produce 27,000,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, finding alternative
sources of energy is a crucial component of climate change mitigation strategies .
*** ANSWER TO OFF CASE
A2: Topicality – General
We meet – electricity grids are economic engagement – State Department agree
State 12 (US Department of State, “Facts on U.S. Economic Engagement with ASEAN,” 7-13,
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/07/201207138969.html#axzz2ZsgtewzJ)
U.S. Economic Engagement with ASEAN
The ASEAN region is a dynamic, vibrant home to more than 580 million people where we recognize economic
statecraft as one of the essential pillars of our engagement. In addition to longstanding relationships with individual
ASEAN members, our economic relationship with ASEAN as a whole has grown tremendously – ASEAN is now
our fourth largest trading partner. As a partner we recognize the currently unmet capacity needs of the region - over
the next decade, the Asian Development Bank estimates ASEAN nations will require approximately $60 billion a
year to fully address the region’s infrastructure needs. ASEAN Connectivity – energy, electricity, water, IT,
telecom, and related areas – is important to the region’s development.
Events throughout Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s current trip to Asia underscore U.S. commitment to
economic engagement within this region:
• Vietnam: On July 10, Secretary Clinton witnessed the signing of two contracts between the U.S. firm GE and
Vietnamese enterprises. Under a contract with Cong Thanh, a private Vietnamese company, GE will supply a steam
turbine generator for the 660-megawatt thermal power plant in the Nghi Son Economic Zone, in Thanh Hoa
province. The project includes $36 million in U.S. export content. GE will also supply electricity transmission
capacitors to the National Power Transmission Corporation in a three-phase project worth $50 million, helping
Vietnam increase energy efficiency and better regulate its national energy grid, enabling development of a
smart grid to distribute energy more reliably and efficiently.
Economic engagement includes technology
Haass 00 – (Richard N. Haass, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, and Meghan
L. O’Sullivan, Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives
to Punitive Policies”, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf)
Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might
offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and
economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes,
investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target
country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most
potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic
recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders – or the
termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational
training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a country’s armed forces
and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these
areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails
building people-to-people contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and
promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of
the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.
Economic engagement includes renewable energy and technology
Bauschard, ’13 (Stefan Bauschard, one of the original founders of the Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops, Cuba, Mexico, and
Venezuela:Is Economic Engagement Best?, May 2013,
http://cf.edliostatic.com/USwZkx0PnWO2nU6x6cGzlq3uxGfDf0I2.pdfhttp://cf.edliostatic.com/USwZkx0PnWO2nU6x6cGzlq3uxGfDf0I2.pdf)
What issues can be covered under “economic engagement?” The core question here is how the term “economic”
limits the topic beyond what would be true if the topic simply said “increase its engagement with…” Obviously, the
term “economic” limits the type of engagement, but contextual usage evidence doesn’t suggest that there is too
much of a limit. I’ve found contextual evidence that supports including all of the following in economic
engagement: • Trade • Information technology • Investment • General environmental issues • Forest and wetland
conservation • Water and air quality • Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) • Health care • Clean energy,
including renewable energy • Electricity production and transmission • Nuclear power • General energy security •
Defense and security • Economic development • Intellectual property • Reducing corruption • Food regulation •
Environmental regulation
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 securit y 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.
A2: States CP
States fail – can’t generate investment or coordination
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)
However, state governments will not be able to move the process forward on their own. Due to the need to build
new transmission capacity to move the newlygenerated electrons to market, the CFE and the federal government
(through the Secretaría de Energía) will need to engage with state governments and the private sector. The current
move towards open seasons for transmission is a welcome development, and has worked well in the United States
and in Oaxaca. Another important lesson to learn from the United States would be for state governments to work
together through the concept of inter- state compacts to push CFE to address their needs.22
A2: Hydrocarbon CP
Oil no longer defines the relationship – infrastructure and diversification’s key – prefer comparative ev. CP
promotes Mexico’s nationalistic policy – turns relations
Morales 11 (Isidro, Professor – Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (Santa Fe), “The Energy
Factor in Mexico-U.S. Relations,” James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy @ Rice University, 4-29,
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-MoralesFactor-04292011.pdf)
From the turn of the 20th century to the present, Mexican oil and energy resources have remained strategic for U.S. interests. Mexico
has functioned as a buffer zone—or pivot—because of the U.S. need for a reliable energy supply south of the border, mainly in oil and petroleum products,
particularly during periods when world energy resources are at stake, including the First World War, WWII, the oil shocks of the 1970s, and the current transition
phase of "expensive oil." However, oil and energy resources
alone do not account for Mexico's strategic value . As witnessed by the
is much more than an oil well to the U.S. in times
of distress. Mexico has functioned as a sort of "thick border" from which to filter threats and risks and to access vital resources, such as people
military, commercial, and labor alliances built by the two countries during WWII, Mexico
and goods. Mexico's buffering properties have made the country's political regime—and its capacity to manage its risks and resources—major priorities for American
interests. This explains why Washington has traditionally tolerated and accepted Mexico's nationalistic rhetoric and dirigisme in the governance of oil and energy
resources. For more than a century, Washington has indeed put pressure on Mexico's political elite to grant concessions for energy resource exploitation to private
investors, including, of course, American investors. However, when these pressures risk alienation of Mexico's political class, or threaten the stability of the political
regime—regardless of how democratic that regime might be— Washington compromises, even if the final outcome is not entirely favorable to private American
firms. With the inception of NAFTA in 1994. and the emergence of a new security alliance between the two countries with
the establishment of SPP (2005) and the Merida Initiative (2007), the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the U.S. might evoke memories of WWII. However,
in this new edition of global warfare, conventional
oil resources are not as crucial as 70 years ago . Instead, technology, intelligence
critical infrastructure , competitiveness, and a more diversified mix of energy resources , in which nonconventional and renewable fuels are critical, have become much more important devices for coping with the
security challenges of the 21st century. In this regard, Mexico's assets in terms of territory, people, natural resources, and governance capabilities
gathering,
have moved the country from being a simple buffer zone to a critical pivot. If the pivot turns unstable, unsafe, and unpredictable, this will directly impact the U.S.
This explains why, at present time, the top priority in the agenda of the two countries is the escalation of violence in Mexico, and the political challenges unleashed by
the activities of organized crime. Mexico's public safety has become a part of U.S. security, that is, it has become an "intermestic" problem,3' and this explains why
security trumps other issues on the agenda. As
long as Mexico remains a major exporter of crude oil to the U.S. —something that is in
energy interests will be fulfilled, despite limited opportunities for private
participation in Mexico's energy industry. If Mexican exports decline dramatically, this will negatively impact Mexico's economic opportunities and
intensify tensions in a bilateral relationship already under stress. Furthermore, Mexico has the potential of strengthening its energy
relationship with the U.S. as non-conventional and renewable fuels become higher profile. The production of energy
from solar, wind, and biomass sources, as well as biofuels, escapes the nationalistic and sovereign-based governance
of conventional energy resources in Mexico. That is why it is crucial that Mexicans define the new cooperative
architecture under which Mexico and the U.S. will pursue their mutual interests while equally reaping the benefits.
Mexico's economic and political interests— U.S.
Status quo Gulf of Mexico oil drilling is environmental degradation at its finest – overfishing, pollution, and
ocean acidification will all culminate in marine extinction
Hull 11 (Eric V. Hull, Florida A&M University College of Law, UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy,
29.1, page 1, Summer 2011, LegalTrac)
For centuries, humans have exploited the resources of the world's oceans with little concern for , or understanding of,
how their collective activities caused harm. Nineteenth century Poet Lord Byron once wrote, "[m]an marks the earth with ruin, but his
control stops with the shore." (13) His words reveal a commonly held, but incorrect assumption that humans are incapable of causing any lasting
harm to the vast oceans. The current imperiled state of the world's oceans and the particular sensitivity and ecological
importance of the Gulf ecosystem make imperative changes to the current environmental review practices. Despite
exhibiting remarkable resiliency to anthropogenic insult for centuries, the world's oceans are increasingly showing
signs of vulnerability to human influences. Research has unequivocally demonstrated that the synergistic effects of habitat
destruction, overfishing, ocean warming, increased acidification and massive nutrient runoff are fundamentally
altering once complex, vibrant marine ecosystems. (14) As marine biodiversity declines, ecosystems with intricate
marine food webs are being degraded to primordial seas dominated by microbes, toxic algal blooms, jellyfish and
disease. (15) Absent fundamental changes in the use and management of ocean resources, human activities may lead to a
massive extinction in the ocean . (16) The Gulf's once pristine waters and productive ecosystems have been
significantly altered as the result of anthropogenic insults. The primary drivers of ocean degradation are overexploitation, pollution,
climate change, and ocean acidification. A. Overexploitation Fish provide a source of protein for almost half of the world's population, but
that resource is at risk. (17) Technological advancements have dramatically and perhaps irreversibly altered fishing
practices by allowing humans to span the globe to find fish in remote areas . (18) As a result, today, approximately 80% of
all major marine fish stocks are listed as either fully exploited, overexploited, or recovering from depletion . (19)
Despite the worldwide decline in fish stocks, demand for fish in the U.S remains high. (20) The Gulf plays a vital role in meeting that
demand, but increasing fishing activity in the Gulf poses a significant threat to the future sustainability of the Gulf . (21)
Today, four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation are located in the Gulf. (22) The increasing fishing effort has the potential to
significantly impair critical habitat in the Gulf that many endangered or threatened species rely on to survive . (23) It
also has global implications for highly migratory species and other straddling fish stocks that migrate through Gulf waters and are managed to
some degree by more than one coastal nation. (24) B. Pollution Despite the emergence of national and international laws that prohibit the
direct discharge of pollutants into the marine environment, the world's oceans continue to serve as a depository for remnants of human activity.
An incalculable amount of nutrients, oil, synthetic material, solid waste, sewage and toxic chemicals enter the sea
each year as a result of human activity. The accumulation of these pollutants , coupled with climate-induced ocean
acidification, has altered the basic chemistry of the seas, impaired critical marine habitats, and caused physiological
changes that have reduced species resilience to environmental variability. (25) These impacts and others threaten to
fundamentally alter the Gulf environment. 1. Nutrient Loading Nutrient loading causes massive blooms of algae that produce and
release potent neurotoxins into the surrounding environment . (26) These toxins alter food web-dynamics, cause
illness or mortality to humans, mammals, birds, and fish, harm commercial fisheries, and negatively impact coastal
communities. (27) Recent evidence suggests that the problem may be getting worse. (28) The Gulf is particularly susceptible to
nutrient loading. Each spring, nutrients from the Mississippi River enter the Gulf and spark a massive algae bloom. (29) The algae utilize
oxygen in the water column for respiration and decomposition, and quickly reduce oxygen levels to concentrations
below which life cannot survive. (30) This so called "Dead Zone" used to form every other year. (31) Now, the bloom occurs annually
and stretches along the Gulf coast for more than 7,000 square miles between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Texas. (32) That area cannot
support most marine life, and now resembles a primordial sea where bacteria and simple organisms thrive. (33) 2. Synthetic Pollutants Since
the 1950's, there has been a ten-fold increase every decade in the amount of plastics discarded into the sea . (34) The
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that approximately 46,000 pieces of plastic litter are floating on every
square mile of the oceans.35 Most of the plastic will eventually sink to impact benthic communities. Fishing vessels also frequently
lose or purposely discard fishing gear. (36) The gear often entangles marine species before it sinks to cause harm to benthic
communities. The Gulf, as part of the Wider Caribbean region, faces significant threats from synthetic pollutants. Indeed, UNEP
has opined that marine litter "poses one of the most severe threats to the sustainability of the natural resources of
sensitive habitats and wildlife and people of the Wider Caribbean region...." (37) 3. Oil Pollution Once introduced into the marine
environment, oil respects no political boundary. As oil migrates through the marine environment, it may contaminate the sea
water, damage estuaries, and cause a variety of lethal and sub-lethal effects to marine organisms. (38) Exposure to oil
can result in reduced reproduction, altered development, impaired feeding, and decreased defense to disease. (39)
Developing organisms (fish eggs and larvae), marine mammals, sea birds, intertidal and bottom dwelling organisms are
uniquely vulnerable to oil exposure. (40) As the oil decays it sinks and interferes with marine habitats that depend on organisms to
survive, such as coral reefs, mangrove swamps and salt marshes. (41) C. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Oceans cover
more than 70% of the earth's surface, and play an integral role in human survival by absorbing, storing, and redistributing solar energy to keep
temperature within a range that supports life. (42) Climate change threatens to fundamentally alter this balance. As the global average
ocean temperature increases, changes in sea level are expected to alter marine habitats , interfere with animal migratory
patterns, and impair ecosystem structure and function. (43) Climate change has already fundamentally altered the chemistry of the
ocean. Approximately one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth's oceans. (44) When absorbed, atmospheric
carbon dioxide dissolves and modifies the chemistry of sea water to make it more acidic . (45) Ocean acidity has increased
by 30% since the industrial revolution, and in some areas the rate of change is so rapid that water may turn corrosive by 2050.46 Left
unchecked, ocean acidification is expected to cause wide scale species disruption, interfere with complex trophic
dynamics, and cause fishing and tourism to decline. (47) Preliminary studies have revealed increasing acidification in
some northern Gulf waters. (48) D. Deepwater Environments -The Last Frontier Deepwater environments are critically
important to the healthy functioning of the world's oceans. Historically, however, environmental concern over marine
resources has focused on the coastal waters--near shore areas less than 200 meters deep--where most commercially important
marine species are found. (49) This area comprises less than 5% of the world's oceans, and its health and productivity
depend on the remaining 95% of the deepwater ocean. (50) In fact, a large fraction of biodiversity and biomass
production in coastal areas is directly linked to and dependent upon deep sea ecosystems. (51) Although relatively little is
known about inhabitants of deep sea environment, those organisms studied to date show common traits of slow growth, late
maturity, slow reproduction, long life (200 years in some cases), and low productivity. (52) These traits have important
implications for the sustainable management and use of deep-sea resources. (53) Absent effective management strategies, deepwater
species and their associated ecosystems can quickly be depleted below sustainable levels . (54) UNEP recommended that
governments incorporate precautionary approaches to manage deepwater environments that take into account the full range and cumulative
effects of potential human activities and impacts, and added, "[t]he conservation and sustainable use of the vulnerable ecosystems and
biodiversity in deep waters and high seas are among the most critical ocean issues and environmental challenges today." (55) As the oil industry
moves its activities into deeper water to find oil reserve, the risk of harm increases. As UNEP noted: The increasing demand for oil
continues to push drilling activities into deeper water, and threatens to fundamentally alter the deep sea environment
in the Gulf. Given the industry's attempts to expand the oil depletion window and sustain profits from a nonrenewable resource, the
outlook for protecting the Gulf environment under the current status quo is not promising. The industry
must make fundamental changes to ensure that its actions do not impair the future sustainability of
renewable resources in the Gulf.
Petroleum cooperation fails
Starr 9 - director of the U.S.-Mexico Network and an associate professor of teaching in the School of International
Relations and in Public Diplomacy
(Pamela, “Mexico and the United States: A window of opportunity?,”
http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=35)
Third, the United States should take advantage of an opportunity for bilateral ¶ energy cooperation created by a
provision in Mexico’s recently approved petroleum reform ¶ legislation. Persistent Mexican suspicions that
American calls for increased regional ¶ energy cooperation are cover for an oil grab have crippled prior efforts to
build an effective¶ energy partnership. The new petroleum law, however, includes a provision that requires the ¶Mexican government
to move aggressively into the development of alternative sources of ¶energy production. This opens the door for the fi rst time in decades to
building a positive ¶cross-border discussion on energy issues precisely because the discussion need not focus ¶on petroleum. Secretary Clinton’s
visit to an alternative energy plant as part of her Mexico ¶trip provided a symbolic down payment for this kind of energy cooperation. As part
of the ¶ Obama administration’s promised effort to invest heavily in alternative energy, therefore, the ¶ United States
should propose a North American committee to develop a regional strategy for ¶ alternative energy development.
Oil fails – clean energy key to spurring bilateral cooperation.
Studer 12/4 – Founding Director of the Center for Dialogue and Analysis on North America, Tecnologico de
Monterrey, Mexico City Campus (Isabel, “2012: A New Mexican Vision for North American Integration”, 12/4/12;
< https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Task_Force_Papers/Studer-ModernMexicoTFPaper.pdf
Energy and Climate Change - Energy and climate change are becoming central in determining the future economic
prosperity and competitiveness of nations and represent a huge potential for cooperation in North America. Mexico
and Canada are the most important oil suppliers to the United States and their resources have been critical to their
neighbor’s long - term energy security. Nevertheless, U.S. public opinion is demanding independence from foreign
energy sources , which could become a reality within a decade or so because of the growing production of shale oil
and gas. Furthermore, the availability of cleaner and renewable energy sources has been increasing , posing both
challenges and opportunities for regional cooperation. Oil production has peaked in Mexico and the country is
on the road to becoming a net importer of hydrocarbons , with the majority of imports coming from the United
States . As with the coal deposits that abound in the United States and particularly, the Gulf of Mexico’s oil
resources, these sources of fossil energy represent significant environmental challenges for North America. For
Canada and the United States , the cost of reducing emissions will be high, but a cooperative approach that includes
Mexico will help minimize mitigation costs, alleviate concerns regarding the possible negative competitive effects
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and even strengthen the North American competitive position in the world
economy. Cooperation opportunities are also emerging through technology transfer, as emission reductions in the oil
sands in Canada are through carbon - capture and storage technologies are being explored and as substantial low cost reductions emerge from energy - efficiency actions in the oil and gas sector in Mexico and the United States .
12 The three countries can work together in addressing the interrelated objectives of energy security and
environmental protection. Both the high levels of energy interdependence and the existence of an institutional
context of North American cooperation, exemplified by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation and the
North American Development Bank, could serve as the foundations for regional/transnational renewable energy
markets and a climate emissions trading system to help cope with an unstable energy outlook. Through the SPP, the
three countries are pursuing efforts to “align” their energy efficiency standards as part of their climate change and
clean energy cooperation agenda, although the results to date have been limited and much more could be done.
While the trading of electricity is not significant within North America as a whole , it is important between Canada
and the United States. Given the growing projected demand for electricity on the Mexico - U.S. border and the
increasing adoption of Renewable Portfolio Standards at the state level in the United States - - particularly in
California -- exploring possibilities for the harmonization of policies in North America to advance the deployment
of technologies and the establishment of cross - border grid interconnections of non - CO2 emitting sources are
potentially interesting area s for regional cooperation.
Mexico says no
Villarreal 12 (M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, 8/9/12, “U.S.-Mexico Economic
Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications”, Congressional Research Service,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf)
Mexico’s President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto of the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party ¶ (PRI) has vowed to
convince his party, which nationalized the industry and has blocked previous ¶ attempts at reforming the energy
sector, and the PRI-aligned oil workers’ union, to allow further ¶ energy reforms to move forward. The narrow
margin of Peña Nieto’s victory and his coalition’s ¶ apparent failure to capture a majority in either chamber
of the Mexican Congress, however, may ¶ make it difficult to reform the energy sector.Another issue that may
block energy reforms from ¶ moving forward is the nationalist left’s strong showing in the July 1, 2012, elections.
The leftist ¶ coalition led by theParty of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has the second-largest bloc in the ¶
lower house of the Mexican Congress and remains staunchly opposed to increasing private ¶ involvement in
Pemex.43
A2: China CP
Chinese fail in renewables overseas
Turner 11 ( Jennifer L. Turner has directed the China Environment Forum since 1999 and her assistant Peter V.
Marsters, just celebrated his first year with CEF.China Environment Series 2010/2011, the Woodrow Wilson
Center’s China Environment Forum
The pervasiveness of expensive and advanced environment equipment within the sample merits mention. Almost 80
percent of the plants studied had installed “clean coal” SOx scrubbers on at least one of their power generating units.
The non-compliant emissions levels were due, the study concluded, to two primary factors, neither of which was
outdated equipment. First, though flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems were being installed, they were not being
consistently or properly operated. The large expense of operating the environmental equipment, energy penalty, and
inadequately trained personnel were believed to explain its misuse and disuse. Lax monitoring allows this practice to
occur. Second, the authors believed many plants were substituting sub-standard coal in the generating units. Doing
so places stress on the system as a whole and degrades FGD capacity, contributing to larger emissions.
A2: DAs – General – Aid Now
US aid to Mexico high now – Merida Initiative
Janes 13 (Jared Janes, Reporter for The Monitor, 2/4/13, “Cuellar: U.S. aid to Mexico should continue”,
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_72349d54-6e60-11e2-898e-001a4bcf6878.html)
U.S. aid allocated under the Merida Initiative will continue to be delivered to Mexico as the country transitions to a
new presidential administration and the U.S. deals with potential, across-the-board spending cuts beginning March 1, U.S. Rep Henry
Cuellar said after meeting with members of President Enrique Peña Nieto’s cabinet. ¶ But Cuellar, D-Laredo, said he’ll use his new seat on the
House appropriations committee to ensure the plan is still working for both countries. Cuellar traveled to Mexico City last week to discuss border
security, immigration reform and international trade with top Mexican officials. ¶ Cuellar said he believes Peña Nieto is committed to
reducing drug violence but needs continued help from the U.S. in the fight against the cartels.¶ “Whether there’s going to be more
assistance to the Mexicans, we don’t know because of the budget cuts we’re looking at,” said Cuellar, who was assigned to an appropriations
subcommittee that has jurisdiction over U.S.-Mexico foreign relations. “There’s enough money in the pipeline because of the
appropriations that we already provided that it will continue for a while as we deliver the rest of Plan Merida.” ¶ The
U.S. has allocated about $1.6 billion under the Merida Initiative, a comprehensive package of aid and equipment approved in
2007 to help Mexico fight the cartels. While the aid was initially slated to be delivered over three years, the timeline has been extended because
of the slow delivery pace.¶ When Peña Nieto took office Dec. 1, he announced the government would change its security strategy to reducing
murders, kidnappings and extortion more than going after cartel leaders. He released a security plan that was not clearly different from former
President Felipe Calderón and announced a plan to establish a federal police force to patrol dangerous areas. ¶ He’s also maintained a military
presence on the streets.¶ But Cuellar said the country is still struggling to re-establish the rule of law in many border cities, including fighting
corruption within the police forces’ ranks.¶ At the height of the problem, the Mexican government had shuttered police forces in nearly 300 cities,
including Nuevo Laredo. Today, the Mexican government had reduced the number of cities without local police forces to about 200, but the lack
of police forces has contributed to problems fighting everyday crime. ¶ “They’re moving as fast as possible to move policemen into the cities that
have none,” Cuellar said. “Across Mexico, they’re working on trying to emphasize as much as possible to get local police trained. Plan Merida is
part of the training that they’re looking at doing.”¶ Cuellar has emerged as a strong supporter of Peña Nieto, meeting with him during the
president-elect’s first trip to Washington, D.C., last year and traveling to Mexico City in December for the inauguration. In his most recent trip to
Mexico City, Cuellar met with Peña Nieto’s secretaries of government and agriculture, the general coordinator for civilian protection services and
other high-ranking officials.¶ Cuellar said Peña Nieto has moved quickly since he took office in December, touting education, fiscal and energy
reforms. But he added that Mexican officials are watching the decisions made in the U.S. on immigration reform and other topics while
maintaining a respectful distance.¶ Cuellar, who called Peña Nieto a “strong ally,” said the U.S. is working to coordinate its
relationship with Mexico under its new president.¶ “It’s a new administration so conversations right now are ‘What adjustments
should we make?’” he said. “They have ideas and we’re going to work with them. As long as we’re on the same page, we’re going to be
continuing with Plan Merida or whatever we might call the assistance to Mexico.”
US aid to Mexico is high
Meyer and Sullivan 12 (Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs, Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin
American Affairs “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013
Appropriations”, June 26, 2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf, A.S.)
¶Haiti, Colombia, and Mexico have been the top regional recipients of U.S. foreign aid in recent ¶ years. The United States has
provided Haiti with high levels of aid for many years as a result of ¶ the country’s significant development challenges. In the immediate aftermath of the massive ¶ earthquake that struck Haiti in January 2010, the United States
provided the country with ¶ extensive humanitarian relief. Since then, U.S. assistance has focused on the establishment of ¶ long-term development in key sectors such as energy, infrastructure, basic services, and ¶ governance. As
noted above, Colombia has received considerable levels of aid since FY2000 ¶ through “Plan Colombia.” U.S. aid to Colombia has been on a downward trajectory in recent ¶ years, however, as the security situation in Colombia has
improved, the country has begun taking ¶ on financial and operational responsibility for the programs, and the United States has shifted the ¶ emphasis of its assistance away from costly military equipment toward economic and social
U.S. assistance for Mexico is designed primarily to support the country’s ¶ fight against transnational
criminal organizations. As in Colombia, aid levels have declined ¶ somewhat as the focus of U.S. assistance has shifted away from the provision of security¶ equipment to rule of law programs. In
FY2012, the United States is providing an estimated $357 ¶ million for Haiti, $383 million for Colombia, and $330 million for Mexico. Together, these
¶ countries will receive over 57% of all aid to the region (see Table 2 below)
¶ development efforts.
New funding coming
Seelke and Finklea 6-12 (Clare Ribando Seelke is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs and Kristin M. Finklea is
an Analyst in Domestic Security “U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond”, June 12,
2013, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/210921.pdf, A.S.)
Inaugurated on December 1, 2012, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has vowed to continue ¶ U.S.-Mexican
security cooperation, albeit with a shift in focus toward reducing violent crime in Mexico. Peña Nieto has begun to
adjust the process and priorities of U.S.-Mexican efforts, ¶ adjustments which President Obama has pledged to
support. The Interior Ministry is now the ¶ primary entity through which Mérida training and equipment requests are
coordinated and ¶ intelligence is channeled. The Mexican government is requesting increased assistance for judicial ¶
reform and prevention efforts, but limiting U.S. involvement in some law enforcement and ¶ intelligence operations.
As the Peña Nieto government fleshes out its security strategy, Mérida ¶ programs are likely to be adjusted in order
to support those efforts that align with U.S. priorities. ¶The 113th Congress is likely to continue funding and
overseeing the Mérida Initiative and related ¶ domestic initiatives, but may also consider supporting new programs.
From FY2008 to FY2012, ¶Congress appropriated $1.9 billion in Mérida assistance for Mexico, roughly $1.2 billion
of which ¶ had been delivered as of April 2013. The Obama Administration asked for $234.0 million for ¶ Mérida
programs in in its FY2013 budget request and $183 million in its FY2014 request. Congress may wish to examine
how well the Mexican government’s security strategy supports ¶U.S. interests in Mexico. Congressional approval
will be needed should the State Department ¶ seek to reprogram some of the funding already in the pipeline for
Mérida, or shift new funding to ¶ better align with Mexico’s new priorities. Should disagreements occur between
Mexican and U.S. ¶ priorities, Congress may weigh in on how those disagreements should be resolved. Congress
may ¶ also debate how to measure the impact of Mérida Initiative programs, as well as the extent to ¶ which Mérida
has evolved to respond to changing security conditions in Mexico. Another issue of ¶ congressional interest involves
whether Mexico is meeting the human rights conditions placed on ¶ Mérida Initiative funding.
A2: DAs – General – Technical Assistance High
Almost $2 million in Mexican technical assistance now
USTDA 12 (United States Trade and Development Agency, “Latin America and the Caribbean”,
http://www.ustda.gov/program/regions/lac/ | JJ <most recent date on it refers to the completion of 2011>)
CFE Environmental Management Project – A $640,500 technical assistance grant is assisting the Federal
Electricity Commission (CFE) in developing an environmental remediation program for its decommissioned
facilities. The objective of the technical assistance is to support CFE in determining environmental, health, and
safety guidelines for decommissioning, dismantling and retrofitting closed power plants and substations . SCT
Multimodal National Plan – A $1,323,900 technical assistance grant to Mexico's Secretary of Communications
and Transportation (SCT) is helping to develop a comprehensive national plan to modernize Mexico's multimodal
trade transportation infrastructure. Implementation of this project will strengthen Mexican competitiveness through
targeted investments in vital trade transportation links that will create greater commercial efficiencies and lower
costs along the supply chain.
A2: Spending DA – PPPs
Plan uses private investment, not federal money
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-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-theus-mexico)
15. Diversify
funding alternatives for infrastructure development: Almost all opportunities for enhancing
competitiveness in the border region require a significant investment in transportation infrastructure, including crossing
points that facilitate the flow of people and goods in an orderly and expeditious manner. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and
even standalone private investment options should be explored. Financing new ports of entry requires both a commitment
from the two federal governments and the pursuit of creative and new opportunities for public/private partnerships. One measure that would
enable long-term infrastructure planning on the U.S. side would be the approval of the Putting Our Resources toward Security (PORTS) Act. This
legislation would enable multiyear funding for the construction and upgrade of border crossing stations. Additionally public/private
partnerships represent promising opportunties for the financing of upgrades to existing ports of entry and for the
construction of new facilities. Such a partnership helped to enable the approval of the new Otay Mesa East port of entry
in San Diego County in record time. Such projects, which make use of congestion pricing, tolls, and similar mechanisms primarily to benefit
motorists willing and able to pay to cross expeditiously, should serve as complements to existing federally funded ports of entry. Still another
promising avenue for financing on the U.S. side, currently being explored in Arizona, is the creation of a Port of Entry Authority, able to raise
bond revenue for infrastructure improvements at crossing points.
A2: China SOI DA – No Competition
China-US influence in Mexico isn’t zero-sum
Global Times 13 (“China, US not competing over Latin America: expert,” 5-31,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/785721.shtml#.UfBa-41QE9o)
Chinese President Xi Jinping heads to Latin America and the Caribbean on Friday, in a state visit aiming at promoting
China's cooperation with the region. Xi's visit to Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and Mexico follows his first foreign trip to
Russia and three countries in Africa, Tanzania, South Africa and Republic of Congo, shortly after taking office in March. While Xi kicks off his
visit, US Vice President Joe Biden is concluding his Latin America visit on the same day, as he leaves Brazil Friday. Some media
reports described "dueling visits" by Chinese and US leaders, and said that the "competition between the world's two
biggest economies for influence in Latin America is on display." Both the US and China deny they are competing with
each other . Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said last week that the two countries can "carry out cooperation in
Latin America by giving play to their respective advantages." Tao Wenzhao, a fellow of the Institute of American Studies at the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that it is a coincidence that the two leaders chose to visit Latin
America at a similar time, and that China has no intention to challenge US influence in the area. "It's not like in the 19th
century when countries divided their sphere of influence in a certain area. China and the US' involvement in Latin America is not a
zero-sum game ," Tao said, explaining that it is a good thing for Latin America.
This is ESPECIALLY true of renewable energy
Brandt et al 12 (Jon, Master’s candidate at the School of International Service – American University, “Chinese
Engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean: Implications for US Foreign Policy,” U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission, December, http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Chinese-Engagement-in-LACAU_US-Congress-FINAL.pdf)
Resulting from three decades of continuous economic growth, urbanization and a massive social transformation, China is one of the
world’s most important players in the LAC energy sector . However, with only one percent of the world’s proven oil
reserves and the second largest in terms of consumption, the country has no option but to secure sustainable supply sources
elsewhere . Countries in Latin America (especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela) are among China’s premier
investment destinations. 74% of all Chinese lines of credit to LAC is in oil loans to guarantee future energy supply and energy security.28 While
China’s quest for energy security is not a direct threat to US energy security, the relationship between China and Latin
American oil exporters should be closely monitored. One area of potential growth and trilateral cooperation is in renewable
energy investment. Historically speaking, the United States has led the way in renewable energy investment, but over the
past several years, China has made remarkable advances with a surge of new investment in and emphasis on renewable energy technology.
Investments in renewable energy reached new heights in 2011, topping $257 billion, up from only $39.4 billion in 2004 (552 percent increase in
eight years).29 China has surpassed the US in the volume of renewable energy investment, is second behind the EU, and is looking to expand its
markets for renewable energy. China and other Asian countries have set ambitious targets for renewable energy as part of their
primary energy portfolios. Government grants, subsidies and other tax incentives have prompted a wave of Chinese manufacturing in wind
turbines, solar photovoltaic panels and other renewable products. For example, Chinese solar panel production has actually outpaced demand
globally and the Chinese are aggressively trying to develop Latin America’s market for solar panels. Latin America provides an attractive market
for Asia in the renewable sector and there is great potential to foster increased cooperation in the energy security of both regions as they strive to
become less dependent on expensive and dwindling hydrocarbons. Alternative energy provides a green platform to promote closer
economic ties, ultimately helping to mitigate the all-inclusive threat of climate change. Beijing and Washington have similar
concerns in their energy policies and face the same set of challenges: high dependency on foreign sources of energy, rising
energy-related environmental impacts, how to achieve energy conservation and efficiency, and the effect on their economies of energy price
spikes. Although China and the United States do not rely on each other for energy supplies, as the two largest oil-consuming countries
they are natural energy bedfellows in coping with similar challenges. They should cooperate, through joint or parallel action, to
keep global energy supplies open, secure, and at an affordable price level. Both countries would win if they choose to cooperate rather than
confront each other in their pursuit of energy security and efficiency. If the US and China can promote the expansion of renewable energy in
Latin America, it will help exporters and producers within the US and China by expanding trade and investment opportunities throughout the
LAC region. By partnering with capital-rich China and an innovative US, Latin America has the opportunity to expand its own knowledge and
manufacturing base and grow its renewable energy market into one that can provide sustainable solutions for the region whose diverse climate
should take full advantage of the benefits of renewable energy. The US should take the lead in coordinating trilateral trade fairs
and business forums, an initiative often pursued bilaterally or intra-regionally.
A2: Politics – Renewable Popular
Congress supports investment in alternative energy
EPFEGCCSI ’09 (Energy and Project Finance and Environmental Groups and the Climate Change and
Sustainability Initiative, “Is the Future Finally Green? Congress Supports President Obama's Vision for an Energy
Revolution”, Ballard Spahr LLP., February 16, http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2009-0216_isthefuturefinallygreencongresssupports.aspx)
Faced with a national economic crisis, the U.S. Congress and the President made dozens of hard choices as they
crafted emergency stimulus legislation. No industry emerged with deeper support than the alternative and
sustainable energy sector, with the inclusion in the legislation of almost $60 billion in energy tax incentives, grants,
loans, loan guarantees, and related initiatives. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as
finalized by the Conference Committee, was passed by the U.S. Congress on February 13, 2009. Key provisions are
designed to spur new investment in technology, accelerate energy conservation in buildings, upgrade the nation's
transmission grid, and bring the tax-motivated renewable energy investments of "tax equity" financiers back to life.
If cumulatively successful, the measures are probably big and bold enough, over time, to inject renewable energy
and energy efficiency into almost every corner of the U.S. economy.
Renewable energy is bipartisan
Yin 10 (Clifton Yin “A bipartisan effort on RES needed to compete globally”,
http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/121501-a-bipartisan-effort-on-res-needed-to-compete-globally, //JG)
It is great to hear that senators are working together in a genuinely bipartisan fashion to pass a national renewable
energy standard (RES). The news comes none too soon, as foreign competitors such as China, Germany and Japan
are already working to aggressively build up their renewable-energy industries. Members of both parties can agree
that a cleaner, more diversified energy economy is desirable in terms of our global competitiveness and national
health and security.
Contrary to being bad for business, an RES would finally remove the uncertainty holding investors back from
committing to the long-term development of the domestic renewable-energy industry. A national RES is a
pragmatic, reasonable policy and not a pie-in-the-sky idea — 27 states and the District of Columbia already have
some form of RES on the books, and five other states have set voluntary goals for the utilization of renewable
energy. In fact, the Senate proposal seems downright modest in comparison to existing state standards. Maine, for
example, has a target of having utilities derive 40 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and
New York is shooting for 24 percent by 2013, whereas the Bingaman-Brownback bill pushes for only 15 percent by
2021. Of course, the Senate legislation has the added benefit of providing states with the flexibility to meet a quarter
of the RES through energy-efficiency measures. In light of the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, it is high time we
recognize that oil is not the only domestic energy resource worth tapping — our nation is also blessed with
enormous wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy potential. A national RES would be a great step forward
in growing those burgeoning domestic industries and creating jobs in the process.
Fossil fuel lobbying influence low - elections
Kemp 12 (John Kemp, 11/9/12 “Fossil fuel lobbys election gamble backfires”,
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/11/9/policy-politics/fossil-fuel-lobbys-election-gamble-backfires,
//JG)
“Elections have consequences, and Eric, I won," President Barack Obama famously told House Republican Whip
Eric Cantor shortly after his first inauguration in January 2009.
Four years later, Wall Street as well as the oil and gas industry will return to work today knowing that they
heavily backed the losing side and now have very little political capital with the re-elected Obama
administration and the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate.
Some urgent bridge-building will be required in the coming days if they are to influence financial regulation and
energy policy over the next four years.
VOTES HAVE CONSEQUENCES President Barak Obama's re-election ensures the Democrats will retain their 3-2
majorities on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC), the agencies charged with implementing the controversial derivatives portions of the 2010 Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Senate Democrats and the president will block any attempt to re-write the
Dodd-Frank Act, and the continuing Democratic majority in the Senate will leave the president with a relatively free
hand to nominate regulators committed to a fairly aggressive interpretation of the landmark financial law.
On energy and the environment, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
remain in the hands of conservation-minded policymakers, who want to tilt the energy market in favour of clean
technologies, back strict controls on greenhouse emissions and vehicle efficiency and are somewhat sceptical about
drilling for oil and gas.
A2: Politics – PC Already Spent
No link uniqueness
Castellanos 5/3 (Edwin Castellanos, 5/3/13 “USA and Mexicos cooperation in green energy”
http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=794)
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.
A2: Politics – Engagement Popular
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."