Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 326

Arctic Mapping AffMichigan GRAMS Lab 7wk

Seniors
1AC
1ACShipping
Advantage one is shipping
Two scenarios
A. EconomyStatus quo shipping is dangerous and unprofitable due to
outdated maps and datathe plan is key to sustain development and
incentivizes greater investment
Kendrick 6/28/14writer for the Barents Observer,
graduate of the University of Marylands masters program
in journalism (Lyle, Map Shortcomings Could Hinder
Northern Sea Route Growth, Barents Observer, 6/28/14,
http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/06/map-
shortcomings-could-hinder-northern-sea-route-growth-28-
06)//JG
Sea ice and depth mapping deficits still exist near the
Northern Sea Route that could temper international
excitement about the prospect of extensive Arctic
shipping. Melting ice allowed the region to open up
shipping routes in Arctic waters that are mostly under
Russian control and cut significant transit time between
Europe and Asia. Use of the route has steadily grown since
ships began using it in 2010. According to data from the
Northern Sea Route Administration, four vessels used the
route in 2010, 34 used it in 2011, 46 used it in 2012 and 71
used it last year. China will be releasing a guide to Arctic
shipping in July for ships sailing through the Northern Sea
Route to Europe. But the current weak satellites in the
area and poor sea maps are like bottlenecks preventing the
kind of massive Arctic transit speculated by some, said Jan-
Gunnar-Winther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute,
to the BarentsObserver. Satellite communication with
ships in the High North is weak which means ship operators
cannot adequately take real-time high-resolution images for
other vessels to use, Winther said. These kinds of images
give information about sea conditions which allow efficient
and safe maneuvering in water that is partly covered in ice,
he said. The area is particularly dangerous to navigate
without sufficient mapping data because there is limited
infrastructure for search and rescue operations. Vessels
are safest on the route when following icebreakers which
can help navigate frozen Arctic patches and be a first line of
support in a search and rescue operation, said Gunnar
Sander, an Arctic sea ice researcher with the Norwegian
Polar Institute, to the BarentsObserver. Icebreakers are
expensive but without them, vessels face much higher risks,
he said. A 138-meter tanker was stranded for several days
after it struck ice during September while sailing in the
Matisen Strait of the Northern Sea Route without an
icebreaker escort. The Northern Sea Route Administration
had granted the tanker a permit to sail in the Kara Sea and
the Laptev Sea in light ice conditions with an icebreaker
escort. As far as I can judge now, the Russians have quite
a good system as long as you follow the icebreakers, Sander
said. In addition to ice on the water, depth data is also
lacking in many parts of the Arctic Ocean, according to a
January report on the Arctic by the World Economic Forum
nonprofit organization in Switzerland. Bathymetric
mapping, or depth mapping, is critical for monitoring
ocean currents and the development of shipping
lanes in the shallow waters near Russias Arctic coast,
according to that report. The Northern Sea Route passes
through some straits which are less than 10 meters deep,
according to a 2013 report for the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs by a panel of Arctic researchers. Large ships now
mostly follow a route north of the New Siberian Islands
which is at least 18 meters deep. Many of the mapping
deficits that could create a bottleneck effect for
shipping in the area are being addressed through
both widespread charting and legal measures.
Russia is increasing its hydrographic work in the Arctic and
the country has commissioned surveys for the white spots
on maps that lack depth data in 2015 and 2016, said Vitaly
Klyuev, the deputy director of the Department of State
Policy for Maritime and River Transport of Russia, in a 2012
announcement. Russia is also planning to have ten Arctic
search and rescue centers by next year. The International
Maritime Organization is developing a mandatory
international safety code for ships in polar waters called the
Polar Code. Mapping and charting issues will be included in
the code. The responsibility for how the Polar Code would
be implemented would lie with the states themselves, which
would give them broad discretion, said Tore Henriksen, a
professor and director of the sea law center at the University
of Troms, to the BarentsObserver. Despite ice melting in
the Arctic region, it is still a serious danger for shippers
in the area and expensive icebreakers are the best option for
safe travel, Sander said. Its completely misleading to talk
about an ice-free Arctic Ocean, Sander said. While the
number of ships in the region and along the route is
growing, it still sees nowhere near the number of vessels as
routes like the Suez Canal, which had more than 17,000
vessels last year.
The plan massively increases shipper and navigational confidence
Davison 12writer for Alaska Dispatch (Janet, Arctic
mapping to make navigating Northwest Passage safer,
Alaska Dispatch, 10/14/12,
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-mapping-
make-navigating-northwest-passage-safer)//JG
Arctic explorers may have come up empty-handed in the
search for Sir John Franklin's lost shipwrecked vessels, but
the research they did will help future mariners navigating
the treacherous the Northwest Passage. But in a bit of Arctic
irony, work done during the search in Nunavut will help
future mariners navigating through the icy and dangerous
waters where HMS Erebus and HMS Terror may have gone
down. Hydrographers who were part of the search gathered
enough depth and multi-beam sidescan sonar data to create
a preliminary electronic chart that expands the area
for safe navigation in Alexandra Strait, reducing travel
time and saving fuel costs for vessels in the area.
Andrew Leyzack, the Canadian Hydrographic Service's
hydrographer-in-charge during the Franklin search, says
this past summer's result is significant. Not only will it help
reduce travel time for vessels around King William Island by
six or seven hours, but it could also provide an alternative
navigation route in case of ice in the lower Victoria Strait.
"The time savings and the fuel savings are considerable,"
says Leyzack, who noted the new route could also be useful
if a vessel runs into trouble. "In the event of a search-and-
rescue call, it just cuts off that much more time if the
responding vessels could transit this route as opposed to
going all the way around the Royal Geographic Society
Islands." The new chart which Leyzack likens to a multi-
lane highway replacing a dirt road will guide ships from
Victoria Strait to Storis Passage and comes as the Canadian
Hydrographic Service faces increasing demands for
mapping and updating navigational charts for the Arctic.
Economic motivation And just as economic dreams fuelled
Franklin's ultimately doomed quest to find the Northwest
Passage, a fiscal motivation lies behind the mounting
pressure for better charts. Interests ranging from oil
and gas exploration and resource extraction to tourism want
to take vessels to new areas and in greater numbers. Add the
impact of changing climate, and retreating ice patterns,
along with the desire to do what it takes to avoid shipping
accidents and their associated potential environmental
threats and salvage costs, and the CHS is under no illusion
about the demand for its services. But don't expect charts
showing every detail of the Arctic seabed north of 60
degrees latitude an area of about seven million square
kilometres any time soon. "Canada has the longest
coastline in the world and we have three oceans and the
Great Lakes," says Savi Narayanan, the CHS's director
general. "It is totally unrealistic to have all the areas fully
charted to modern standards where any ship can go
anytime." So the service has been setting priorities. Ten
years ago, the Arctic didn't rank very high. But that's
changed in the past decade, with the increased Arctic oil and
gas exploration, tourism and more traffic in the northern
waters. "We realized we need to have enhanced
charting in the Arctic," says Narayanan. Staying inside
the lines Tim Keane, vice-president of Enfotec Technical
Services, a subsidiary of the Montreal-based bulk shipping
company Fednav that specializes in ice analysis and vessel
routing, says there are areas within the Northwest Passage
where there are scant soundings. "It could benefit from
more extensive soundings to determine exactly how much
draft a ship can carry through that area." Shippers don't
want to go where they have little guidance about
what might lie underneath the water's surface.
"There are vast areas where there are no surveys or nothing
in any chart that would indicate that the area has been well
surveyed, so you are restricted in terms of navigating," says
Keane, whose firm works with mining developments that
would require bulk shipping in the North, such as
Baffinland's Mary River iron mine. "Any prudent navigator
will never put his[/her] ship into a position where (s)he's
outside of a known charted area." For the CHS, charting
priority is focusing on the main existing navigational
channels. "The area where Parks Canada would like to
search for the Franklin ships is also an area of high priority
for charting because that is one of the navigational corridors
and it's a really high-risk area because of the weather
conditions and the ice conditions," says Narayanan. Only
about 10 per cent of the total Arctic has been charted and
surveyed to a modern standard. Twenty-five to 35 per cent
of the main Arctic shipping routes are surveyed and charted
to that standard, says Narayanan. (In southern Canada,
almost 100 per cent of the most critical channels are charted
to that level.) Changing climate Retreating Arctic ice has
also influenced how the service is determining where to
focus its resources. "Of course climate change is a factor in
determining where we need to do charting or where the
traffic will go, because we need to make sure that we provide
the information ... to prevent accidents," says Narayanan. In
terms of climate change, she says, the ice retreat will happen
more on the Russian side of the Arctic, rather than the
Canadian, because of the way the water moves in the Arctic
Ocean. During this summer's Franklin search,
hydrographers completed 266 square kilometres of seabed
mapping using multi-beam sonar systems on two survey
vessels, meeting the CHS's goal for coverage from those
boats. Another 74 square kilometres of mapping was done
from the research vessel Martin Bergmann. That was about
half the area expected and largely a result of equipment
breakdowns that cost about 80 hours of production time.
An autonomous underwater vehicle provided by the
University of Victoria covered about 4 charting. This year's
CHS work was part of a three-year plan. Leyzack expects
hydrographers will likely be back surveying next summer.
"Each year reveals more clues regarding Canada's Arctic
geography," he says. "With the rising number of cargo ships
transiting the Northwest Passage, I think it's rather relevant
that we're here doing this and gathering all the information
possible about the environment ... not only with a goal to
protect the environment, but also to make marine safety our
top priority."
Arctic shipping not cost effective absent the planmultiple barriers key
to effective global shipping, but effective shipping lanes in the Arctic
could reap huge potential benefits
Humpert and Raspotnik 12 (Malte Humpert- Executive
Director of The Arctic Institute, graduate studies at
Georgetown University included regime change in the
Arctic, energy and security issues, and economic potential of
Arctic shipping routes, and Andreas Raspotnik, Research
Fellow at the University of Cologne, double PhD, The
Future of Arctic Shipping October, 11, 2012,
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/10/the-future-of-
arctic-shipping.html)//HA
Arctic sea ice is melting rapidly, and within the next decade
the effects of global warming maybe transform the Polar
region from an inaccessible frozen desert into a seasonally
navigable ocean. The summer of 2011 saw a record 33 ships,
carrying 850,000 tons of cargo navigate the Northern Sea
Route (NSR) off Russias northern coast. This years
shipping season may see up to 1.5 million tons of cargo, as
Germanys Alfred Wegener Institute predicts the NSR to be
ice-free and passable for ships by early summer. The North
West Passage (NWP), first ice-free in 2007, and the
Transpolar Sea Route (TSR) may also open up to shipping
traffic over the coming decades. An in-depth assessment of
the viability of shipping along the TSR will be published in
the upcoming Arctic Yearbook 2012, which will be available
from the Northern Research Forums website from October
2012. The development of Arctic offshore hydrocarbon
resources and related economic activities will also improve
the integration of the Arctic economy in global trade
patterns. Multi-year ice and the limited seasonal window for
trans-Arctic voyages however, will for the foreseeable future
remain formidable obstacles to the development of Arctic
shipping and its economic viability. Trans-Arctic shipping
routes will thus not serve as a substitute for existing
shipping lanes, but will instead provide new and additional
capacity for a growing transportation volume. A navigable
Arctic Ocean? Summer ice extent has declined by 40
percent since satellite observation began in 1979, and over
the same period sea ice has thinned considerably,
experiencing a decline in volume of 70 percent. Studies
differ widely in their predictions of when summer sea ice
will melt completely. The latest findings suggest that Arctic
sea ice may have entered into a new state of low ice cover. A
recent article by Valerie N. Livina and Timothy M. Lenton
on the bifurcation of Arctic sea-ice cover describes it as
"distinct from the normal state of seasonal sea ice
variation." Arctic sea-ice may have crossed a tipping point
which could soon make ice-free summers an annual feature
across most of the Arctic Ocean. Longer ice-free periods A
new study by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) suggests that multi-year ice, which
is the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice and the principal
obstacle to shipping in the Arctic Ocean, is disappearing at a
faster rate than the younger and thinner ice. The ice-free
period along the Arctics main shipping routes is expected to
increase from around 30 days in 2010 to more than 120
days by the middle of the century. Furthermore, the
distribution of the remaining summer ice will not be
uniform across the Arctic Ocean. Studies suggest that sea ice
will collect and persist longest along the northern flanks of
the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland while the central
and eastern part of the Arctic will see the most significant
decline of ice, further extending the shipping season along
the NSR. In 2011 the navigational season along the NSR
lasted for 141 days, from early July until mid-November (see
figure 1). Significant obstacles remain Nonetheless,
significant obstacles to shipping remain such as icing from
sea spray, wind chill, remoteness as well as their
implications for rescue and emergency operations, and the
lack of reliable weather forecasts. During the winter and
spring months ice conditions along Arctic shipping routes
will remain heavy, and the amount of floating sea ice and
number of icebergs - a hazard to the safety of marine
transport, may increase during the early melt season as
more ice floes break apart and drift across the Arctic Ocean.
Shorter sailing distances Routing shipping traffic through
the Arctic allows for shorter sailing distances resulting in
shorter trips. Shipping operators can achieve cost savings
through a reduction of number of days at sea, energy
efficiency improvements due to slower sailing speeds, or a
combination of both. Distance savings along Arctic shipping
routes can be as high as 40 percent compared to the
traditional shipping lanes via the Suez Canal. Shorter sailing
distances allow for considerable fuel cost savings. The
reduced number of days at sea allows a ship to make more
return trips resulting in increased revenue and potentially
greater profits. Instead of realizing time savings, operators
can also adopt super-slow sailing. A vessel traveling from
Murmansk to Tokyo can reduce its speed by 40 percent and
still arrive in Japan at the same time as a ship sailing at full
speed traveling through the Suez Canal. Super-slow sailing
can also double a vessels energy efficiency performance,
resulting in a significant reduction of greenhouse-gas
emissions. If a future emissions control framework was to
include global maritime traffic, this reduction of emissions
could thus also result in significant cost savings. Economic
feasibility of Arctic shipping Global shipping operations are
dependent on three key factors: predictability, punctuality,
and economy-of-scale, all of which are currently limited in
Arctic shipping. Consequently, the lack of schedule
reliability and highly variable transit times along the Arctic
shipping routes represent major obstacles to the
development of Arctic shipping. The majority of cargo ships
that travel the worlds oceans operate on regular schedules,
known as liner service. In total more than 6,000 ships, most
of them container ships, follow a set route calling at a
number of ports to load and unload cargo, which
consequently supplies the concerned countrys hinterland.
Profitability can only be achieved with large- scale shipping
based on stable and predictable (year-round) operations.
The ability to schedule journeys a long time in advance and
to guarantee uninterrupted service is considered key for
container ship operators. Bulk dry and wet carriers, on the
other hand, follow less predictable schedules and their
routes depend more on changing supply and demand of less
time- sensitive items. Of the four kinds of Arctic voyages
undertaken in the Arctic Ocean - destination transport,
intra-Arctic transport, trans-Arctic transport and cabotage -
trans-Arctic shipping may face the most significant hurdle
to becoming part of the global trade patterns. Draft and
beam restrictions Arctic shipping routes, especially the
NSR, are subject to significant draft and beam restrictions.
Ships along the NSR must pass through a number of narrow
and shallow straits in the Kara and Laptev Sea. The
Yugorskiy Shar Strait at the southernmost entrance from
the Barents to the Kara Sea follows a channel 21 nautical
miles long and 12-30 meters deep. Along the eastern section
of the NSR, ships must navigate either the Dmitry Laptev
Strait or the Sannikov Strait to pass through the New
Siberian Islands and travel from the Laptev to the East
Siberian Seas.The eastern approach of the Laptev Strait has
a depth of less than 10 meters, restricting the draft of ships
to less than 6.7 meters. In addition, Russias government
only permits ships with the highest ice classification1A
Finnish Swedish, to sail the route. Currently, only three
vessels out of more than 2,000 Panamax ships have that
classification. Arctic shipping infrastructure A key
characteristic of Arctic shipping routes is the limited
number of ports of call. According to the Arctic Logistics
Information Office, 16 ports, most of them ice-covered for
part of the year, are located along the NSR. The port of
Murmansk and the port of Petropavlovsk on Russias far-
east Kamchatka peninsula are considered essential for the
development of the NSR. Both ports are expected to serve as
terminals and hubs of the NSR. In November 2011 Vladimir
Putin announced a major overhaul of the entire Russian
transport system with special attention to maritime traffic
in the Arctic. Russia plans to build up to 10 emergency
centers focused on meteorological and rescue services as
well as border patrol along the NSR.The capacity of Russias
seaports is scheduled to increase 50 percent by 2015 and the
country plans to invest 134 rubles (3.4 billion) into
developing maritime traffic over the next 10 years. The port
of Kirkenes, Norway and the port of Vopnafjrur, Iceland
may serve as major future Arctic hubs. Icelands strategic
location at the entrance and exit to the Arctic Ocean and
Vopnafjrurs suitability as a deep-water port with depth
up to 70m, may allow development into a transshipment
hub. Future development and investment will however,
depend significantly on the countrys financial and
economic situation and foreign investments. Over the past
decade China has continuously increased its economic
cooperation with the small island nation and Chinas
premier Wen Jiabao recently visited Iceland to further
strengthen the economic ties between the two countries. A
Chinese delegation also visited the Faroe Islands, a small
group of islands under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of
Denmark, where domestic policy makers have also
identified the islands role in future Arctic shipping as a
priority. Conclusion Over the past decades the Arctic has
witnessed a much faster than anticipated decline of sea ice
and the continuation of this trend will transform the Arctic
Ocean into a navigable seaway over the coming decades. Yet
due to the regions unique navigational and economic
challenges Arctic shipping will, for the foreseeable future,
only be cost effective for a limited number of operators.
Shipping key to stable food prices, trade, and world economic stability
Mitropolous 5 (Efthimios, Secretary-General of the
International Maritime Organization of the United Nations,
World Maritime Day Parallel Event, 11/15, International
Maritime Organization,
http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=
1028&doc_id=5415)
We hoped to kick-start moves towards creating a far
broader awareness that a healthy and successful shipping
industry has ramifications that reach far beyond the
industry itself. Global economic prosperity is dependent on
trade and trade, in turn, is dependent on a safe and secure
transport network. Shipping is the most important part of
that global network, although it is rarely acknowledged as
such, and seldom given the credit it deserves. Indeed, I have
long come to the sad conclusion that the contribution made
by the shipping industry - and, in particular, by those who
work hard, both on board ships and ashore, to make it safer
and more environmentally friendly - is greatly undervalued
by the public at large. You may have noticed that I used the
word "sad" to brand my conclusion. I am sorry to say that
there is another word I might suggest as more fitting to
characterize the situation and that is the word "unfair" - in
capital letters! I think it is worth pausing for a moment to
consider just how vital the contribution of ships and
shipping actually is. More than 90 per cent of global trade is
reportedly carried by sea; over the last four decades, total
seaborne trade estimates have nearly quadrupled, from less
than 6 thousand billion tonne-miles in 1965 to 25 thousand
billion tonne-miles in 2003; and, according to UN figures,
the operation of merchant ships in the same year
contributed about US$380 billion in freight rates within the
global economy, equivalent to about 5 per cent of total
world trade. This year, the shipping industry is expected to
transport 6.6 billion tonnes of cargo. If you consider this
figure vis--vis the 6.4 billion population of the world, you
will realize that this works out at more than one tonne of
cargo for every man, woman and child on the face of the
planet - even more for the richer nations. As seaborne trade
continues to expand, it also brings benefits for consumers
throughout the world. The transport cost element in the
price of consumer goods varies from product to product and
is estimated to account for around 2 per cent of the shelf
price of a television set and only around 1.2 per cent of a kilo
of coffee. Thanks to the growing efficiency of shipping as a
mode of transport and to increased economic liberalization,
the prospects for the industry's further growth continue to
be strong. Shipping is truly the lynchpin of the global
economy. Without shipping, intercontinental trade, the bulk
transport of raw materials and the import and export of
affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not
be possible. Shipping makes the world go round and, so, let
us be in no doubt about its broader significance. To put it in
simple terms, as I have done before on a number of
occasions during the campaign initiated at IMO to
encourage all those involved in shipping to pay more
attention to its public perception, without international
shipping half the world would starve and the other half
would freeze.
Trade prevents war, contains war, and checks escalationsolves all
other impacts
GRISWOLD 2011 (Daniel Griswold is director of the
Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and
author of Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America
Should Embrace Globalization. Free Trade and the Global
Middle Class, Hayek Society Journal Vol. 9
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/Hayek-Society-Journal-
Griswold.pdf)
Our more globalized world has also yielded a peace
dividend. It may not be obvious when our daily news cycles
are dominated by horrific images from the Gaza Strip,
Afghanistan and Libya, but our more globalized world has
somehow become a more peaceful world. The number of
civil and international wars has dropped sharply in the past
15 years, along with battle deaths. The reasons behind the
retreat of war are complex, but again the spread of trade
and globalization have played a key role. Trade has been
seen as a friend of peace for centuries. In the 19
th
century,
British statesman Richard Cobden pursued free trade as a
way not only to bring more affordable bread to English
workers but also to promote peace with Britains neighbors.
He negotiated the Cobden-Chevalier free trade agreement
with France in 1860 that helped to cement an enduring
alliance between two countries that had been bitter enemies
for centuries. In the 20
th
century, President Franklin
Roosevelts secretary of state, Cordell Hull, championed
lower trade barriers as a way to promote peaceful commerce
and reduce international tensions. Hull had witnessed first-
hand the economic nationalism and retribution after World
War I. Hull believed that unhampered trade dovetail[s]
with peace; high tariffs, trade barriers and unfair economic
competition, with war. Hull was awarded the 1945 Nobel
Prize for Peace, in part because of his work to promote
global trade. Free trade and globalization have promoted
peace in three main ways. First, trade and globalization
have reinforced the trend towards democracy, and
democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. A
second and even more potent way that trade has promoted
peace is by raising the cost of war. As national economies
become more intertwined, those nations have more to lose
should war break out. War in a globalized world not only
means the loss of human lives and tax dollars, but also
ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting
damage on the economy. Trade and economic integration
has helped to keep the peace in Europe for more than 60
years. More recently, deepening economic ties between
Mainland China and Taiwan are drawing those two
governments closer together and helping to keep the peace.
Leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Straight seem to
understand that reckless nationalism would jeopardize the
dramatic economic progress that region has enjoyed. A third
reason why free trade promotes peace is because it has
reduced the spoils of war. Trade allows nations to acquire
wealth through production and exchange rather than
conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop,
wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual
property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets
cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets
such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less
important in high-tech, service economies. If people need
resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or
farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by freely
trading what they can produce best at home. The world
today is harvesting the peaceful fruit of expanding trade.
The first half of the 20
th
century was marred by two
devastating wars among the great powers of Europe. In the
ashes of World War II, the United States helped found the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, the
precursor to the WTO that helped to spur trade between the
United States and its major trading partners. As a condition
to Marshall Plan aid, the U.S. government also insisted that
the continental European powers, France, Germany, and
Italy, eliminate trade barriers between themselves in what
was to become the European Common Market. One purpose
of the common market was to spur economic development,
of course, but just as importantly, it was meant to tie the
Europeans together economically. With six decades of
hindsight, the plan must be considered a spectacular
success. The notion of another major war between France,
Germany and another Western European powers is
unimaginable. Compared to past eras, our time is one of
relative world peace. According to the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute, the number of
armed conflicts around the world has dropped sharply in
the past two decades. Virtually all the conflicts today are
civil and guerilla wars. The spectacle of two governments
sending armies off to fight in the battlefield has become
rare. In the decade from 1998 through 2007, only three
actual wars were fought between states: Eritrea-Ethopia in
1998-2000, India-Pakistan in 1998-2003, and the United
States-Iraq in 2003. From 2004 through 2007, no two
nations were at war with one another. Civil wars have ended
or at least ebbed in Aceh (in Indonesia), Angola, Burundi,
Congo, Liberia, Nepal, Timor-Leste and Sierra Leone.
Coming to the same conclusion is the Human Security
Centre at the University of British Colombia in Canada. In a
2005 report, it documented a sharp decline in the number
of armed conflicts, genocides and refugee numbers in the
past 20 years. The average number of deaths per conflict
has fallen from 38,000 in 1950 to 600 in 2002. Most armed
conflicts in the world now take place in Sub-Saharan Africa,
and the only form of political violence that has worsened in
recent years is international terrorism. Many causes lie
behind the good news the end of the Cold War, the spread
of democracy, and peacekeeping efforts by major powers
among them but expanding trade and globalization
appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace.
In a chapter from the 2005 Economic Freedom of the World
Report, Dr. Erik Gartzke of Columbia University compared
the propensity of countries to engage in wars to their level of
economic freedom. He came to the conclusion that
economic freedom, including the freedom to trade,
significantly decreases the probability that a country will
experience a military dispute with another country. Through
econometric analysis, he found that, Making economies
freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the
extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict
prone as the most free. A 2006 study for the institute for the
Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany, found the same pacific
effect of trade and globalization. Authors Solomon Polachek
and Carlos Seiglie found that trading nations cooperate
more and fight less. In fact, a doubling of trade reduces the
probability that a country will be involved in a conflict by 20
percent. Trade was the most important channel for peace,
they found, but investment flows also had a positive effect.
A democratic form of government also proved to be a force
for peace, but primarily because democracies trade more.
All this helps explain why the worlds two most conflict-
prone regions the Arab Middle East and Sub-Saharan
Africa are also the worlds two least globally and
economically integrated regions. Terrorism does not spring
from poverty, but from ideological fervor and political and
economic frustration. If we want to blunt the appeal of
radical ideology to the next generation of Muslim children
coming of age, we can help create more economic
opportunity in those societies by encouraging more trade
and investment ties with the West. The U.S. initiative to
enact free trade agreements with certain Muslim countries,
such as Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman, represent
small steps in the right direction. An even more effective
policy would be to unilaterally open Western markets to
products made and grown in Muslim countries. A young
man or woman with a real job at an export-oriented factory
making overcoats in Jordan or shorts in Egypt is less
vulnerable to the appeal of an Al-Qaida recruiter. Of course,
free trade and globalization do not guarantee peace or
inoculation against terrorism, anymore than they guarantee
democracy and civil liberty. Hot-blooded nationalism and
ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic
calculations. Any relationship involving human beings will
be messy and non-linear. There will always be exceptions
and outliers in such complex relationships involving
economies and governments. But deeper trade and
investment ties among nations have made it more likely that
democracy and civil liberties will take root, and less likely
those gains will be destroyed by civil conflict and war.
Economic decline causes war
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat
Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, Economics of
War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives,
pg 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may
increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science
literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to
the impact of economic decline and the security and defence
behaviour 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 as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that
leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the
risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 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 that 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 trade 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 conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg &
Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked
with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg,
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
economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly
correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and
Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than
autocratic states, due to the fact 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 United States, and thus weak
Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic
scholarship positively correlates economic integration with
an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas
political science scholarship links economic decline with
external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.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. Those studies tend to
focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global
interdependence and do not specifically consider the
occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As
such, the view presented here should be considered
ancillary to those views.
B. Environment attempts at Arctic shipping are inevitable in the squo
National Geographic 13 National Geographic Staff,
NOVEMBER 8, 2013,
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/
energy/great-energy-challenge/big-energy-question/arctic-
what-do-we-need-to-know/)//HA
The Arctic is currently changing in ways we are still trying to
grasp, but it is already dramatically, undeniably different
than it was just 30 years ago. The white cover of sea ice that
blankets the Arctic is receding dramatically in the summer
months. Satellite data show the September minimum has
shrunk by more than 11 percent per decade since 1979,
researchers say. As the volume and frequency of open water
in the Arctic grows, so too does activity by oil and gas,
shipping, mining, and other industries. Ship transit through
the Bering Strait, the gateway from the North Pacific Ocean
to the Arctic, more than doubled between 2008 and 2012,
and sea traffic throughout the region continues to grow
exponentially as it provides a shorter cargo route between
Asia and Europe. At the same time, several companies seek
to mine reserves that could contain as much as 22 percent of
the world's undiscovered conventional oil and gas. (See
related video: Experts use three words to describe the Arctic
at The Arctic: The Science of Change live event.) Questions,
too, are mounting along with the activity. The Arctic
nationsthe United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark
(including Greenland), Norway, Iceland, Finland, and
Swedennow face unprecedented dilemmas over resource
development, ecosystems protection, emergency response
infrastructure, geopolitical boundaries, and many other
effects of a changing northern climate.
But absent effective charts, current shipping risks environmental
catastrophenavigation capabilities are key to cooperation and disaster
response
ICS 14 (INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING
(ICS), Arctic Shipping Position Paper 2014,
http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-
source/resources/policy-tools/ics-position-paper-on-arctic-
shipping.pdf?sfvrsn=12)//HA
2. Development of Arctic maritime infrastructure to support
safety and environmental protection While the IMO Polar
Code will provide the regulatory framework, the
infrastructure needed to ensure safety and environmental
protection in the Arctic must also be developed. This
includes inter alia aids to navigation, nautical charts, means
of satellite communication, bunkering facilities, port
reception facilities for ships waste, pilotage in shallow
passages, possible ice-breaking assistance, as well as search
and rescue infrastructure developed for defined incident
scenarios and the provision of adequate places of refuge
should ships be in distress.5 In particular, a commitment is
required by IMO (and IHO) Member States to conduct the
necessary hydrographic surveys in order to bring Arctic
navigational charts up to a level acceptable to support safe
navigation, as well as systems to support the real-time
acquisition, analysis and transfer of meteorological,
oceanographic, sea ice and iceberg data. Serious challenges
related to life-saving and oil spill clean-up capability in
remote or hostile waters or where sea ice potentially
presents an obstacle must be also addressed. In particular,
in co-operation with IMO, this requires increased co-
ordination amongst Arctic nations to promote the regions
Search and Rescue (SAR) capability, salvage capacity, and
emergency pollution response. 6
Biodiversity hotspots key to global biodiversity
Johnsen et. al 10 (Kathrine I. Johnsen (Editor in Chief),
Bjrn Alfthan, Lawrence Hislop, Janet F. Skaalvik,
Protecting Arctic Biodiversity UNEP, 2010,
http://www.unep.org/pdf/arcticMEAreport_screen.pdf)//
HA
The Arctic contribution to global biodiversity is
significant. Although the Arctic has relatively few species
compared to areas such as the tropics, the region is
recognised for its genetic diversity, reflecting the many ways
in which species have adapted to extreme environment2 .
Hundreds of migrating species (including 279 species of
birds, and the grey and humpback whales) travel long
distances each year in order to take advantage of the short
but productive Arctic summers2 .
Marine hotspots are keythe impact is extinction
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 HotspotsF.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_c
onservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)//HA
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity
crisis, since it is irreversible. Human activities have
elevated the rate 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
Earths 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. Earths species are a vast genetic
storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or
the next new pathogenscures waiting to be discovered.
Compounds initially derived from wild species account for
more than half of all commercial medicineseven 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 worlds 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 the basis 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
worlds 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 Earths 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 Earths 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 trhe
biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also
depend upon these ecosystems the mostand, 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 budgetperhaps 90%
originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries
(James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally
exible funds availablein the hundreds of millions
annuallybe 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
rst? The eld 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
regionif 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 rst 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 (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an
institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional
worked with Myers in a rst 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 worlds 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 scientic publication (Myers et al.2000) that
introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the
better-dened 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
redened several hotspots, such as the Eastern
Afromontane region, and added several others that were
suspected hotspots but for which sufcient data either did
not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists
outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another
regionthe East Melanesian Islandswhich 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.


1ACRussia
Advantage two is Russia
Militaristic Russia expansionism into the Arctic nowUS policy and
support from other Arctic nations key to prevent escalatory conflict
Mitchell 14 (Jon Mitchell, pursuing Masters degree in
public policy, with a concentration in international affairs
Russias Territorial Ambition and Increased Military
Presence in the Arctic April 23, 2014, Foreign Policy
Journal,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/23/russias-
territorial-ambition-and-increased-military-presence-in-
the-arctic/)//HA
As the U.S. and E.U. keep a very close eye on the situation
with Russia and Ukraine, Russia is also increasing its
presence and influence elsewhere: the Arctica
melting region that is opening up prime shipping lanes and
real estate with an estimated $1 trillion in hydrocarbons.[1]
With the opening of two major shipping routes, the North
Sea route and the Northwest Passage, the potential for
economic competition is fierce, especially among the
eight members of the Arctic council: Canada, Denmark,
Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the United
States.[2] President Putin made statements this week
concerning Russias national interests in the Arctic region:
chiefly, militarization and the preparation of support
elements for commercial shipping routes.[3] The Russian
President called for full government funding for socio-
economic development from 2017-2020, including a
system of Russian naval bases that would be home to ships
and submarines allocated specifically for the defense of
national interests that involve the protection of Russian oil
and gas facilities in the Arctic.[4] Russia is also attempting
to accelerate the construction of more icebreakers to take
part in its Arctic strategy.[5] The Russian Federation
recently staked a territorial claim in the Sea of Okhotsk for
52,000 square kilometers,[6] and is currently preparing an
Arctic water claim for 1.2 million square kilometers.[7] The
energy giant owns 43 of the approximate 60 hydrocarbon
deposits in the Arctic Circle.[8] With Russian energy
companies already developing hydrocarbon deposits and
expanding border patrols on its Arctic sea shelf (in place by
July 1, 2014),[9] Putin is actively pursuing a strong
approach to the Arctic region. Russian oil fields, which
significantly contribute to the countrys revenue, are in
declineforcing Russian oil companies to actively explore
the Arctic region.[10] While the U.S. Defense Secretary
called for a peaceful and stable Arctic region with
international cooperation, the Arctic has created increased
militarization efforts, particularly by Russia. Already the
Arctic has seen powerful warships of Russias Northern
Fleet, strategic bomber patrols, and airborne troop
exercises.[11] In fact, Russian military forces have been
permanently stationed in the Arctic since summer 2013.[12]
According to a source in the Russian General Staff, a new
military command titled Northern FleetJoint Strategic
Command, will be created and tasked to protect Russian
interests in its Arctic territories; a strategy that was
approved in 2009.[13] Furthermore, weapons developers
are being tasked with creating products that can face the
harsh Arctic environment. According to an RT report,
Putin ordered the head of the Russian arms industry,
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, to concentrate the
efforts on creation of Arctic infrastructure for the soonest
deployment of troops. Rogozin reported that all Russian
weapons systems can be produced with special features
needed in the extreme North and the weapons companies
were ready to supply such arms to the Defense
Ministry.[14] The Arctic infrastructure that Rogozin
refers to will include Navy and Border Guard Service
bases.[15] These bases are part of Putins aim to strengthen
Russian energy companies and military positions in the
Arctic region. In 2013, a formerly closed down base was
reopened in the Novosibirsk Islands and is now home to 10
military ships and four icebreakersa move that Reuters
called a demonstration of force.[16] The Defense Ministry
is also planning on bringing seven airstrips in the Arctic
back to life.[17] Russias militarization in the Arctic region is
only a part of its increasing activity throughout the globe.
Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said, Its crucially
important for us to set goals for our national interests in this
region. If we dont do that, we will lose the battle for
resources which means well also lose in a big battle for the
right to have sovereignty and independence.[18] On the
contrary, Aleksandr Gorban, a representative of the Russian
Foreign Ministry is quoted saying that a war for
resources[19] in the Arctic will never happen. But what was
once a more hands-off region of the world that provided
international cooperation and stability is now turning into a
race for sovereignty and resources claimsas evidenced not
only by Russias increasing military presence, but also
Canada and the United States. Canada is now allocating part
of its defense budget towards armed ships that will patrol its
part of the Arctic Circle,[20] while the United States has
planned a strategy of its own. In addition to conducting
military exercises with other Arctic nation members, the
U.S. Navy has proposed a strategy titled The United States
Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030 that was released in
February 2014. The 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic
Region, cited in the Arctic Roadmap, provides the Navys
two specific objectives for the Arctic: 1) advance United
States security interests; and 2) strengthen international
cooperation.[21] According to the strategy, the Navys role
will primarily be in support of search and rescue, law
enforcement, and civil support operations.[22] However,
this may grow to a more militarized strategy depending on
the U.S. governments view of Russias increased military
activity in the Arctic region over the next few years. In either
case, the U.S. is falling behind in Arctic preparation. It has
very few operational icebreakers for the Arctic region where
its only primary presence is seen through nuclear
submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles, according to an
RT article.[23] Until 2020, the Navy will primarily use its
submarines and limited air assets in the Arctic, while its
mid-term and far-term strategy emphasizes personnel,
surface ships, submarines, and air assets that will be
prepared for Arctic conditions and operations.[24] Despite
its mid and long-term strategy, the U.S. will already be
lagging in establishing a military presence to compete with
Russias, who already has strategies in motion until 2020
and later. Last month, former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton called for a united Canadian-U.S. counterbalance to
Russias Arctic presence, pointing out they have been
aggressively reopening military bases.[25] While the U.S.
cannot legitimately criticize Putin for opening military bases
and simultaneously avoid blatant hypocrisy, it is worth
noting that Russia is developing a strong military presence
in a potentially competitive region. Russias plans to reopen
bases and create an Arctic military command fosters the
conclusion that Russia wants to be the first established
dominant force in a new region that will host economic
competition and primary shipping lanes, albeit in a harsh
environment that makes it difficult to extract resources.
Nicholas Cunningham aptly stated both Russia and the
West fear losing out to the other in the far north, despite
what appears to be a small prize.[26] Although the Arctic
holds a mass of the worlds oil and gas deposits, the extreme
environment and remote location makes it difficult to
produce energy quickly and efficiently. Despite this, the
Russian Federation is focused on developing disputed
hydrocarbon areas that it claims are part of the countrys
continental shelf. In addition, Russia is allocating funds and
forces to the Arctic to protect its interests. While the U.S. is
currently lacking in natural resource development and
exploitation in the Arctic Circle, it desires to display a show
of strength in the cold region to compete with potential
Russian domination and influence. But because the Defense
Department faces constant budget cuts, preparing an Arctic
naval force will be slow and difficult. For now, the United
States can only show strength through nuclear submarines
and drone technology. Putin and the Russian Federation are
laying disputed claims to territories both inside and outside
the Arctic while creating the foundation for a potential
military buildup in the Arcticprovided that the U.S. and
Canada can even allocate sufficient budgets for Arctic
military expansion. One thing is sure: if the Arctic region
continues to melt and open up vital shipping lanes, there
must be international cooperation to provide security and
rescue elements for commercial shipping. Since Russia has
significant territorial claims and the most coastlines in the
Arctic Circle, it would be natural for the Russian Federation
to have a wide security presence in the region, but this must
be coupled with international cooperation in commercial
shipping lanes and by providing support elements, such as
search and rescue. The United States will not be able to fully
compete with a country that is heavily investing in the Arctic
regionparticularly due to budget constraints and lack of
Arctic-prepared vessels. If the U.S. desires to limit Russian
influence and territorial claims, it must do so by partnering
with other members of the Arctic councilnot by entering
into a military buildup simply to dominate Russia in the
Arctic.
We have two internal links
First is civilian presenceArctic maritime transport and infrastructure
policies are key to prevent competition from escalating by encouraging
cooperation
Higginbotham and Grosu 14 (JOHN HIGGINBOTHAM
a senior fellow at CIGI and Carleton University, MARINA
GROSU masters graduate in international public policy of
Wilfrid Laurier Universitys School of International Policy
and Governance junior research fellowship at CIGI. THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND ARCTIC MARITIME
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BEAUFORT AREA MAY 2014,
CIGI,
http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_pb_40.p
df)//HA
The Arctic is facing remarkable climatic and oceanic change
that is triggering unprecedented opportunities and
challenges for Arctic nations, as well as for countries that do
not have Arctic territory but are eager to engage and invest
in the region. For Canada and the United States, the
Beaufort basin offers unique opportunities for Alaska and
Canadas Arctic territories. Large unexplored and
unexploited oil, gas and mineral reserves, local and
transpolar shipping, fishing and tourism are the main
opportunities provided by the melting Arctic Ocean.
International competition in attracting domestic and
foreign investments for these challenging Arctic economic
activities has started, with Russia and Scandinavia leading
the way. Large integrated government and private
investments in maritime infrastructure, resource
development and shipping projects in the Arctic are central
priorities for Russia and Scandinavia. The international
geopolitical and legal Arctic environment has, so far, been
conducive to cooperative development; however, recent
tensions in relations with Russia over Ukraine
underline the importance of insulating (as much as
possible) Arctic cooperation from negative forces, as
well as examining North American preparedness for a less
benign political environment should it evolve. Arctic
maritime transport and infrastructure investment will play
a vital role in stimulating sustainable community
development, responsible resource development and more
efficient resupply in both Canadian and US Arctic regions.
Canada and the United States, unfortunately, have not yet
forcefully tackled Arctic maritime development, although it
will be essential to the overall development of our Arctic
regions. Canadas High North, in particular, remains
startlingly underdeveloped when compared with southern
Canadian provinces and other Arctic regions.
Second is Maritime Domain Awarenessits collapsing now due to
outdated maps and charts, the plan solves
Perry and Andersen 12vice president and director of
studies at the IFPA, research analyst at IFPA (Charles and
Bobby, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc.
(IFPA), now in its thirty-sixth year, develops innovative
strategies for new security challenges. IFPA conducts
studies, workshops, and conferences on national security
and foreign policy issues and produces innovative reports,
briefings, and publications, NEW STRATEGIC DYNAMICS
in the ARCTIC REGION, Implications for National Security
and International Collaboration,
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.p
df/cc)
One key capability gap that will likely continue to
hamper Arctic operations in the coming decades is in
maritime domain awareness in the polar region. MDA
- the effective ability of U.S. forces to locate, identify,
and track vessels or any other activity in the maritime
domain that could affect national security interests
- remains extremely limited, largely because of the
remoteness of the region, inadequate Arctic Ocean and
weather data, lack of communication and navigation
infrastructure, insufficient intelligence informa-tion, and
the lack of a consistent U.S. government presence in the
High North. Given the very limited sensor coverage of the
area, great distances from main bases, and harsh, rapidly
changing atmospheric conditions, even collecting and
maintaining a basic awareness of other ships,
subma-rines, and aircraft in the Arctic becomes a nearly
impossible task. Not long after the start of the Coast
Guards 2008 summer deployment in the polar region, for
instance, District 17 officials based in Alaska complained of
a worrying lack of Arctic domain awareness that severely
constrained the services ability to fully understand the risks
of operating in or monitoring the icy waters around Alaska
and beyond. As a senior U.S. Coast Guard official pointed
out after the agencys 2008 operations, We had almost no
idea, no maritime domain awareness, of what was actually
happening on the waters of the Arctic. A major
impediment to achieving better domain aware-ness in the
High North is the current lack of accurate data for
Arctic navigation, including nautical charts for areas
previously covered by ice, shoreline mapping, tides,
water levels, currents, sea-ice conditions, and
meteorological information. Experts agree that there is still
very little knowledge about the Arctics unique and ever-
changing ocean patterns, especially since only less than 5
percent of the polar area has been mapped to current
standards.330 Nautical charts of the Alaska region, for
example, are of low resolution and mostly based on
soundings from the 1940s or 1950s, showing vast areas
that have not been surveyed using modern instrumentation
or have never been surveyed at all.331 The problem of
producing reliable nautical charts for the Arctic is further
compounded by Americas insufficient number of
hydrographic survey vessels and their limited capability
when it comes to operating in and around the ice.332 The
lack of real-time information on weather, ocean conditions,
and ice characterization (for example, depth or thickness)
has had a particularly negative effect on the Coast Guards
ability to conduct routine and emergency missions in the
polar region, as smaller pieces of sea ice are frequently
missed by current technology, posing a significant threat to
most ships observed in the area, including the Coast Guards
fleet of non-icebreaking boats. For their part, icebreakers
attempting to operate in the deeper reaches of the Arctic
Ocean are themselves extremely vulnerable to so-called sea-
ice pressure ridges, formed when massive sheets of ice
collide with one another, and in the absence of reliable data,
even experienced mariners may be unable to sufficiently
assess the deceptive appearance of sea ice, as illustrated
by Coast Guard cutter Healys experience during its
summer 2008 operations off Barrow, Alaska, when it struck
what to the crew appeared to be thin, first-year ice only to
discover that it was a fifteen-foot thick iceberg of multi-
year ice, well beyond the ships icebreaking capabilities.333
High tensions in the arctic will escalate due to competition, but the plan
incentivizes cooperation
Aerandir 12 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United
States Navy B.A., BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-
RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC
December 2012,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf)//HA
There is ample reason and precedent suggesting that
countries will resort to armed conflict to secure their
interests, especially when those interests are regarded as
vital to their national security. While war in the Arctic
appears unlikely at present, this thesis has analyzed why an
escalation of territorial and resource disputes in the Arctic
up to and including the use of force cannot and
should not be ruled out. The potential for U.S.-
Russian maritime conflict in the region is genuine.
A. SUMMARY OF THE THREAT Opportunity, capability,
and perceived intent on their own do not cause conflict, but
they do serve to increase anxiety about an apparent threat to
national interests. It is when these three factors combine
that the potential for conflict emerges. All that remains for
an otherwise benign event to quickly escalate into a
militarized interstate dispute is a sufficient motive or
misunderstanding. In the fog before war, an ostensibly
banal event could quickly escalate into a political power play
between navies in the presence of historical mistrust, a
perception of vulnerability, and nationalist sentiment. In
the Arctic, such motives include Russias critical reliance on
hydrocarbon resources to maintain its political and
economic stability, and therefore its national security. For
the United States and its NATO allies, the need to maintain
and credibly defend their sovereignty and their own
economic interests provides ample incentive to act
decisively, if necessary. When national security is
challenged or threatened by another power, the potential
for militarized conflict can quickly become an
actual conflict. Despite the sub-zero physical climate, the
Arctic is a hotbed of competing interests. Receding
ice cover in the northern cryosphere presents Arctic nations,
and others, with considerable economic opportunities.
Whether to exploit a potential treasure trove of natural
resources or simply to capitalize on time- and money-saving
transportation routes, political leaders are under increasing
pressure to resolve previously frozen or otherwise
insignificant disputes and make these resources available as
soon as possible to their constituents. Lack of resolution is
bad for business: it creates a wild west (or, in this case, a
no-law north) of uncertainty as to the legal standing of
enterprises and exposes countries and companies alike to
unnecessary harassment and possible prosecution by rival
interests. Increasing economic opportunities go
hand-in-hand with an increased presence in the
region, creating an environment for potential
conflict. Economic expansion is triggering an associated
build-up in military and law enforcement capability in order
to protect, defend, and regulate interests and claims. If
economic encroachment were not enough to cause anxiety
among the Arctic powers, the subsequent militarization of
the Arctic has also caused alarm, making countries feel
increasingly vulnerable to conventional military pressure
from a previously ice-obstructed front. At present, only
Russia is capable of defending its claims in the Arctic
militarily. Given Russias economic dependence on
hydrocarbon resourceswhich the Arctic promises to offer
in abundanceMoscows economic claims in excess of its
recognized EEZ are likely to encroach on, or overlap with,
the legitimate claims of neighbors. But it stands alone.
Russias overwhelming might in this domain may eventually
make right in its favor if NATO is unable to deter assertive
uses of force similar to those to which the Russian Coast
Guard continually subjects Japan near the Kuril Islands.
Any loss in this regard would be much more damaging to
NATOs deterrence credibility than its current inaction.
Unless Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States
can come together under the NATO banner and make the
Arctic a centerpiece of the Alliances collective defense 93
agenda for the twenty-first century, they each risk standing
alone in the Arctic as well, and with a significantly smaller
troop-to-task capability than their geopolitical rival. Simon
Ollivants 1984 warning of the dangers of internal dispute
within the Alliance is perhaps even more salient today.
Analyzing the effects of the latest developments in military
technology, force dispositions, and resource and sovereignty
claims on the military stability of the region, Ollivant
concluded that the greatest dangers to NATO unity were an
unbalanced American hegemony in the region and
increased political conflict among allied members over
contested economic interests in the region.207 Denmark
and Canada have yet to officially resolve their dispute over
Hans Island. Canada and the United States continue to
argue over the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the
Beaufort Sea. Either one of these disputes could undermine
decades of Alliance cohesion. Meanwhile, Russias actions
and rhetoric in the Arctic leave no room to deduce anything
but a firm and committed intent on the part of its leadership
to secure its claims. There have been scant, if any, peaceful
actions undertaken by the Putin and Medvedev
administrations to back up their peace-seeking rhetoric.
Calls for diplomatic resolution of territorial disputes in the
Arctic and for working within existing international
agreements and mechanisms have only been
operationalized through agreements to cooperate on search
and rescue efforts and on (competitive) scientific
exploration and research for submission to the Commission
on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a forum that
has no binding authority to settle such disputes. All the
while, however, Russias ambitious militarization of the
Arctic has been clearly reinforced with explicit rhetoric
proclaiming its intent to defend its national security
interests. For Russia, the natural resources in the Arctic are
a national security asset of strategic importance. Canada,
too, beats the drum of sovereign defense in the Arctic.
Though its rhetoric is significantly less militaristic than that
of Russia, it is nevertheless increasingly nationalistic.
Actions, in this case, speak for themselves. The Canadians
have expressed an intention to build up forces in the region
to the extent necessary to defend their sovereignty. If Prime
Minister Stephen Harper had his way, this build-up would
be happening more quickly than it has been. Indeed,
financial constraints constitute the only reason that the four
NATO countries in the Arctic have not been building up
their Arctic capabilities more rapidly. The bottom line is
that the intent of the Arctic nations to defend their regional
and broader security interests is real. The capabilities, while
in some cases only planned or very slowly coming into
service, are materializing, and the economic opportunity has
never been greater and will only increase in the future. The
threat of a militarized conflict in the Arctic is
therefore real as well.
Methodological analysis proves our impact
Aerandir 12 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United
States Navy B.A., BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-
RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC
December 2012,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf)//HA
1. Potential for Maritime Conflict in the Arctic Based on the
methodology established for this analysis, it can be
reasonably assessed that conflict in the Arctic is
likely. To put this another way, with a score of 18 out of 24
possible points, there is a 75 percent chance that maritime
disputes involving the United States and Russia will occur in
the Arctic necessitating the show or use of force to achieve a
political objective. It should be reiterated that this
assessment is acknowledged to be an analytically subjective
conclusion and that the intervals of measurement are
notably coarse. The evidence presented in this analysis,
however, supports this conclusion. Policy-makers
should take care not to discount the physical
indicators and declared policies of other Arctic
nations when judging the seriousness of their
intent to protect their various claims in the region.
Advocates of a Pax Arctica involving regional cooperation
ignore the more pragmatic factors underlying international
relations and the actual limits of international institutions
and economic incentives in restraining actors behavior in
an anarchic system.
US-Russia war causes extinction
Helfand 14 (Ira Helfand, M.D, past president of Physicians
for Social Responsibility, co-president of the International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Another
View: Ukraine crisis puts focus on danger of nuclear war
May 3, 2014,
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columni
sts/2014/05/04/another-view-ukraine-crisis-danger-
nuclear-war/8665185/)//HA
The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has made it clear that the
danger of nuclear war is still with us and may be greater
than at any time since the height of the Cold War. What
does that mean for United States nuclear policy? There are
today more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The
vast majority, more than 95 percent, are in the arsenals of
the United States and Russia. Some 3,000 of these
warheads are on "hair-trigger" alert. They are mounted on
missiles that can be fired in 15 minutes and destroy their
targets around the world less than 30 minutes later. During
the Cold War, there was a widespread understanding of
what nuclear weapons could do. That is not true today.
Those who lived through the Cold War have put this painful
information out of mind, and a generation has come of age
that never learned about the terrible effects of nuclear war.
This must change if we are to make rational decisions about
nuclear policy. Over the last few years, new information has
emerged that underlines the danger posed by even the
limited use of nuclear weapons. Studies published in 2006
by Rutgers University's Alan Robock and his colleagues
examined the effects of a "limited" nuclear war involving
just 100 small nuclear weapons, the size of the Hiroshima
bomb, less than 0.5 percent of the world's nuclear arsenals.
The specific scenario they examined involved a war between
India and Pakistan. The two nations have fought three wars
in the last 70 years, have come close to war on two other
occasions, engage in daily skirmishes across their contested
border in Kashmir, and have more than 200 nuclear
weapons in their arsenals, many much larger than the
weapons used in the study. The effects in India and Pakistan
are horrific. In the first week more than 20 million people
are killed by blast, fire and radiation as the great cities of
South Asia are destroyed. But the global impact is far worse.
As the cities burn, the fires loft 5 million tons of soot into
the upper atmosphere, blocking out sunlight. Across the
globe, temperatures fall an average of 1.3 degrees Celsius,
and precipitation declines as less water evaporates into the
cooler atmosphere to fall back as rain. This climate
disruption has a catastrophic impact on food production
around the world. In Iowa, as across the entire U.S. Corn
Belt, soy production declines an average of 7 percent for a
full decade, and corn production declines an average of 12
percent. In China, rice production declines an average of 17
percent and the equally important wheat crop declines a
staggering 31 percent. "Nuclear Famine," a report issued
last year by Physicians for Social Responsibility, explored
the impact this decline in food production would have on
human health. The world is not prepared to withstand a fall
in food production of this magnitude. World grain reserves
amount to only some 70 days of consumption and would
quickly be exhausted. There are already 870 million people
in the developing world who are malnourished today. They
get just enough food to maintain their body mass and do a
little work to gather or grow food. There are also 300
million people who get adequate nutrition today but live in
countries that depend on imported food. All of these people,
more than 1 billion, many far removed from the actual
conflict, would be at risk of starvation in the event of even
this very "limited" use of nuclear weapons. Another 1.3
billion people in China might also starve given the
enormous shortfalls in Chinese grain production. And no
one has yet studied the effects of climate disruption on other
food crops in other countries. Will U.S., Canadian and
European wheat production fall as dramatically as in China?
A famine of this magnitude is unprecedented in human
history. Never have we faced the possible death of 15
percent to 30 percent of the human race in the course of a
single decade. Such a catastrophe would not mean the
extinction of our species, but it would almost certainly bring
about the end of modern civilization as we know it. These
data make clear that even the smaller nuclear weapons
states, countries that might well go to war, and over whose
nuclear arsenals the U.S. has no direct control, pose a threat
to all mankind. But the danger posed by the U.S. and
Russian arsenals is even greater. A single U.S. Trident
submarine carries 96 warheads, each 10 to 30 times larger
than the bombs used in the South Asia scenario. That means
that each Trident can cause the nuclear famine scenario
many times over. We have 14 of them, and that is only one-
third of our nuclear arsenal, which also includes land-based
missiles and long-range bombers. The Russians have the
same incomprehensible level of overkill capacity. What
would happen if there were a large nuclear war? A 2002
report by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if
only 300 of the 1,500 warheads in the Russian arsenal got
through to targets in the United States, up to 100 million
people would die in the first 30 minutes. The entire
economic infrastructure on which we depend the public
health system, banking system, communications network,
food distribution system would be destroyed. In the
months following this attack, most of the rest of the
population would also die, from starvation, exposure to
cold, epidemic disease and radiation poisoning. The global
climate disruption would be even more catastrophic.
Limited war in South Asia would drop global temperatures
1.3 degrees Celsius. A war between the United States and
Russia, using only those weapons they will still possess
when the New START treaty is fully implemented in 2017,
drops temperatures an average of 8 degrees Celsius. In the
interior of Eurasia, North America and in Iowa,
temperatures drop 20 to 30 degrees Celsius to a level not
seen in 18,000 years since the coldest time of the last Ice
Age. Agriculture stops, ecosystems collapse, the vast
majority of the human race starves and many species,
perhaps including our own, become extinct. As events
in Ukraine have made clear, there is still a very real
possibility that the United States and Russia may find
themselves on opposite sides of an armed conflict, and that
means that these vast nuclear arsenals might be used. Even
if there is not a deliberate use of nuclear weapons, there is
the danger of an accidental nuclear war.

1ACPlan
The United States federal government should increase hydrographic
mapping and surveying capabilities in the Arctic.
1ACSolvency
Navigational capabilities are key to a successful arctic strategyfederal
mapping guidelines, standard operating procedures, and vessel of
opportunity protocol is vital to navigation services in Arctic waters
NOAA mapping is key, but funding is necessary
Foxx 13U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Anthony,
CMTS Chair, J.D. from New York University School of Law,
U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and
Priorities for Action
http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/CMTS%20U%20S%20%2
0Arctic%20MTS%20Report%20%2007-30-13.pdf//cc)
Arctic transits and access to Arctic resources become more
feasible, national security and commercial interests,
including the cruise and ecotourism industry; oil, gas, and
mining industries; shipping; and fishing, represent the
primary drivers for Federal delivery of adequate
navigation services in U.S. Arctic waters. Ships
operating in the Arctic environment must contend with
difficult weather, sea states and variable ice conditions that
can impact stability and navigation. Poor communications,
navigation aids, and nautical charts exacerbate these
difficulties. As the agency responsible for charting all U.S.
waters in support of safe and efficient navigation and
maritime commerce, NOAA conducts hydrographic surveys,
analyzes the data, and produces nautical charts showing
water depths, aids to navigation, dangerous obstructions,
shoreline, and other key elements to improve a mariner's
situational awareness. These data are also useful for
many other purposes, such as coastal ocean science,
community climate change adaptation strategies,
emergency response and coastal zone management.
However, NOAA lacks sufficient data to provide the
same level of navigation services to the Arctic as in other
parts of the Nation. Old data are the norm, and there
are large gaps in the information that NOAA does
have, illustrated by empty white space on nautical charts of
the region. Stakeholder dialogues and U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) cutter expeditions in 2007 and 2008 validated the
need for more accurate and up-to-date nautical charts in the
region, as well as the shortcomings of NOAA's existing data.
CHALLENGES: Overall, NOAA has the capability and
expertise to survey and chart Arctic waters, but is
challenged by lack of resources. Most Arctic waters that are
charted were surveyed with obsolete technology, some
dating back to the eighteenth century, before the region was
part of the United States. Although a third of U.S.
Arctic waters are classified as navigationally
significant (roughly 242,000 square nautical miles, see
Figure), only about 3200 square nautical miles (less than 1
percent) have been surveyed with modern multi-
beam technology. Research and development into
new underwater and airborne technologies able to
withstand the rigors of the Arctic environment will help to
fill gaps in hydrographic datasets. CURRENT
ACTIVITIES: The NOAA plans to survey about 500 square
nautical miles in the Arctic each year using the NOAA ship
Fairweather and/or contracts, with data
archive/accessibility via NOAA's National Geophysical Data
Center for multiple uses. The NOAA is also developing an
Arctic surveying partnership plan, where Navy, USCG, State
of Alaska vessels and other ships of opportunity would
acquire survey data en-route between Dutch Harbor and the
Arctic Ocean to send to NOAA for analysis and charting.
Employing this Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping
(IOCM) concept would result in more accurate data along
the most utilized Arctic open water routes. The NOAA
could then focus its resources on the more challenging
coastal areas in need of survey for harbors of refuge, port
access and coastal community resilience. Prioritizing
survey and charting work is underway to make best use of
existing resources. In 2011, NOAA conducted an
assessment of the existing Arctic nautical charts to validate
the demand for additional chart coverage. The NOAA
produced the Arctic Nautical Charting Plan to better
address user needs for larger scale charts of the region as
resources are available. In 2012, the NOAA ship
Fairweather completed a 30-day reconnaissance survey
from Dutch Harbor through the Bering Strait and east
through the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to the U.S.-
Canadian maritime boundary. The mission was to help
determine future charting survey projects in the Arctic; it
covered sea lanes that were last measured by Captain James
Cook in 1778. The NOAA will also factor in the results of
ongoing USCG Waterway Analysis and Management System
(WAMS) assessments and Port Access Route Studies
(PARS) of the Arctic region to support decisions on
mapping and charting priorities. FUTURE FEDERAL
ACTIONS NEEDED: Establish mapping guidelines,
standards, vessel of opportunity protocols, and
standard operating procedures to facilitate IOCM and
acquisition of Arctic hydrographic, shoreline, habitat
mapping, and water column data in the Bering, Chukchi,
and Beaufort Seas. Survey a minimum of 500 square
nautical miles a year in U.S. Arctic waters. Update nautical
charts, environmental sensitivity indices, and other Arctic
feature maps with mapping data acquired during annual
field seasons. Consult coastal communities for input to
enhance Coast Pilot in Alaska. Refine, with stakeholders
and traditional knowledge, survey priority list of Arctic
maritime regions. Conduct coordinated interagency ocean
and coastal mapping operations and incorporate results into
the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Inventory. Conduct
WAMS and PARS of the Arctic region, beginning with
ongoing PARS for the Bering Strait, and incorporate into
decisions on mapping and charting priorities and waterways
management. Complete electronic navigational chart
coverage as agreed to by the Arctic Regional Hydrographic
Commission. Should resources come available, NOAA
would task the Survey Vessel Rainier to the Arctic, use a
NOAA fishery research vessel to survey, or contract for
hydrographic data in the region.
Only US national investment and a regulatory
strategy solves
Slayton 5/21/14Research Fellow, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University and Co-Chair and Executive Director,
Arctic Security Initiative (David M, House Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Hearing Using New Ocean
Technologies: Promoting Efficient Maritime
Transportation and Improving Maritime Domain
Awareness and Response Capability Written Statement for
the Record to the United States House of Representatives
Transport, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Sub-
Committee//cc)
With regard to Arctic shipping, the United States should
continue to be proactive at the IMO in support of a
mandatory polar code that must include all commercial
ships operating in polar waters. The United States also
should propose future IMO measures that focus on specific
Arctic regulations, as well as developing port state control
agreements with the Arctic states to enhance polar code
enforcement. Timely application of a new IMO Polar Code
to the U.S. maritime Arctic will require expedited regulatory
implementation by the Coast Guard. The United States, as
one of the lead countries (along with Finland and Canada),
should use the Arctic Council's Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment (AMSA) as a strategic guide and policy
framework to protect the region's Arctic communities and
the marine environment, and to enhance regional marine
safety. Increased funding of NOAA for Arctic hydrographic
surveying and charting is paramount if a safe maritime
operating environment is to be secured, and coastal
economic development can be initiated. A comprehensive
environmental observing system, a deep-draft port, and
improved Search and Rescue and environmental response
capacity and capability are among the critical infrastructure
needs for the future of Arctic Alaska. Public - private
partnerships must be conceived and fostered to ensure that
adequate funding is available for large, maritime
infrastructure projects such as a major port during a time of
austere federal budgets. Nevertheless, strategic investments
in Arctic infrastructure by the federal government will be
required to enhance public safety and security, and advance
economic opportunity in new partnerships. The U.S. federal
government must better execute its legal responsibilities
and implement its promise of using an integrated Arctic
management approach in the region. These challenges will
necessarily require close federal-state of Alaska cooperation
and greater stakeholder engagement. The future of Alaska
and the future of the United States as an Arctic nation
depend on sound strategic planning at the outset of new
national initiatives. Thus, the timely Implementation Plan
of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region (2014) as a
framework for federal process is essential. Executed in a
comprehensive and integrated manner, these actions can
enhance America's National Security, Economic strength
and Environmental interests in its large maritime Arctic. In
closing, while the issues are many and not without challenge
on many levels, the maritime industry and entrepreneurial
maritime clusters of this nation afford great opportunities.
Now is the time to approach our maritime and Arctic
interests and responsibilities urgently and as a national
strategic priority.
Case Extensions
Solvency

Mapping
Mapping is key to effective use of the ArcticUS action is key
Kraska and Baker, 14Mary Derrickson McCurdy
visiting scholar at Duke University Marine Laboratory and
senior fellow at the Center for Oceans Law and Policy,
University of Virginia School of Law AND associate
professor of law and senior fellow for Oceans and Energy at
the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont
Law School (James and Betsy, Emerging Arctic Security
Challenges, Center for a New American Security, March,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-
pdf/CNAS_EmergingArcticSecurityChallenges_policybrief.
pdf)//VIVIENNE
Increased global interest in Arctic resources and shipping
routes will directly affect local communities and economies.
As the United States and its allies intensify their activity
in the Arctic, they must ensure the resilience and
adaptability of Northern societies. All eight Arctic
nations will strengthen their adaptive capacity by engaging
more purposefully with those who know the Arctic best and
have adapted to change for millennia.23 Engagement with
the Arctics indigenous peoples also provides other
countries valuable models for getting it right when
harmonizing indigenous and majority interests while
managing competing uses of land and sea.24 Educating and
training those who work in the Arctic or on Arctic issues
about the Arctic is critical to sustained cultural, technical
and political success, which each Arctic state may define
differently. Producing a skilled, home-grown work force will
be critical to successful Northern development. Northern
governments should focus first on educating Arctic youth,
promoting engagement in the classroom, on the ice or in the
field to spur innovations that Northerners will need to adapt
to change. Igniting the spark of ingenuity early on can lead
to new ways of governance, harvesting, researching and
managing that provide continuity with practices that have
sustained Northern societies through time. Training on
Arctic issues is also a driver of, and model for, circumpolar
cooperation among industry, indigenous groups, scientific
and educational institutions, nongovernmental
organizations and governments. For example, Finland can
export its expertise in Arctic shipping and oil-ice
interactions. Alaska has launched the first U.S. training
program for ice navigators. With Russia and Norways
comprehensive standards assessment study, Barents 2020,
Norway and Russia provide a model for cooperation in
developing regionally-specific offshore oil and gas
standards.26 Natural and social scientists from Arctic states
pursue interdisciplinary and transnational research that
increasingly combines peer-to-peer collaboration with
traditional knowledge holders. Education, training and
research face pound-foolish budget cuts in many states
across the Arctic.27 Governments in the region will have to
invest greater resources to support Arctic studies, including
by using electronic technologies to preserve and expand
access to repositories of knowledge, sharing data and
libraries and linking geospatial, satellite observing systems
and local knowledge bases for next-generation
mapping and planning tools.28 States should respond to
financial shortfalls though more creative public and private
finance that ties education to development.29
US leadership is keythe Arctic is a unique region
Kraska and Baker, 14Mary Derrickson McCurdy
visiting scholar at Duke University Marine Laboratory and
senior fellow at the Center for Oceans Law and Policy,
University of Virginia School of Law AND associate
professor of law and senior fellow for Oceans and Energy at
the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont
Law School (James and Betsy, Emerging Arctic Security
Challenges, Center for a New American Security, March,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-
pdf/CNAS_EmergingArcticSecurityChallenges_policybrief.
pdf)//VIVIENNE
Largely because of the pace of environmental change, the
Arctic region is moving headlong into an era of rapid
dynamism. This moment offers a rare opportunity for
collaboration and shared vision among the eight Arctic
states, and the United States is poised to assume a
leadership role. These nations lack conflicts of interest in
the Arctic Basin that might drive them toward discord.
Instead, the circumpolar neighbors have the space and
freedomindeed, we believe, the imperativeto pursue
their collective interest in stability and prosperity. This
opportunity is rare among states situated around a shared
sea and stands in stark contrast with other maritime
regions, such as the Eastern Mediterranean or the South
China Sea, where states have shown less adherence to rule
of law, disagreements have become linked to competition
from outside the region and some states have turned toward
intimidation of their neighbors to press their maritime
claims. We do not believe the Arctic region will experience
this kind of security discord because of the shared interests
among its eight states. The time is ripe for the United
States to exercise soft power in the Arctic. By
devoting serious human and financial resources to national
efforts and international cooperation in the region, the
United States can lead and shape, rather than be shaped by,
the circumstances of rapid Arctic change.
Prereq
The aff is a prerequisite to any Arctic development
GAO 14, (Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to
Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic Over the Next
Decade, March 2014,
http://gao.gov/assets/670/661761.pdf, pp. 24-26)
The USCG is conducting a Waterway Analysis and
Management System assessment along the western and
northern coasts of Alaska in order to understand the extent
and type of aids to navigation needed; however, officials we
spoke with indicated that there were no current plans to
expand deployment of aids to navigation in the Arctic
region. According to federal government sources, there are a
number of challenges to such deployment in the Arctic.
First, hydrographic surveying and mapping must be
completed before the USCG can install aids to navigation
in an area, and as noted in table 3, a large amount of the
U.S. Arctic remains uncharted or mapped.40 The USCG is
currently in the preliminary phase of a new polar-icebreaker
acquisition project including development of a formal
mission need statement, a concept of operations, and an
operational requirements document. Second, aids to
navigation are particularly challenging to operate north of
the Bering Strait due to the freeze-thaw cycle and likelihood
of sustaining damage from floating sea ice. 41 Although
multiple studies have pointed to a gap in the nations
icebreaking capabilities, due to limited resources, the USCG
balances icebreaking needs against a variety of
considerations. USCG budget requests for this pre-
acquisition work were $8 million in fiscal year 2013 and $2
million in fiscal year 2014. These sums are a fraction of
USCGs cost estimates, which range from $850 million to $1
billion for one new icebreaker that USCG plans to put into
service in the early 2020s. 42 The USCG operates the
nations two functioning icebreakers, which are used in the
Arctic for emergency response, research assistance, and
patrols.43 In early 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter
(USCGC) Healy escorted a Russian fuel tanker to Nome to
provide the city with an unprecedented winter fuel delivery.
The Russian tanker was the citys only option after its final
fall fuel shipment was cancelled due to a large storm in the
Bering Sea. The USCGs other icebreaker, the USCGC Polar
Star was recently reactivated and conducted icebreaking sea
trials in the U.S. Arctic during summer 2013 to make sure it
was functioning properly after 3 years of extensive repairs.
Due to the limited number of icebreakers, the USCG
determines where it sends its icebreakers based on risk
assessments. In response to increasing demand, NOAA has
taken several steps to improve mapping, charting, and
weather information for the U.S. Arctic. In February 2013,
NOAA released its plan to create new nautical charts in
parts of the U.S. Arctic.44 In addition to NOAAs charting
efforts, the state of Alaska is undertaking a charting and
mapping initiative. The states Department of Natural
Resources is overseeing a Statewide Digital Mapping
Initiative, which is developing a digital base map of the
state, including the U.S. Arctic. The state dedicated $3
million for the mapping initiative in the fiscal year 2014
enacted budget. In addition, NOAA is working in
partnership with the Alaska Ocean Observing System to
develop an Alaska Sea Ice Atlas, which would be a weekly
web-based product providing site-specific and season-
specific information on sea ice in Alaskan waters, including
anticipated season lengths and navigation opening dates.
According to NOAA, a prototype will be available in 2014.
According to NOAA officials, mapping and charting
information for the U.S. Arctic has generally not been an
issue until recently, since historically the Arctic has been
ice-locked and closed to substantial maritime activity.
Although a majority of industry representatives we spoke
with did not identify a need for updated nautical charts,
officials from NOAA stated that with increased accessibility
to the Arctic, the agency has observed an increasing demand
for updated charts among multiple users, including other
federal agencies. Furthermore, officials noted similar
increased demand for weather and sea ice information.
Weather forecasts in the Arctic are not as accurate as those
for the rest of the United States, due to fewer observations
and forecasting models. To meet this demand, additional
observations and forecasting models are necessary to
improve weather and sea ice forecasts in the challenging
Arctic environment.
Case Blocks

Russia Adv
MDA good
MDA solves the economy and disaster preparedness
White House 13 (The National Maritime Domain
Awareness Plan for the National Strategy for Maritime
Security,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nation
al_maritime_domain_awareness_plan.pdf//cc)
The Strategic EnvironmentThe World As It Is Covering
more than 70 percent of the earths surface, the maritime
domain is a vital global resource, and its protection is
a shared responsibility. The oceans, coasts, inland
waterways, and Great Lakes provide jobs, food, energy
resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism
opportunities. This domain plays a critical supporting role
in our Nations transportation and trade, the global mobility
of our Armed Forces, and the maintenance of international
peace and security.9 The worlds oceans and waterways
enabled exploration of new lands by our ancestors, fueled
the Industrial Revolution, and currently facilitate trade and
provide sustenance and clean renewable energy for people
across the globe.10 These same oceans, along with our
shorelines, waterways, ports, and infrastructure contiguous
to our sea lines of communication offer opportunities and
avenues for both man-made and natural threats that can
harm our Nations security and prosperity. Because 80
percent of the world's population lives within 200 miles of a
shoreline, large numbers of people are also potentially
subject to maritime-related threats. The United States is a
maritime nation, and the interconnectivity and stability of
our national economy, commerce, and security is tied to the
global maritime nature of international commerce. The
maritime domain plays a critical role in the free flow of
goods and services, as recognized in the National Strategy
for Global Supply Chain Security (NSGSCS): International
trade has been and continues to be a powerful engine of
United States and global economic growth. In recent years,
communications technology advances, and trade barrier
and production cost reductions have contributed to global
capital market expansion and new economic opportunity.
The global supply chain system that supports this trade is
essential to the United States economy and is a
critical global asset.11 As global markets leverage maritime-
based commerce to sustain just-in-time logistics, decision-
makers are faced with increasingly complex security issues.
Massive amounts of layered and interrelated information
exist because carriers and shippers use global intermodal
connections to access hundreds of thousands of shippers,
subcontractors, and producers. As a result, identifying
potential threats within, or emanating from, the global
supply chain has become more challenging due to
difficulties in discerning illicit activity. The maritime
domain provides an expansive and extremely complex
pathway for global commerce. It likewise presents a broad
array of potential targets, the destruction or disruption of
which would inflict significant harm, both physical and
economic, on the United States and our partners. The
deliberate misuse of the maritime domain to commit
harmful, hostile, or unlawful acts, including those against
the maritime transportation system, remains an enduring
threat to the safety and security of the American people, to
wider U.S. national security interests, and to the interests of
our international allies and private sector partners.12 The
NSMS defines the spectrum of maritime domain threats
facing our Nation to include nation-states, terrorists,
transnational criminal activities and piracy,
environmental destruction, and illegal seaborne
immigration. This spectrum of challenges involves and
affects nearly every participant within the GMCOI. These
challenges to our security and economic livelihood require a
new mindsetone that views the totality of these threats
and takes all necessary actions through an active, layered,
shared defense. Additionally, the United States has an
interest in working with our international partners to
facilitate MDA and defend against the spectrum of maritime
threats. Those who threaten our security recognize the
importance of the maritime domain as a potential medium
for launching attacks and as an avenue for financial gain
through the illicit movement of goods and human
trafficking. The value of illicit trade around the globe in
2009 was estimated at $1.3 trillion, and the volume is
increasing annually. Given that 90 percent of the worlds
legitimate commerce transits through the maritime domain,
it is likely that the vast majority of the worlds illicit traffic
similarly touches the maritime environment.13 Finally,
natural and man-made disasters present a risk of
catastrophic and costly events. In addition to the potential
for loss of life, such events present a threat of severe and
adverse effects upon local, national, and regional economies
and substantially affect the global supply chain. Enhanced
MDA is vital to preparing, responding, and
increasing resilience in the face of future
catastrophes.
Effective MDA regulates Arctic stability and international security
Regehr 14Senior Fellow in Arctic Security at the Simons
Foundation, Research Fellow at the Institute of Peace and
Conflict Studies, O.C. (Ernie, Arctic Maritime Domain
Awareness: A domestic and strategic imperative, The
Simons Foundation, 2-3-14,
http://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/all/files/Arctic%
20Maritime%20Domain%20Awareness-
A%20domestic%20and%20strategic%20imperative-
DAS,%20February%203%202014_0.pdf)
Cooperative domain awareness as a strategic imperative The
need for full time and reliable awareness of the Arctic
maritime domain is not a matter of debate. It is part of the
exercise of sovereignty and is central to meeting security
and public safety objectives. It is obviously important for a
host of environmental, commercial, and economic reasons
as well. The international security dimension of domain
awareness is critical, not because of dire or imminent
national security threats to the region, but because of the
value of ongoing confirmation of the absence of such
threats. One of the primary obligations of neighboring states
toward one another is to provide credible assurances that
they each prohibit and prevent events or activities within
their respective jurisdictions that would pose a security
threat to their neighbors or the neighborhood generally. For
those to be credible assurances, each state obviously needs
to know what is happening within its own borders and in
particular it needs to be prepared to share such knowledge
with appropriate authorities across borders within the
region. That of course means both domain awareness and
transparencydemonstrating the technical means of
monitoring ones own territory, along with a reasonable
measure of openness to sharing the results of such
monitoring in enough detail to generate confidence within
the whole region that current events and conditions do not
constitute serious threats to security or public safety.
Security and stability within any one state and in the region
generally are fortified by a sense of mutual confidence in the
security policies and practices of all other states within the
region. The Commandant of the US Coast Guard made the
point in a recent speech to the IMO: Wherever human
activity thrives, we have a shared responsibility to uphold
the rule of law, ensure the safety and security of mariners,
passengers and cargo, and ensure environmentally
responsible maritime activity. Each sovereign state, working
together with the international community as a whole, must
uphold these responsibilities to ensure legitimacy of the rule
of law in a dynamic and challenging world. 76 It is
significant that this is a non-Pentagon observation. Hard
security concerns in the Arctic, leaving aside for now the
particular case of Russian/American strategic relations and
their respective strategic nuclear arsenals and counter
measures, are not now about competin g military forces but
about the effective regulation of civilian activity within the
region so as to support constructive commerce, minimize
environmental impacts that threaten to affect the entire
region and beyond, maximize the capacity of states to
advance public safety and to respond effectively to local
threats and crises, and to convincingly ensure compliance
with relevant regulations and lawswith UNCLOS, the Law
of the Sea, a critical element of the legal/diplomatic
framework that downplays the military role in advancing
public safety and the resolution of conflicts. In the not so
distant past, when security concerns were much more
directly linked to the geo strategic competition of the major
powers than to local interests, Arctic security was more
concerned with military competition and strategic
relationsbut the focus was not on competition and events
within the region. Rather, the preoccupation was with
strategic conditions well beyond the region. That point has
been made about the Nordic states, 77 which traditionally
assumed their security depended more on their links to and
relationships with states outside their region than on
relations with states within their region. Norway and
Denmark relied on NATO; Finland relied on Russian
cooperation and acceptance during the Cold War; Sweden
sought a middle path, but always gave priority to strong
relations with Europe and NATO. Canadas northern
security policies certainly responded much more to security
needs and priorities as perceived in Washington and
Brussels than in Tuktoyaktuk. In the post-Cold war era that
formula no longer works. The Arctics internal economic
and political stability and the interests and safety of the
people of the region have become much more directly linked
to the quality of relations among states within the Arctic
region itself. It is a reality recognized in the announced
formation of an Arctic Eco nomic Council and Canadian
Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaqs reported comment
that Canadians living in the Arctic should be looking to
their counterparts in Russia or Norway to address their
economic problems rather than southern businesses. 78
And foundational to ongoing Arctic well-being is the
expectation that intra-regional relations will continue to be
guided by international law and a mutual interest in a stable
region that is capable of sustainable economic development
and the equitable and binding resolution of conflict. The
threats to a stable Arctic order, as the Canadian Naval
Review recently considered them, are of the kind that might
be encountered by citizens and governments on any ocean
or waterway: a ship in distress, perhaps a fire on board, with
the potential for widespread environmental damage, in
addition to the safety of the crew and passengers (the
journey last fall of the Nordic Orion through the Northwest
Passage drove home the point that, were things to go wrong,
the current response capacity would be rather less than
adequate piracy, terrorism, or the movement of contraband;
deliberate discharges of contaminates. There are two key, if
rather obvious, points to be made about these kinds of
threat. First, the job of responding to them is first and
foremost that of non-military departments and agencies of
government, even while those departments rely on defence
personnel and equipment to, as a last resort (which, as one
defence official put it, in the Arctic frequently means the
first resort), aid civilian authorities. Second, these are not
particularly national security threatsthey are certainly
not specifically directed against the state. Instead the
threats are to the public safety of individuals and
communities, albeit with wider implications inasmuch
environmental damage doesnt remain local and a ship
passing through international waters and multiple national
waters could cause damage anywhere along its route. Piracy
is most connected with the high seas rather than an action
against a particular state. The point again is that maritime
security is less about state security than public safety and
engages a military response only to aid civil authorities
and civil authorities depend on that aid because it is
primarily the military that has the kinds of stand-by
equipment and personnel with the training and skills to
operate quickly in the challenging environment of the
North. Nevertheless, effective national responses to such
threats to public safety do make a substantial contribution
to international security. By managing maritime safety and
security within their own areas of sovereignty and
jurisdiction, national governments contribute to collective
international security and stability. As the Canadian Naval
Review concluded: Most people agree that the best path to
effective maritime security is based upon international
cooperation, comprehensive surveillance over all waters
under national jurisdiction and adjacent to them, and the
ability to respond to real and potential threats quickly. The
most immediate and practical element of domain awareness
is to be better able to facilitate early awareness of and
effective responses to warning signs and potential problems
and to fullblown crises when they arise. More broadly,
maritime domain is the foundation for more effective
enforcement of marine regulations and thereby for the
reduction of risks and the incidence of crises, and thus to
enhanced public safety. And ultimately, domain awareness
achieves the most basic requirement of more traditional
national security inasmuch as it is timely situational
awareness that makes it possible for neighboring states to
provide one another with credible assurances that events
within their respective jurisdictions do not pose a threat to
the neighbors or the neighborhood generally. That makes
mutually shared domain awareness an acknowledged and
essential ingredient of Arctic stability. As such, it represents
a core strategic interest of Arctic states.
Plan solves conflict
Potential for arctic development increases tensions with Russia and
Chinadevelopment of arctic policy and shipping lanes solves
OSullivan 14 (Conor OSullivan, 2015 M.S. Candidate at
NYUs Center for Global Affairs, Opinion: Arctic
Development Could Ignite Next Great-Game Competition
Breaking Energy, April 28, 2014,
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/04/28/opinion-arctic-
development-could-ignite-next-great-game-
competition/)//HA
The development of Arctic energy resources poses the
potential for an energy security competition between the
Great Powers and Arctic stakeholders that will alter the
geopolitical climate. The hydrocarbon reserves25% of
world deposits- available under the melting ice caps, and
undiscovered oil and gas will see states shifting their
economic and foreign policy priorities. New shipping lanes
could alter the world economy as trade routes become
faster and safer, but will also become a source of conflict. As
world populations and energy consumption increases and
supplies decrease, states will seek to maximize interests out
of Arctic exploration. The United States and other Arctic
Council members must check the exploration and
production ambitions of Russia and China to prevent a great
power game developing. A cohesive policy between member
states and international institutions will be vital in
preventing a resource competition that could have severe
economic, political, military and environmental
implications. The flag planting by a Russian submarine in
August 2007 underneath the Arctic seabed symbolized
Russias intentions to use Arctic exploration as a means of
securing its desired imperial statuspursuing a zero-sum
game. The Kremlin plans to establish a new international
order in which it becomes a regional hegemon. It is my
opinion that Russia intends to end its role as an isolated
entity in international affairs, becoming closely integrated
with the global economy and dictating policy. Russian
officials view the Arctic as securing its energy security
ambitions for the next century. Dwindling Russian gas and
energy reserves, in the underdeveloped Siberian fields, and
over-reliance on European imports of its natural gas has led
to a push towards the Arctic. Russias jurisdictional claim
over the Arctic seabed will challenge the existing
international law criteria, the UNCLOS, which specifies
jurisdictional authority over international waters. Arctic
stakeholders must be wary of Russian intentions over Arctic
development, considering the nationalistic rhetoric of the
current government in power. Russias nationalized energy
companies maintain an influence in formulating Arctic
Policy and influencing the Russian government to their
advantage. Russia will also use its energy security policy in
the Arctic to become a naval superpower as new shipping
lanes for trade and energy production will run along its
extensive northern coastline. Russias actions in Crimea and
the Ukraine emphasize their willingness to revert to military
action over issues of territorial sovereignty and that the U.S.
requires an assertive foreign policy with Russia. Ensuing
competition over Arctic energy resources and shipping lanes
will increase geopolitical competition among the Great
Powers. The Bering Sea provides the U.S. with access to
Arctic shipping lanes and can act as a strategic
counterbalance to Russia. The U.S. Geological Survey
estimates that 13% and 30% of the worlds undiscovered oil
and natural gas respectively lies under the Arctic seabed. I
believe that Arctic Council members, the Nordic States and
Canada, will align with the U.S. to impose strict restrictions
over extraction and production in the Arctic Ocean.
International law and conventions can only be
implemented if supported by U.S. diplomacy in
international institutions. Domestic and multi-national
energy companies must continue their innovation in
technology to finance exploration in competition with
foreign NOCs. Regional competition with its East Asian
neighbors, South Korea and Japan, for energy security will
lead to an assertive foreign policy from China to lead Asian
exploration in the Arctic. Chinas pursuance of energy
resources in the Arctic and use of new shipping lanes along
Russias coast line will increase tensions between the two
states as they strive to become naval superpowers. The
Chinese government has maintained that they have no clear
agenda regarding its Arctic Policy. However, China still
harbors ambitions of becoming a regional hegemon and for
energy diversification away from fossil fuels to satisfy its
population and production demands. Chinas application for
permanent observer status in the Arctic Council signifies
their intention to influence Arctic Policy despite their
inferior geographic location. Access to the Arctic shipping
lanes will significantly reduce risks and costs for Chinese
trade to the West via the Northern Sea Route. The U.Ss
relatively superior military and economic resources and
growing energy self-sufficiency means it must implement
policies that will satisfy world energy security demands
through Arctic development. The United States must use its
clout within the Arctic Council to check the imperial
ambitions of Russia and the vast energy demands of China
through effective State and Energy Department mandates.
In my opinion, an inability to do this will threaten a return
to Cold War geopolitics, increasing the risk of energy
security competition and Great Power military conflict.
UQRussia presence now
Russia is increasing military use of the arctic for
accesses to resources and geopolitical posturing
US policy is current passive
SLD 14 (Second Line of Defense, THE RUSSIAN
DYNAMIC IN THE ARCTIC: STRATEGIC POSITIONING
2014-06-05, http://www.sldinfo.com/the-russian-dynamic-
in-the-arctic-strategic-positioning/)//HA
2014-06-05 Although Norway and Canada are very engaged
in the Arctic area, the policy stage is still set by the Cold War
superpowers Russia and the United States. Russia has a
proactive policy; the United States has a reluctant policy. In
2008 after Canada, the United States, and Denmark
criticized Russias territorial claims to the continental
plateau of the Arctic, Russia set out training plans for
military units that could be engaged in Arctic combat
mission, extended the operational radius of its northern
naval forces, and reinforced its armys combat readiness
along the Arctic coast just in case of a potential conflict. In
its new national security strategy, Russia raised the prospect
of war in the Arctic Ocean if Russias interests and border
security were threatened by neighboring nations, likely
considering the current circumstances of pending border
agreements and disagreements between Russia and those
nations. To secure and guarantee its overall energy and
security interests, Russia stated that in a competition for
resources it cannot be ruled out that military force could be
used to resolve emerging problems that would destroy the
balance of forces near the borders of Russia and her allies.
1 According to authoritative Russian sources, Russia is
willing and able to use the entire spectrum of
instruments to settle legal status problems in disputed
regions such as the Arctic, Caspian, and South China seas.
Russias 2007 15 rearmament program plans to rebuild the
submarine force, recommending building several dozen
surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955
Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile
submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two
Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose
submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines,
three Project 22350 frigates, and five Project 20380
corvettes. With the end of the Cold War, the United States
steadily closed some northern military bases, including the
naval base on Adak and Fort Greely. These developments
reflected the United States perception that a significant
military presence is since Soviet Union submarine force
collapsed no longer needed in the Arctic. Although the
collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to make the challenges
easier to resolve, the challenges in the Arctic facing now
U.S. policy makers are much more complicated than
expected in 1991. Threats are much more nebulous, long
term, and complex. Given the importance that Putin assigns
to maintaining control of Russias energy resources, it is
unsurprising that he has already outlined ambitious goals to
develop Arctic hydrocarbon resources in coming years.
Indeed, the Arctic can be seen as to be part of the overall
expansion of Russias role in providing global energy and
shaping its influence via these means. The Russians have
issued several key policies on the evolution of their Arctic
policies. For example, on January 14, 2011, the Russian
newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta published an interview with
Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Russian Security
Council, on what he called an issue of an enormous
strategic and economic significance. Patrushev stated that
the council had directed that the government approve a
long-term program to extract the mineral resources,
especially oil and natural gas, located on Russias Arctic
shelf by the end of 2011. 2 That same day, two of the worlds
giant oil companies, Russias Rosneft and BP, announced an
unprecedented partnership that will see them exchange
shares and expand their joint ventures, including launching
a new Arctic oil-drilling project. Both companies bring
important assets to their new alliance, but the deal has
alarmed foreign governments and environments due to its
potential commercial, security, and ecological implications.
The deal also raises interesting questions related to the
Russian governments economic modernization program. In
terms of Arctic and energy security issues, the new
partnership could mark the commencement of a major
Russian government drive to develop the energy resources
that fall within the boundaries of Moscows territorial
claims in the Arctic. In recent years, the Russian
government has set forth ambitious territorial claims in the
Arctic reinforced through recent scientific research
expeditions and military measures. Despite losing
considerable territory with the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the Russian Federation still has the worlds longest Arctic
border at over 17,500 kilometers, which amount to one-
third of the entire length of Russias national frontiers. The
Russian Federation also possesses several Arctic
archipelagoes, including Franz Josef Land and Wrangel
Island. Furthermore, the Russian government claims its
continental shelf extends up to the North Pole and is
taking steps to strengthen and enforce this claim in the face
of opposition from Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the
United States. For example, the Russian government
believes that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, which lies
on the North Poles seabed, along with the Mendeleev Ridge
and Alpha Ridge, are part of Russias continental shelf. As
with the case with Canada and the Northwest Passage,
Russia also seeks to exercise exclusive control over a
burgeoning shipping lane of the Northern Sea Route (NSR).
The NSR is a system of sea-lanes from the straits between
the Barents and Kara seas (south of Russias Novaya Zemlya
nuclear test site) to the Bering Strait, a distance of
approximately 5,000 kilometers. This route connects Asia
and Europe and when navigable saves transportation time
and costs as compared with using the Suez Canal. Russias
Arctic policy defines the NSR as a core national interest. In
contrast, the U.S. government considers the NSR as an
international shipping route. In an effort to bolster its
claims of ownership over the NSR, the Russian Ministry of
Transport announced on March 18, 2010, that it is drafting
legislation to define the routes precise dimensions and to
create a federal agency that would regulate and collect fees
from foreign vessels using the NSR. During the Cold War,
the Arctic region was a place of competition between the
United States and the Soviet Union. Both operated nuclear
vessels, long-range bombers, and tactical aircraft in the
region. Following the USSRs collapse in 1991, Russian
government interest in the Arctic decreased considerably.
During the 1990s, Moscows concerns were maintaining the
territorial integrity of the Russian Federation in the face of
secessionist threats in the North Caucasus and elsewhere.
During the 1990s, Russian military overflights and naval
patrols in the Arctic declined significantly as the Russian
military faced drastic funding and fuel shortages. The
Russian army withdrew from many Arctic bases. The inward
concentration of the Russian governments attention and
resources hampered the development of a comprehensive
policy toward the Arctic. Furthermore, the economic
problems that Russia confronted in the 1990s also made it
difficult for Russians to conceive of resource-intensive plans
to exploit the Arctic regions mineral wealth. But the rise in
world oil and gas prices that began in the late 1990s
simultaneously provided the Russian government with
increased revenue and renewed Russian interest in
developing the increasing valuable energy resources in the
Arctic region. The renewed attention was evident on
September 18, 2008, when the Russian government issued a
Framework for the Arctic to the Year 2020 and Subsequent
Perspectives. More recently, the Russian National Security
Strategy for 2020 illustrates the growing importance that
Russian strategists attribute to exerting control over the
maritime domains around Russia, especially the resource-
rich Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, and Caspian Sea. After a
series of incidents in the late 1990s, in which several foreign
research ships allegedly trespassed into Russian territorial
waters, the Russian government began taking steps to
secure its northern border. In recent years, Russia has taken
more concrete measures than any other country to assert its
Arctic claims. Russian warships and warplanes have
increased their military activities in the region. The Russian
government also began sending more scientific research
expeditions to the Arctic. In the past, Russia relied heavily
on military personnel and equipment in its Arctic
expeditions, but now is using primarily civilian technologies
since these can be more readily detailed to the United
Nations and other international bodies to justify Russias
Arctic claims. Russias earlier submission to the UN
regarding its territorial claim to the Lomonosov Ridge was
rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence, which Moscow
declined to provide for fear of revealing military secrets. The
2007 Arktika expedition represented a dramatic, high-
profile assertion of Russian interest in the region. In August
the research expedition climaxed when ship Akademik
Fedorov and icebreaker Rossiya sent two specially designed
submersible vessels, Mir-1 and Mir-2, 4,300 meters deep to
the North Pole seabed. After collecting soil samples and
further mapping the Lomonsov Ridge, the expedition
planted a Russian flag made of titanium on its floor.
Reacting to foreign criticism of the flag ceremony, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov said, The aim of this expedition is
not to stake Russias claim but to show that our shelf
reaches to the North Pole. Russian government claims and
actions regarding the Arctic stem not only from economic
and domestic political considerations but also from
offensive and defensive strategic considerations that
encourage a greater Russian military presence in the Arctic.
The Eurasian landmass of Russia is effectively walled in
by Siberia and the Pacific to the east, Asia and the Middle
East to the south, and Europe to the west. The Arctic has for
centuries served as the fourth wall, restricting Russian
maritime activity to areas largely controlled by other
powers. As the Arctic climate changes to open more waters
to navigation and exploration, the Russian Federation can
extend the range of its military operations. Russias
Northern Fleet, the largest element of the Russian navy, is
based in the port city Severomorsk on the Barents Sea.
Although the Northern Fleet maintains year-round access to
the north and south Atlantic, its mobility could be strictly
limited to the Barents Sea by a Western naval power in the
event of unrestricted warfare. An ice-free Arctic would
negate this advantage but also present new strategic
challenges to Russia. The opening of the Arctic Ocean
makes vulnerable Russias northern ports, particularly those
in the Kola Peninsula that house the majority of Russias
ballistic-missile submarine fleet. Furthermore, the opening
of the NSR could serve as a maritime link between the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through which warships could
pass. At present warships in the NSR are susceptible to
structural damage from floating ice, weather conditions,
and icing. These conditions will become less severe on a
seasonal basis as climate change progresses. Russia is partly
able to address the issue of Arctic maritime conditions by
maintaining a fleet of icebreakers. There are 18 icebreakers
of various sizes in Russias military fleet. Seven of these are
equipped with nuclear reactors, rather than conventional
diesel engines, allowing them to break through ice twice as
thick as can be breached by standard icebreakers. The most
capable Russian icebreakers are operated not by the
Russian navy but by privately owned mining giant Norilsk
Nickel. Its icebreakers can penetrate ice up to 1.5 meters
thick. But Russia needs to rebuild its icebreaker fleet since
all the existing ships except one are scheduled for
decommissioning in the next decade. Russias economic
troubles have delayed the construction of new, third-
generation icebreaking vessels. Russia must acquire at least
three new vessels of this type in the next several years in
order to maintain adequate icebreaking capabilities. Russia
must also expand its coastal border guard to better
accommodate increased commercial and military traffic. In
addition to Arctic regions, the coastal border guard patrols
the Baltic, Black, and Caspian seas as well as Russias Pacific
coast. Changing Arctic conditions could double this area of
responsibility. The National Security Strategy of the Russian
Federation until 2020 includes provisions to strengthen and
upgrade the coastal border guard. In 2009 border guard
units based on the Barents Sea began patrolling the NSR for
the first time since the Soviet era. Russia is also expanding
its military presence in the Arctic region. The Russian
Presidential Security Council has called for establishing a
military force and several new bases in the Arctic, while the
Federal Security Service will use its coast guard ships to
collect maritime intelligence in the region. The Russian
government is moving swiftly to expand its sea, ground, and
air presence in the Arctic. Russia has resumed air patrols
over the Arctic, and in June 2008, the Russian Defense
Ministry stated that it would increase submarine operations
if Russian national interests in the Arctic were ever
threatened. In October 2010, Navy Commander Adm.
Vladimir Vysotsky said that Russian naval ships and
submarines had already conducted about a dozen military
patrols in the Arctic during the first three quarters of that
year. Vysotsky explained that in accordance with the
Russian Armed Forces plan of strategic deterrence we take
measures aimed to demonstrate military presence in the
Arctic. Russias strategic ballistic missile launching
submarines use the North Pole region because the ice helps
shield them from U.S. space satellites and other overhead
sensors. In addition, launching a missile from the Arctic can
reduce the flight time to U.S. targets. In July 2009, the
Russian navy boasted that it had succeeded in launching
two long-range ballistic missiles from under the Arctic
Ocean without the Pentagon detecting their preparations.
Supposedly, Russian attack submarines prevented U.S.
surveillance ships from learning of the arrival of two
Russian strategic submarines before the missile launches.
The state-run RIA Novosti news agency quoted a high-
ranking navy source as saying that the successful drill
disproved skeptics in Russia and elsewhere that the Russian
navy had lost its combat effectiveness: We slapped these
skeptics in the face, proving that Russian submarines are
not only capable of moving stealthily under ice, but can also
break it to accomplish combat tasks. Russian officials have
sought to downplay the prospects of military conflict in the
Arctic region. In late 2010, the special representative of
President Medvedev, Anton Vasilyev, stated that Russia
does not plan to create special Arctic forces or take any
steps that would lead to the militarization of the Arctic,
which contradicts provisions stated in Moscows security
doctrine. 3 In his year-in-review press conference, Foreign
Minister Lavrov said that all Arctic border disputes could be
settled through negotiations and that rumors that a war
will break out over the resources in the North are a
provocation. In 2012, after 40 years of negotiations, Russia
and Norway signed a deal to delimitate their maritime
border. The two countries have been disputing the 175,000
square kilometer area in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean
since 1970. The disputed maritime border has resulted in
both parties seizing fishing vessels in the area. Then
President Medvedev and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
signed an agreement dividing the contested area into two
equal parts. Meanwhile, while Russia still contests
ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge with Canada, both
countries have agreed that the United Nations would be the
final arbiter of who owns title to the ridge. And as part of
improving Norwegian-Russian cooperation in the Arctic, the
Russians have moved two motorized infantry brigades to
the region. Moving a Polar Spetsnaz to the Norwegian
border is apparently in the Russian perspective part of a
broader cooperative Arctic strategy: By 2020, Russia will
have increased the number of brigades from todays 70 to
109, said General Colonel Aleksander Postnikov at a
meeting in the Federation Councils Committee for Defense
and Security yesterday. One of the new brigades is to be
located in the settlement of Pechenga, some 10 kilometers
from the Russian-Norwegian border and 50 kilometers from
the Norwegian town of Kirkenes, Nezavisimaya Gazeta
writes. This brigade will be specially equipped for military
warfare in Arctic conditions. It will be set up with DT-30P
Vityaz tracked vehicles, in addition to multi-service army
equipment, other armored vehicles and tanks. 4 One analyst
has underscored that the Arctic opening could well see the
emergence of an anomaly in Russian history Russia as a
maritime power. According to a perceptive article by Caitlyn
Antrim: Russian geopolitics of the 21st century will be
different from the days of empire and conflict of the
nineteenth and twentieth. The increased accessibility of the
Arctic, with its energy and mineral resources, new fisheries,
shortened sea routes and shipping along the rivers between
the Arctic coast and the Eurasian heartland, is both
enabling and propelling Russia to become a major maritime
state. 5 This means as well augmenting the role of the
Russian navy, coast guard, and various air assets over time.
The augmentation of the maritime reach of Russia
through ships, submarines, C2, ISR, and air means can be
anticipated.

Russia is encroaching on the Arcticresource
consumption
Riddle 4/1/14masters student at the Joint Forces Staff
College (Kevin, U.S. NATIONAL ARCTIC STRATEGY:
PREPARING DEFENSIVE LINES OF EFFORT FOR THE
ARCTIC, Kevin W. Riddle Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a600206.pdf//cc)
Of the five Arctic nations, Russia arguably has more at stake
in the Arctic than any other nation. With approximately
3,500 miles of Arctic coastline and almost two million
people living within Russias Arctic territories, Russia
accounts for 34 percent of the Arctic landmasses and 49
percent of the Arctic population.22 Thawing of the Arctic ice
has led Russia to look at the Arctic as a vast marine area
more open for use, and, potentially, integrated with the
world economy.23 Accordingly, Russian Arctic policy
specifically identifies the Northern Sea Route as a national
interest and, in March 2010, Russia announced it was
creating a federal agency to regulate and collect fees for use
of the Northern Sea Route by shipping companies. 24
Furthermore, Russia intends to solidify its influence in
Arctic shipping by developing infrastructure, including
ports, customs facilities and marine checkpoints, along its
17,500 kilometre Arctic coastline. 25 From a strategic
viewpoint, any nation that develops the means to curtail
freedom of navigation through marine checkpoints is
creating an inherent threat to global trade routes. Should
the Northern Sea Route become a viable trade route and
regional instability threaten the Suez or Panama canals,
Russias exclusive control of the route could upset the
energy security of nations, including the United States. This
scenario would be a direct national security threat to all of
the Arctic nations (and potentially China as well), which
could lead to conflict. As the prospect of an ice-free Arctic
increased over the last decade, Russia developed its national
Arctic policy. The Foundations of the Russian Federations
State Policy in the Arctic Until 2020 and Beyond was
released in March 2009. Analysis of this policy indicates
Russia is placing a heavy emphasis on economic
development in the Arctic and, due to limited abilities and
financial resources to exploit the resources, international
cooperation. Russias Arctic priorities are listed as: Usage
of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation as a strategic
resource base, allowing for the solution of problems of socio
economic development; Safeguarding the Arctic as a zone
of peace and cooperation Conservation of the Arctics
unique ecosystems Usage of the Northern Sea Route as a
national integrated transport communication system of the
Russian Federation in the Arctic.26 Russias Arctic policy
asserts a move to bolster its military presence in the region
with an armed forces contingent and other general-purpose
military units.27 This militarization of the Arctic was
subsequently reinforced a few months later when President
Medvedev signed Russias security strategy, National
Security of the Russian Federation Through 2020, in May
2009. This new strategy states The attention of
international politics in the long-term will be concentrated
on controlling the sources of energy resources in the Middle
East, on the shelf of the Barents Sea and other parts of the
Arctic.28 More alarming to national security interests is
the policys strong stance on using military means to protect
its claim to energy resources: In case of a competitive
struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it
might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The
existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian
Federation and its allies can be changed.29 This
declaration is significant in that it contradicts parts of
Russias Arctic Policy, which states, Russias strategic
national interests are served by preserving the Arctic as a
zone of peace and cooperation.30 Furthermore, it
contradicts President Putins claim to seek peaceful
solutions to the division of Arctic territory.31 Russias
current diplomacy efforts do indicate it seeks peaceful
cooperation in the Arctic. However, Russia most recently
demonstrated its resolve to protect its national interests
using military force in the Ukraine and, as laid out in its
national security and Arctic policies, Russia also appears
willing to use military options to protect its claim to Arctic
resources. More disturbing than this increased
militarization is Russias warning in its national security
strategy that within a decade nations could be at war over
resources in the Arctic Ocean and those resources will
become the critical point for the world military balance.46
It further proclaims, In case of a competitive struggle for
resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be
resolved by a decision to use military might.47
Furthermore, in December 2013, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said, The U.S. navys capability in the Arctic
is a key reason for Russia to beef up its presence in the
region.48 Although Putin has stated Russia must cooperate
with other countries and the United States, he added But
the [U.S.] submarines are there, and they do carry
missiles.49 Sergey Shoigu, Russias Defense Minister,
followed up President Putins decree stating, There are
plans to create a group of troops and forces to ensure
military security and protection of the Russian Federations
national interests in the Arctic in 2014.50 This rhetoric
coming from Russias national leadership should be a clear
warning to Western powers that Russia will not shy away
from resorting to military options to protect its claim to
Arctic resources. If there is any doubt, Russia clearly
demonstrated its resolve to protect national interests with
military force in the Ukraine.

Russia increasing influence in the arctic nowNavy
fleet build up
Smith 14 (Rich Smith, staff writer,Russia Builds a New
Navy to Dominate the Arctic Ocean January 19, 2014,
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/russia
-builds-a-new-navy-to-dominate-the-arctic-oc.aspx)//HA
The mightiest force on the high seas, the United States Navy
boasts a fleet 283 warships strong. In comparison, Russia's
navy, once America's archrival, has only 208 warships -- but
Russia is closing the gap, and quickly. Just last week, in an
interview with RIA Novosti, deputy commander of the
Russian Navy Rear Adm. Viktor Bursuk confirmed plans to
add 40 new vessels to the Russian fleet this year alone --
taking the fleet to within just 35 ships of U.S. fleet strength.
Surface warships will make up the bulk of the additions, but
a Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
and a Varshavyanka-class diesel-electric submarine are both
on order as well. An advanced search-and-rescue ship, the
Igor Belousov, will further backstop Russia's submarine
forces by extending the country's ability to assist
submarines in distress. Building a nuclear navy Nor is this
the end of Russia's expansion plans. Bursuk told RIA that
Russia is working quickly to upgrade the "mothballed"
Kirov-class nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral
Nakhimov, and refurbishing three nuclear-powered attack
submarines. Plans may even include the addition of a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- Russia's first. Russia's
only active aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. Source:
Wikimedia Commons Why the sudden spate of
shipbuilding? President Vladimir Putin gave us a hint last
year. In a statement delivered to the Russian Defense
Ministry in December, Putin averred that one of Russia's
"top defense priorities" going forward is to increase Russia's
influence at the North Pole. And for good reason. The Cold
War is over. Now we're talking global warming Global
warming has opened up 1 million square miles of new
navigable waters in the Arctic Ocean. Already commercial
shipping companies are beginning to exploit new routes.
More crucially to Russia are the mineral resources made
accessible by a shrinking ice cap. Already, 95% of Russia's
probable natural gas reserves are located in the Arctic, with
sizable deposits found in Russia's adjacent Barents and Kara
Seas. 60% of the country's believed oil reserves are located
in the Arctic as well. Local oil and gas giants Rosneft and
Gazprom (NASDAQOTH: OGZPY ) , therefore, have a
vested interest in defending these deposits... and searching
for new ones. Earlier this month, Russia announced plans to
up the tempo of air patrols in the Arctic "significantly,"
flying Tu-142 and Il-38 reconnaissance and anti-submarine
warfare aircraft. The country also intends to reopen
upwards of a half dozen Arctic airfields and ports, shuttered
since the days of the Cold War. According to reports, many
of Russia's new warships may be tasked for Arctic duty to
defend these interests. And if Russia actually does build
itself a nuclear aircraft carrier, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky,
former Commander of the Russian Northern Fleet, thinks it
should be sent to the Arctic to support the country's nuclear
submarines. America responds... sort of America isn't
standing entirely still in the face of this Arctic military
buildup. Last week, word began filtering out about a new
Navy report advocating a program to "harden" U.S.
warships to enable them to operate in an Arctic
environment -- at a cost of up to $8.4 billion. Talk of a
project to build up to 10 new Arctic icebreakers, at a further
cost of $7.8 billion, has also begun. If these projects get
under way, it could mean billions of dollars of new revenues
for America's three main military shipbuilders: Lockheed
Martin (NYSE: LMT ) , General Dynamics (NYSE: GD ) ,
and Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII ) . But while America
talks, Russia is forging ahead at flank speed -- and building
a new Arctic Navy.


ImpactArctic conflict
Warming creates the potential for Arctic disputes
Berkman, 6/23/14research professor at the Marine
Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science
and Management (Paul Arthur, 06.23.2014 Stability and
Peace in the Arctic Ocean through Science Diplomacy
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stabili
ty-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-science-diplomacy)
Winds Are Changing The current crisis related to Ukraine
has introduced global geopolitics into the Arctic unlike any
world event since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within
weeks of the Crimea annexation, former U.S. secretary of
state Hillary Clinton was linking the Arctic, Russia, and
Ukraine, suggesting in a March 2014 speech in Montreal
that we need a united front, as reported by the Globe and
Mail. The following month, Canada, the current chair of the
Arctic Council, boycotted the Arctic Council meeting in
Moscow. Lines are being redrawn, which the May/June
2014 issue of Foreign Affairs reflected with its articles
related to The Return of Geopolitics. Such political
posturing risks fueling the long-dormant burning security
issues that Gorbachev warned of in the Arctic. Perhaps the
world was arriving at this security intersection in any case,
but for different reasons. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an
environmental state-change, where the boundary conditions
of the system are being altered. In factwith the Arctic
warming twice as fast as anywhere else on Earththe Arctic
Ocean is undergoing the largest environmental state-change
on our planet. The surface of this maritime region
surrounding the North Pole is being transformed from a
sea-ice cap that has persisted for millennia (perhaps even
hundreds of millennia) to a system with sea ice retreating
and advancing seasonally. Rather than projecting out to the
mid-twenty-first century, it is clear that the Arctic Ocean
already has crossed a threshold with open water during the
summer and first-year sea ice during the winter covering
more than 50 percent of its area. Of greater significance, the
volume of Arctic sea ice has decreased more than 70 percent
since the late 1970s. With increasing accessibility in the
Arctic Ocean, countries, along with multinational
corporations such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell,
are preparing to exploit the regions enormous energy
reserves, estimated to contain 30 percent of the worlds
undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil.
Fisheries are opening to commercial harvesting without
regulation, especially in areas of the high seas lacking any
regional fisheries management organization. Arctic shipping
routes are being established to supplement trade through
the Panama and Suez Canals. It is not a matter of waiting
decades or even years for the Arctic Ocean to be completely
ice-free during the summer. There is now a new Arctic
Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Like
removing the ceiling to a room, the fundamental shift in the
surface boundary of the Arctic Ocean has created a new
natural system with different dynamics than anything
previously experienced by humans in the region. There is
now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice
cap. Separate from the Ukraine situation, the environmental
state-change in the Arctic Ocean is introducing inherent
risks of political, economic, and cultural instabilitieswhich
are at the heart of every security dialogue. Exposing security
risks in the Arctic may be a good thing, but only if
accompanied by inclusive solutions that both promote
cooperation and prevent conflict.
ImpactBMD
Arctic presence solves missile defense
Perry and Andersen 12vice president and director of
studies at the IFPA, research analyst at IFPA (Charles and
Bobby, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc.
(IFPA), now in its thirty-sixth year, develops innovative
strategies for new security challenges. IFPA conducts
studies, workshops, and conferences on national security
and foreign policy issues and produces innovative reports,
briefings, and publications, NEW STRATEGIC DYNAMICS
in the ARCTIC REGION, Implications for National Security
and International Collaboration,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001863/186364e.
pdf/cc)
However, in addition to its importance for these early
warning, air defense, and airspace/maritime surveillance
missions, the Arctic has been, and will remain, central to
U.S. defenses against ballistic missile attack, the threat of
which increasingly supplanted that of Soviet strategic
bombers once Moscow fielded ICBMs and SLBMs. Hence,
for example, as Thules role in SAC offensive bomber
operations came to an end in 1959, it was chosen as the
deployment site for one of the three high-powered radars
that made up Americas first Ballistic Missile Early Warning
System (BMEWS), the other two sites being in Alaska (at
the Clear Air Force Station near Anderson) and in Great
Britain (at the Royal Air Forces base at Fylingdales).
Operational since 1961 and upgraded in the late 1980s (as
were the other two sites shortly thereafter) with a more
advanced phased-array radar, the BMEWS at Thule,
together with the facility at Clear Air Force Station,
solidified the Arctics key and ongoing role in U.S. strategic
defense planning in the era of ballistic missiles. Moreover,
both facilities, along with the more recent deployments of
an X-band radar (able to track and identify warheads,
decoys, and debris in space with very high precision) on the
island of Shemya in the Aleutians and some twenty ground-
based mid-course interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in
Alaska, are (or soon will be) contributing directly to the U.S.
national missile defense program, elevating still further
the importance of military assets based in the Arctic and
High North to the strategic defense of CONUS. Thule Air
Base also hosts an Air Force satellite network control
facility, the worlds northernmost deep-water port, a ten-
thousand-foot runway with radar approach control, and a
twenty-million-gallon fuel farm, all unique and central to a
range of U.S. military operations both within and beyond
the Arctic. A principal vector for medium-range and
intercontinental ballistic missile attacks originating from
Russia, China, North Korea, or even Iran, the Arctic - and
Alaska in particular - is, as the deployments noted above
suggest, an ideal location for missile defense systems
designed to handle current and emerging threats, and future
upgrades to existing missile defense systems in Alaska can
almost certainly be expected. Given that the Arctic is
principally a maritime domain, it is also likely to be viewed
as an especially attractive operating environment for sea-
based missile defense platforms (such as the U.S. Navys
Aegis- equipped cruisers and destroyers) as they come on
line and as the Arctic seas expand and become more
navigable. This, in turn, will reinforce the need to ensure
maritime mobility and freedom of navigation for U.S. ships
throughout the Arctic Ocean, including the right of transit
passage through international straits (such as the Northwest
Passage and parts of the Northern Sea Route). This
requirement, of course, has long been a priority insofar as
ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are concerned, in view
of the fact that the Arctic Ocean, situated among the
continents of North America, Europe, and Asia, and in close
proximity to U.S. territory, makes it particularly attractive
as well for submarine patrols. SSBNs, the most survivable
leg of Americas offensive nuclear deterrent, have, in fact,
operated in Arctic waters and under the ice cap (where they
are virtually undetectable) ever since the first transarctic
voyage by the USS Nautilus in 1958. In this sense, the Arctic
remains as important for the offensive leg of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent as it does for the defensive leg, if not more
so. This most likely accounts as well for the fact that of all of
Americas strategic interests outlined in the January 2009
NSPD-66/HSPD-25, freedom of the seas was the only one
singled out as a top national priority.

ImpactRussia
Russia is increasing its military presence in the Arcticescalation risk is
high
Trent 11masters student at the Naval Postgrad School
(Packard, approved by Harold A. Trinkunas, PhD Chair,
Department of National Security Affairs NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
THESIS Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited AN EVALUATION OF THE ARCTICWILL IT
BECOME AN AREA OF COOPERATION OR
CONFLICT?//cc)
Russia Russia is the most determined and assertive
player in the Arctic.238 Russias behavior with regards
to the Arctic can be viewed as aggressive and unpredictable.
Russias approach to Arctic affairs has been of two minds
and thus sometimes confusing and difficult to interpret.
Self-assertive and occasionally aggressive rhetoric has
alternated with more conciliatory signals and practical
compliance with international law.239 For example, in
August 2007, a Russian submersible on a research
expedition deposited a Russian flag on the seabed of the
North Pole as a symbolic act.240 However, the leader of the
expedition, Artur Chilingarov, thought that it was more than
a symbolic act by stating, "I don't give a damn what all these
foreign politicians there are saying about this. If someone
doesn't like this, let them go down themselvesand then try
to put something there. Russia must win. Russia has what it
takes to win. The Arctic has always been Russian."241 At the
same time, Russia is abiding by international law, settling
decades long disputes, and participating in the Ilulissat
Declaration with the other Arctic nations. Russias Security
Strategy for the Arctic, National Security Strategy of the
Russian Federation until 2020, emphasizes cooperation but
the policy also stresses the importance of a continued
military presence, the need to maintain a necessary
combat potential in the North and reveals plans to establish
special Arctic military formations to protect the countrys
national interests in various military and political
situations.242 The policy considers the use of military
force to resolve competition for energy near Russias
borders or those of its allies: in case of a competitive
struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it
might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The
existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian
Federation and its allies can be changed.243 The struggle
for resources is not the only area of the policy that identifies
a threat: The National Security Strategy also asserts that the
Northeast Passage is a national transportation route under
Russian jurisdiction and that any nations efforts to change
that legal status will be seen as a threat to Russias national
security. Russia perceives this shipping channel as
potentially developing into the central link in a maritime
network connecting Europe and Asia giving it significant
authority and control over a major transport artery.244
Russia has many plans to build their combat capability in
the Arctic and among them is to modernize its Northern
Fleet with a major naval build up. Russia has the largest and
most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world, with 24
icebreakers,245 and plans to build three to four third
generation icebreakers246 with the first being built by
2015.247 Of the 24 icebreakers, seven are nuclear
powered, including the worlds largest icebreaker,
the 50 Years of Victory. In recent years, the Russian
icebreakers have begun to regularly patrol the Arctic, and
the icebreaker fleet is a key to the regions economic
development. 248 Moscow has plans to build eight
Borei class nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs), one of which, the Yury Dolgoruky,
has been completed, but is not yet in service. It took
approximately 12 years to complete the Yury Dolgoruky and
the ambitious plan is to have all eight completed by
2015.249 These submarines will be armed with 16 to 20
launch tubes for submarine-launched ballistic missile
(SLBM) Bulava and six torpedo tubes.250 An even more
ambitious plan for the Russian government is to build five
to six aircraft carrier battle groups to be based in the
Northern and Pacific fleets by 2030;251 build 20
Steregushchy class multipurpose corvettes, two of which are
currently in service, armed with anti-ship and anti-
submarine missiles along with torpedoes; and build 20
Admiral S. Gorshkov class frigates, the first is expected to be
in service by the end of 2011, armed with anti-air and anti-
ship missiles along with torpedoes.252 They will also
build new strategic bombers, and increase overall
military activity in the Arctic. A new TU strategic bomber
to replace the Tu-95MC Bear, Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-
22M3 Backfire should be designed by 2017 with production
beginning in 2020.253 Furthermore, the Russians plan to
establish special Arctic military formations to protect
Russian national interests. They will form an Arctic
Spetsnaz (special purpose force) to support the northern
policy and secure the region.254 In addition to the plans to
build a more combat capable force, Russia has expanded its
military activities in the Arctic since 2007.255 This activity
has not gone unnoticed by the other Arctic nations. For
example, in 2007, Russia resumed long range strategic
bomber flights over the Arctic for the first time since the
Cold War. During 2007 alone, Russia penetrated Alaskas
12 mile air defense zone 18 times.256 Russia does not give
any advanced notice to these flights257 and, since they
began, the U.S. and Canadian aircraft have shadowed
Russian bombers as they approach Canadian and U.S. soil
until they turn around and head back toward Russia.258 In
addition, soon after planting the Russian flag on the seabed
of the North Pole in 2007, Russia conducted an air force
exercise in which it launched cruise missiles over the
Arctic.259 Russias policy emphasizes the importance of
cooperation yet Russia maintains an aggressive posture in
the Arctic. Conley and Kraut argue that Russia is
implementing a two-track approach in respect of the Arctic.
On the one hand, Russias increased military activity
in the polar regions coupled with its stated objectives of
a major naval buildup to operate in the Arctic suggest that
it will be a potentially unpredictable and provocative
player. On the other hand, Russia has demonstrated that it
will play by the rules of international law (UNCLOS) as it
submits its claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of
the Continental Shelf, participates actively in the Arctic
Council, and has signed the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration to
maximize its economic benefits from a stable region.260 As
mentioned, Russia is implementing the measures necessary
in order to reap the benefits the Arctic has to offer by being
aggressive and unpredictable, and will do whatever it takes
to be the powerhouse of the Arctic. In order to be
competitive with Russia, the other Arctic nations are
increasing their military capabilities and assets.
Tensions over the arctic would escalateRussia
needs the resources
Aerandir 12 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United
States Navy B.A., BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-
RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC
December 2012,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf)//HA
2. Indications of Intent to Use Force If actions alone are not
enough evidence to support an assessment of an intention
to use force, however, then it is necessary to examine the
political rhetoric and strategic communications, as well as
the motivations behind them, to better understand the
intent of Russia to defend its diplomatic claims with
military might if necessary. a. Russias Motivation The
resources in the Arctic are of much more vital importance to
the Russian government than the fishing grounds in the
Pacific. While estimates vary widely, they generally indicate
that 35 to 50 percent of the Russian federal budget derives
directly from hydrocarbon export taxes and sales.128
Whereas many economists regarded the rapid growth in
virtually every sector of the Russian economy during
President Putins first two terms in office (20002008) as a
proof that the economy was diversifying away from a
dependence on oil, Clifford Gaddy and Barry Ickes
demonstrate quite vividly how the abrupt collapse of oil
prices in the summer of 2008 made it hard to ignore how
dependent these other sectors had been on the high oil
prices of the previous eight years.129 This reliance on
natural resources is probably a key reason that, in the latest
Russian Arctic Strategy, they were described as a strategic
resource for national security.130 In order to protect
Russias interests in the Arctic, therefore, the Russian
National Security Strategy calls for increasing the role of the
military in the region and even states, In case of a
competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to
discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use
military might. 131 With the largest Arctic fleet in the
world, both in terms of military assets and icebreaking
support vessels, Russia is well-positioned to back up
its policy with action. A broader look reveals that in
addition to bolstering their maritime presence in the Arctic,
the Russians have also increased their air and ground
presence in the regionfurther increasing NATOs
uneasiness that Moscow is re-militarizing the Arctic. In
addition to Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukovs
announcement of the creation of two Arctic brigades to
protect its valuable Arctic resources, then-Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin stated, As [far as] our own geo-political
interests [in the Arctic] are concerned, we shall be
protecting them firmly and consistently. 132 In July 2012,
Vladimir Putin, in his capacity as president, clarified that
the navy is an instrument to protect national economic
interests, including in such regions as the Arctic, and that
he expected to increase Russias naval order of battle by 51
units by 2020.133 Finally, while the Russian Foreign
Minister stated in 2008 that Russia strictly abides by the
norms and principles of international law and is firmly
determined to act within existing international agreements
and mechanisms, 134 it is important to remember that the
country has repeatedly, before, during, and after this
statement, violated international agreements and
failed to utilize conflict resolution mechanisms to
settle disputes in other parts of the world.135

Shipping Adv

XT: shipping inev
No disadsshipping is inevitable but charts prevent accidents
AGCS 14Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (German
multinational financial services company Safety and
Shipping Review 2014 Shipping Losses An annual review of
trends and developments in shipping losses and safety
https://www.allianz.com/v_1394634022000/media/press/
document/AGCS_Shipping_Review_2014_5mb.pdf//cc)
Arctic aspirations While innovative designs and alternative
fuels can help improve profitability, potential new trading
routes offering reduced passages further boost savings.
One area that is being keenly watched in this respect is the
Arctic, but an interest in the opening up of trade routes in
this region as the permanent ice pack recedes brings with it
environmental protection concerns, salvage restrictions,
navigation complications and operations in freezing
conditions. According to the IMO, there has been a
tenfold increase in the number of vessels using the
Northern Sea route during recent years, with 46 ships
recorded in 2012, compared with 34 in 2011 and only four in
2010 viii. Latest figures show 71 large ships, working mostly
with Russian icebreakers, navigated the route in 2013 but
Russia expects a 30-fold increase in shipping by 2020 and
ice-free water over most of its length by 2050. Meanwhile,
think tank, the Arctic Institute notes that the polar research
institute of China has suggested that, by the year 2020, 5%
to 15% of Chinas trade valueabout $500bncould pass
through the Arctic ix. Development of logistics, supplies and
infrastructure, special qualifications for ships officers and
the provisions of adequate ice-breaking capacity all need
consideration in such a remote area, as do rescue and
salvage operations. Navigational technology in the high
north is constrained as GPS is not dependable at that
latitude. Also, there is currently a lack of good charts,
communication systems and other navigational aids, all of
which pose challenges for mariners. Indeed, shipping
casualties in Arctic waters have increased to an average of
45 per year during 2009-2013 from only seven during
2002-2007. Damage to machinery caused a third of these
incidents, higher than the average elsewhere, reflecting the
harsher operating environment.


Offcase
2ACT-its
No T Affs
We meet- the federal government increases hydrographic mapping and
surveying capabilities within the Arctic which is in direct correlation
therefore, showing ownership.

Exploration is defined as the action of traveling in through an
unfamiliar area to learn about it, the resolution doesnt include
economic exploration, just exploration.

There is no Violation under their interpretation for their McNutt 13 card
talks about the probability of the majority of the investment would be
done by private companies. The plan places the USFG as the investor so
by their def., we are topical.
Our interpretation is sufficient:
a. Appropriate Limits Any definition of "exploration" and "its" that
requires the USFG to be engaged in commercial activities over-limits
because there are few if any mechanisms that allow the US to be a
business. The USFG's primary role is to create policies. The only way
they can participate in development is through policy and/or regulatory
change.
[The neg's interp would also erase incentives (like PTCs, grants, etc.) and might even
prohibit demonstration projects (as those would be developments of a technology,
not directly of the ocean). So even increasing "its" investment wouldn't meet. This
dooms most aff lit.]
b. Contextual USFG & Developers are distinct. When policy groups
get together to talk about how to explore the ocean, the government
provides regulatory certainty while business do the actual exploring.
Conservation Law Foundation 14 (Emily Dahl, Northeast Regional Planning
Body Meeting to Develop Ocean Plan for New England Wednesday and Thursday,
January 22 & 23, http://www.clf.org/newsroom/northeast-regional-planning-body-
meeting-develop-ocean-plan-new-england-wednesday-thursday-january-22-23/)

Representatives from New England states, federal government, tribal nations, the
fishing industry, recreational boaters, offshore renewable energy explorers, conservationists and
others will convene for a two-day meeting to continue exploration of the Northeast
Regional Ocean Plan. Among the important topics that will help to decide the future management
of New Englands ocean and coasts are the Plan Framework and Workplan goals, objectives, and actions.
Topics will include measures needed to ensure healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems, improved
decision making about ocean uses, stakeholder engagement around ocean planning and an in-
depth discussion of elements of the two year Draft Workplan designed to produce an ocean plan for New
Englands ocean waters.
No ground loss- we wont sever links and we still advocate massive
federal <> which guarantees all core negative ground like <>
Their interp overlimitsall ocean affs depend on federal regulation
mechanismsthat's Johnsocean mapping is core of the topic
Other words in the resolution like substantial check abuse and
guarantee links
Reasonability creates a race to the bottom which always arbitrarily
excludes the aff
Potential abuse isnt a voter- dont punish us for what we didnt do

No exploration affs would be topicalall arctic exploration is done thru
licensing to private companies
Bailes 13Visiting Professor at U. of Iceland (Alyson,
Arctic: new conflict theatre between Russia and the West,
or model of peace?, European Leadership Network,
12/16/13,
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/arctic-new-
conflict-theatre-between-russia-and-the-west-or-model-of-
peace_1099.html)//JG
Superimpose a map of suspected Arctic oil and gas
resources, however, or a map of potentially growing fish
stocks, and a different pattern emerges. The great bulk of
these resources lie well within the acknowledged Extended
Economic Zones of Russia, Norway, Canada, and the USA
(Alaska). They are protected by the UN's Law of the Sea
Convention as well as the sovereign authority of those
countries. All agreements made so far between companies
for exploration or exploitation are on the basis of licences
duly issued by the relevant government.
Private= normal means
Arctic Council 9National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009
Report,
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/documents/AMSA_200
9_Report_2nd_print.pdf)//JG
History of Arctic Marine Transport: There is a long history
of Arctic marine transport conducted primarily around the
ice-free periphery of the Arctic Ocean. Year-round
navigation has been main- tained since 1978-79 in the ice-
covered western regions of the Northern Sea Route
(between the port of Dudinka on the Yenisei River and
Murmansk). Previous Arctic marine transport studies for
the Northern Sea Route, Canadian Arctic, Alaskas coastal
seas and other regions have significant relevance to
developing any future regulatory framework for the Arctic
Ocean. Most of these past stud- ies involved public-private
partnerships and close international cooperation.
2AC-T non-military
Extend Fox 13, NOAA, a US federal agency is adjunct to the military and
would fit their interpretation as a civilian institution. Funding is key in
mapping out the Arctic and the plan does so separate from the military.
The effects of the plan may result in military action which their evidence
assumes therefore there is no violation whatsoever.

Even if they are able to read a piece of evidence that concludes that the
Coast Guard is necessary in solving the plan, non-military is defined as
not being associated in warfare incentives in which the plan does not
endorse rather prevents.
a) Appropriate Limits: Any definition that requires the USFG to
conduct projects through non-military agencies over limits all
exploration affs because there are a few if any mechanisms that
can explore thousands of acres of land on its own without the
assistance of the Coast Guards help
b) Contextual- non-military & non-warfare incentives are
synonyms in which any association of the army doesnt conclude
its through military functions
The military can function in a non-military manner
Tehan 02
(William J. Tehan III Ph.D Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Douglas MacArthur - An Administrative Biography,
August 20 2002)
Aside from the primary military mission of national defense, and the participation of various
elements of the military in civil, or non-military roles, the remainder of the
military has participated in "non-military" governmental functions. Disaster
relief, training and participation in social programs, assistance to law enforcement, governmental
research and development, development of national capabilities and resources, and post
secondary school training and education have all become military functions. The military, in its role of
foreign internal defense and nation building has even become an extension of the State Department's
foreign policy. The recent humanitarian relief operations in Bengala Desh, Somalia, and Rwanda, drug
interdiction operations in the Carribean and South America, and assistance to the Immigration and
Natural- ization Service and the Border Patrol along the Mexican border are all examples of military
involvement in Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of the Interior functional
areas.
Defining non-military functionally is impossible even federal agencies
officially labelled as non-military have armies
TRNS April 2014
Talk Radio News Service Too Many Federal Agencies Have Created Their Own
Private Armies April 21, 2014
http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2014/04/21/many-federal-agencies-
created-private-armies.html
Outside of law enforcement, federal agencies now employ over 25,000 people as
armed agents. They are more than guards. Theyve become like private armies that
can push around private citizens. Over 70 non-military federal agencies now have
their own armed agents. You expect armed agents with the FBI, the U.S. Marshal
Service and the Border Patrol. But the EPA? The Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management, even the Social Security Administration and the National
Institutes of Health? Even the Department of Education and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development have their own armed agents. As do the Food and
Drug Administration. And Veterans Affairs. Even the Government Printing Office
and the National Zoo. And of course the Library of Congress Collectively, over
25,000 individuals now work as armed agents of federal agencies not usually
associated with law enforcement. These are not just guards. These agents go out on
raids to enforce the orders of federal bureaucracies. No bureaucracy should have a
private army to enforce its orders against the American people.
The Army Corps functions as a civilian agency, it is appropriated
separately from the military
Lazarus 11
(Jeffry Lazarus Ph.D UC San Diego, Professor GSU, Federal Earmarks in the
State of Georgia, 3/1/2011,
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=g
jpp)
The Army Corps of Engineers is part of the United States Army and thus, of course, the
military. However, I counted it as a separate federal agency for the purposes of tallying
earmarks because their earmarks did not come from the Defense appropriations bill,
but from the Energy and Water bill. Moreover, at least within the state of Georgia, all of the
ACEs earmarks provided funding for civilian projects.
Classification does not define function the Army Corps conducts non-
military policies
Tehan 02
(William J. Tehan III Ph.D Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Douglas MacArthur - An Administrative Biography,
August 20 2002)
A broader claim for functional inclusion in Public administration would be to show that the military,
separate from its national security role, has always functioned within the main- stream of
Public Administration, and indeed provided a basis for the creation of the field itself. There is a
basis for this type of claim and it is found in the Army's Corps of Engineers and in the Coast Guard. The
Army Corps of Engineers is obviously a military organization, but it is one that since
its inception has been involved in civil and non-military public functions. The
Coast Guard, although normally under the Department of Transportation, except when transferred to the
Department of the Navy during war, is a uniformed service. Not only a uniformed service, it is an armed
service. Its subordination to a non-military executive department in no way reduces its military character.
Over limiting the topic destroys education, breadth
over depth, this is contextualized under topicality,
dont let them cross apply this argument on the
conditionality debate.
Breadth is better than depth in ocean education
Murphy 1997 ( Richard , Editor of the Journal of marine education )
[(Richard , Science is not enough , Publication , ieeexplore ,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/search/searchresult.jsp?searchWithi
n=p_Authors:.QT.Murphy,%20R..QT.&searchWithin=p_Author_Ids:38225151900
&newsearch=true)]
As I observe traditional ocean education here and around the country, I am
constantly im- pressed with the depth of information present- ed on the physical
and biological processes of the ocean. But, at the same time, I am appal- led at the
lack of breadth of many curricula. First of all, the ocean is traditionally the domain
of science, being taught as marine biology or oceanography. A foundation of
scientific knowledge is important, but it is not enough. In presenting only the cold
facts of science, we have lost sight of our objec- tive. We will be doing our students a
great disservice if we train them only to be ocean scientists. Instead, our goal is to
develop an awareness of the world around us. Students must learn to appreciate the
ocean and to use it without harming it. Science endeavors to make life better for
humanity, and thus we need a humanistic approach to ocean studies. I propose we
integrate the humanities into ocean education, not as a subversion to im- parting
fundamental scientific information, but rather as a vehicle to enrich communica-
tion and, more importantly, as a way of put- ting knowledge into perspective.
Education is communication, and communication, by what- ever medium, is most
effective when it is relevant to the audience. The traditional approach to ocean
science does not consider the involvement of man in the system or the effects of
natural processes on man. A course or unit on the ocean should offer a presenta-
tion of the sea in its totality.
Competing Interpretations lead to a race to the bottom which arbitrarily
excludes the aff and leads to an endless debate without a proper
conclusion

No Ground loss- we wont sever links and we still advocate massive
federal agencies to map out the Arctic, they read specific pieces of
evidence against us, the aff is predictable therefore and predictability
outweighs and turns limits, if the aff is predictable, then our interp. of
topicality limits the topic well.

2ACLOS CP
Solvency Deficits
Doesnt solve the aff
Farrens 10J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa
College of Law (Thomas, Shrinking Ice, Growing Problems:
Why We Must Act Now to Solve Emerging Problems Posed
by an Ice-Free Arctic, Citation: 19 Transnat'l L. & Contemp.
Probs. 655 2010-2011,
http://www.uiowa.edu/~tlcp/TLCP%20Articles/19-
2/farrens.finalfinal.mlb.042410.pdf//cc)
At first glance, the UNCLOS appears to be exactly what the international
community needs to resolve the problems facing the Arctic. Nevertheless,
three major defects have hampered the ability of the UNCLOS to
adequately solve the regions problems. First, the United States has not
ratified the treaty. Second, nations may opt out of the dispute resolution
procedures. Third, the environmental protections required by the UNCLOS
do not adequately account for the unique needs of the Arctic environment.
Without the United States participation, the treaty cannot reach its full
potential. The United States is still an incredibly powerful player on the
international stage, and its absence as a signatory nation seriously weakens
the treatys ability to effectuate any kind of real change. It is somewhat
surprising that the Senate has not ratified the treaty. Both former
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported ratification during
their presidencies. Vice President Joe Biden is also on the record as
supporting ratification. President Obama has likewise publicly stated that
ratification of the UNCLOS will protect our economic and security
interests while providing an important international collaboration to
protect the oceans and its resources. The only holdouts are the Senate
Republicans. Considering the diminished role of the Senate Republicans
since the 2008 elections, it appears that the Obama Administration and
Congress may push to ratify the UNCLOS. However, even if the United
States decides to ratify the treaty, there is still an inherent structural
problem that may prevent the UNCLOS from solving disputes of any
magnitude. This structural problems is that nations may opt-out of the
UNCLOS dispute resolution procedures. In fact, every Arctic nation except
Norway has chosen this method to avoid the binding language of the
UNCLOS. The treatys substance hardly matters if there is no way to
enforce its provisions. There is also a significant problem with the
generality of environmental protections in the UNCLOS. As mentioned
previously, the treaty purports to regulate activity in all of the worlds
oceans. It does not, therefore, deal explicitly with the very unique problems
facing the Arctic environment. Unless the international community
recognizes the regions special needs, its natural environment will continue
to worsen and become even more difficult to restore.

2ACStates CP
Perm
Perm do bothcounterplan fails without federal oversightcooperation is key
Plouffe, 13 [JOL PLOUFFE AND SIMON SYLVESTER-CHAUDHURI,
Arctic Powers Canada and US Need Arctic Thinkers,
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/12/04/opinion-arctic-powers-canada-
and-the-us-need-arctic-thinkers/, Breaking Energy, Evan]
Before exiting the White House in January 2009, President Bush released
the US Arctic Region Policy (superseding a similar policy established in
1994 by President Clinton) in which new American Arctic-related regional
energy security and foreign policy concerns were made public, and guiding
the national interest ever since. That same year, the US Navy produced its
Arctic Roadmap providing strategic objectives and desired effects
regarding the Arctic through 2014. And most recently, in May 2013,
President Obama released a National Strategy for the Arctic Region as a
way to advance U.S. national security interests, pursue responsible
stewardship, and strengthen international collaboration and cooperation,
as we work to meet the challenges of rapid climate-driven environmental
change. Obamas strategy signaled a renewed interest in developing the
regions sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources in the
American Beaufort and/or Chukchi Seas as part as the nations all of the
above approach to developing new domestic energy resources. It also
implies an emerging situation of rapprochement between Washington and
Alaska on future options for offshore development. In Barack Obamas own
words, we will partner with the State of Alaska and Alaska Natives, as well
as the international community and the private sector, to develop
innovative solutions and new ways of operating. All actors must now look
for new ways to balance Alaskan economic interests, national energy
security options, and, of course, Arctic environmental imperatives and
sustainable development.

Solvency DeficitJursidiction
Cant solveonly the federal government has jurisdiction over the plan
Gaden et al, 09 [Marc Gaden*, Charles C. Krueger, and Christopher I.
Goddard
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Managing Across Jurisdictional
Boundaries: Fishery Governance in the Great Lakes and Arctic-Yukon-
Kuskokwim Region, American Fisheries Society Symposium 70, 2009,
Evan]
In Alaska, currently a four-track management system (Figure 3), whose
parts do not automatically converge, exists (Linderman and Bergstrom
2009). The first track is multi-lateral fisheries management in the ocean
beyond the 200-mi limit. Pacific salmon migrate great distances in the
ocean and are harvested by several independent nations. In international
waters (beyond 200 mi from a nations shores), governance occurs through
the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). Members of
NPAFC include Canada, Japan, The Republic of Korea, Russia, and the
United States. NPAFC representatives are appointed by the respective
governments and are responsible for estimating commercial salmon catch,
understanding the factors affecting salmon survival, conducting salmon
research (including convening scientific workshops and symposia), sharing
information about each partys activities, and coordinating law
enforcement. A single secretariat, located in Vancouver, British Columbia,
supports NPAFC. The second track, also in the ocean, is exclusively within
the domain of the United States. The ocean waters from three miles out to
200 mi is referred to as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and is
managed through the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (USGPO 1976). The council has broad representation
including the State of Alaska and is coordinated by the U.S. Federal
government through the National Marine Fisheries Service. The state of
Alaska has sole jurisdictional authority from the coastline out to three
miles.
Cant solvestates cant use the EEZ
ANWR, no date [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Arctic OCS
Exploration Hopeful, http://www.anwr.org/OCS/Arctic-OCS-Exploration-
Hopeful.php, Evan]
Mayor Charlotte Brower the newly elected Mayor of the North Slope
Borough encompassing all of the Arctic land and State waters areas has
asked for participation in all State and Federal decisions on OCS
exploration. All of Shells operations are within Federal waters (greater
than 3 miles from shore) and thus are the jurisdiction of the Federal
Government and not the State of Alaska. Alaskas Arctic native
community subsists off migrating whales and seals however, and has
concern for the ability to clean up any potential oil spill on the Arctic Ocean
should one occur. The BOEM required a 50 mile protective corridor exist
to protect migrating whales in its environmental impact statements (EIS)
review. Mayor Brower will most likely be talking frequently with the newly
formed federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
which is responsible for approving Shells Spill Response Plan in the
Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas. This plan is available for public scrutiny at the
BSEEs web site linked below.
Solvency DeficitIntegration Key
States failintegration and cooperation are keythe counterplan doesnt do that
Eicken et al., 14Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
Program (Hajo Eicken, Olivia Lee, George Kling, Helen Wiggins, Craig Lee
and SEARCH Science Steering Committee, Towards a Sustained US Arctic
Long-term Observing System: Perspectives from the Study of
Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Program, January, Arctic
Observing Network,
http://www.arcus.org/files/pages/files/ArcticObservingSystemFramework
_Jan2014short.pdf)//VIVIENNE
Three major challenges set Arctic observing systems apart from most
efforts at lower latitudes. First, the degree of interconnection between
different components and processes in the Arctic system requires a cross-
disciplinary approach that transcends discipline or sector-focused
observing efforts. Currently, long-term observations that are underway
occur mostly as a patchwork of activities, with project-level interactions at
best. There is little programmatic integration and prioritization across the
entire range of observing activities. Second, the magnitude of challenges
and opportunities springing from recent rapid interconnected Arctic
changes have led to consensus among the scientific community and
stakeholders that a dual-purpose observing system is neededone that that
serves both fundamental scientific research interests as well as information
needs of decision-makers and stakeholders that have to respond to change.
Third, the remoteness and harsh environment of the Arctic presents
logistical challenges unique to high-latitudes. Arctic observing efforts that
provide critical data and information require coordination and integration
to: (1) link projects within themes (e.g., terrestrial permafrost, landcover,
hydrology and atmospheric observations), (2) link different disciplinary
approaches and spatial scales of observation across themes, and (3) tie
activities into research priorities at national and international levels. The
lack of such coordination has rendered the nation vulnerable to large-scale
disasters, slow-onset events, and widespread degradation. Reducing such
vulnerabilities has been identified as a matter of national priority and is a
key goal of an integrated observing network.
2ACMilitary CP
Conflict Turn
Military involvement in the Arctic is on the brinkCP triggers
perception and sparks a war
Friedman 14, The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia could Square Off
Next, The Atlantic, 3/28/14,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-
where-the-us-and-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/)
Still, these technicalities shouldn't obscure the larger point: Russia isn't
only pursuing its territorial ambitions in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states. It's particularly active in the Arctic Circle, and, until recently, these
efforts engendered international cooperation, not conflict. But the Crimean
crisis has complicated matters. Take Hillary Clinton's call last week for
Canada and the United States to form a "united front" in response to Russia
"aggressively reopening military bases in the Arctic. Or the difficulties U.S.
officials are having in designing sanctions against Russia that won't harm
Western oil companies like Exxon Mobil, which are engaged in oil-and-gas
exploration with their Russian counterparts in parts of the Russian Arctic.
In a dispatch from "beneath the Arctic ocean" this week, The Wall Street
Journal reported on a U.S. navy exercise, scheduled before the crisis in
Ukraine, that included a simulated attack on a Russian submarine. The U.S.
has now canceled a joint naval exercise with Russia in the region and put
various other partnerships there on hold. This week, the Council on Foreign
Relations published a very helpful guide on the jostling among countries to
capitalize on the shipping routes and energy resources that could be
unlocked as the Arctic melts. The main players are the countries with Arctic
Ocean coastlines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, the
United States (Alaska)and, to a lesser extent, Finland, Iceland, and
Sweden. These nations have generally agreed to work together to resolve
territorial and environmental issues. But some sovereignty disputes persist,
including American opposition to Russia's claims to parts of the Northern
Sea Route above Siberia. "Few countries have been as keen to invest in the
Arctic as Russia, whose economy and federal budget rely heavily on
hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the nearly sixty large oil and natural-gas
fields discovered in the Arctic, there are forty-three in Russia, eleven in
Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway, according to a 2009 U.S.
Department of Energy report." "Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic
state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority,
restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets," the
guide adds. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military
leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed
'every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there.'
He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the
Russian Arctic by the end of 2014." Ultimately, the remarkable
international cooperation we've seen in the North Pole may continue even
amid the standoff in Ukraine. This week, for instance, government officials
from the eight members of the Arctic Council, including Russia and the
United States, went ahead with a summit in Canada. "The Russians have
been quite cooperative in the Arctic during the past decade," international-
law professor Michael Byers told The Canadian Press, "probably because
they realize how expensive it would be to take another approach, especially
one involving militarization."
Perm DO Both- NO reason why the NOAA and the Navy cant work together to map out the
Arctic

Our plan criticizes the methodology and the use of the Navys mapping for its insufficient
in the squo. The Navy has no incentive in investing in JPSS satellites which is essential in
making Arctic mapping work, none of their evidence assumes this.

Plan Solves NB
The military impact/nb is solved by the effect of the plan for the mapping of the Arctic will
place US in a strategic geopolitical position over Russia and its competitors maintaining
American military pres-ence in Alaska.
Plan solves the net benefit
Perry and Andersen 12vice president and director of studies at the
IFPA, research analyst at IFPA (Charles and Bobby, The Institute for
Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc. (IFPA), now in its thirty-sixth year, develops
innovative strategies for new security challenges. IFPA conducts studies,
workshops, and conferences on national security and foreign policy issues
and produces innovative reports, briefings, and publications, NEW
STRATEGIC DYNAMICS in the ARCTIC REGION, Implications for
National Security and International Collaboration,
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf/cc)
That said, power projection from and through the Arctic, in part via bases
in Alaska, is not now, and will not in the future be, solely (or even
primarily) a naval consideration. Alaskas geostrategic position near the
polar intersection of three continents makes it a near perfect location as
well for deploying modern airlift and fighter/bomber platforms for
intercontinental missions. From Alaskan bases, the Air Force can be
assured of quick access to both the Pacific and European theaters, an
operational responsiveness that continues to place Alaska at the top of the
list for Air Force infrastructure investment. Crossing the Arctic, F-22s, for
example, can reach Europe faster than flying from the east coast of the
United States. Operating from bases in Alaska, moreover, they are closer to
Japan, South Korea, and China than they would be operating from the west
coast of the United States, and no more than eight hours flight time from
anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This is most likely the reason why
the Air Force currently plans to deploy at least 25 percent of its F-2 2 fleet
in Alaska, and that number will almost certainly increase in years to come if
sufficient funding can be found. Similar advantages of time and space also
apply to Alaskan-based C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, which can
reach Germany in eight hours by going over the North Pole, and can reach
virtually any other critical location in the world in less than ten hours flying
from Elmendorf AFB. In earlier days, C-i7s flying from CONUS would have
to lay over in Alaska or Hawaii before heading to Asia to allow for crew
swaps or rest, so deploying directly from Alaska brings them at least a day
closer to most destinations across the Pacific. It is small wonder then that a
substantial portion of the relief supplies sent to China after the May 2008
Sichuan earthquake and to Japan after the March 2011 tsunami were
transported by C-i 7s based in Alaska. These and similar examples offer at
least partial contemporary proof to the claim made back in 1935 by early
American airpow- er enthusiast Brigadier General Billy Mitchell that Alaska
was the most strategic place in the world. It has, in any event, become a
key hub in the American militarys global force management system, and its
value in that regard can only grow as the Arctic becomes more accessible
and as it plays host to an expanding array of military and commercial
activities. The fact that Alaska, with its small population, limited
commercial air traffic, sprawling airspaces, and wide room for maneuver,
has also emerged as a unique and highly prized training area for joint
military exercises is simply an added bonus.
2AC China CP Answers
All marine activity will be carried out in cooperation Chinas president urges mutually
beneficial relationships.
CNTV, 13 China Network Television national web-based TV broadcaster [CNTV, Xi
advocates efforts to boost China's maritime power, CNTV, 7/31/13,
http://english.cntv.cn/20130731/105711.shtml, 6/30/14] CC
BEIJING, July 31 (Xinhua) -- President Xi Jinping has championed efforts to build China into a maritime power, adding
that the country will pursue "converging interests" with other countries in oceanic development. At a study
session with members of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee on Tuesday, Xi called for
efforts to learn more about and further manage maritime development. China will safeguard its maritime rights and interests, and
make overall plans and take all factors into consideration, he said. Xi said China will adhere to the path of peaceful
development, but "in no way will the country abandon its legitimate rights and interests, nor will it give up its core national
interests." The president said China will "use peaceful means and negotiations to settle disputes and strive to
safeguard peace and stability." Meanwhile, he stressed that China will prepare to cope with complexities, enhance
its capacity in safeguarding maritime rights and interests, and resolutely safeguard its maritime rights and interests.
The country will adhere to the policy of "shelving disputes and carrying out joint development" for areas
over which China owns sovereign rights, while also promoting mutually beneficial and friendly
cooperation and seeking and expanding common converging interests with other countries, Xi said.
Militant China is media distortion China prioritizes cooperation in the ocean and joint
development.
Xiaohui, 13 Deputy Director of the Department of International and Strategic Studies at
the China Institute of International Studies [Su, The Implication of Chinas Maritime Power
Dream, China US Focus, 8/29/13, http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/the-implication-of-
chinas-maritime-power-dream/, 6/30/14] CC
On July 30th, at a study session with members of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee,
President Xi Jinping championed efforts to build China into a maritime power. Xis remarks aroused
renewed concern about Chinas policy change in addressing disputes in East China Sea and South China
Sea. There is suspicion that China will rely on its military capability other than peaceful approaches such as
dialogue and negotiation to deal with the tension. Accordingly, the potential of risks in related waters will rise, which is against the
interests of a number of countries, including the US. Hard and Soft Contents of Chinas Maritime Policy As a rising power, Chinas
current naval capability does not match the countrys developments. Chinas strengthening of muscles and increasing expenses in
building sea power have not exceeded the normal level, and accordingly, should not be questioned or blamed. In the context of
increasing uncertainties in East China Sea and South China Sea, to become a maritime power is obviously consistent with Chinas
interests and demand for dealing with the challenges. China has made it clear that it will safeguard its maritime
rights and interests, which require the country to attach importance to the development of maritime
capability. However, Chinas posture will remain defensive and restrained. China is not trying to utilize
the muscles to gain advantages in resolving territorial disputes with the neighboring countries. China has
reaffirmed on various occasions that it persists in peaceful approaches such as negotiation and dialogue.
The problem is that Chinas policies have been misinterpreted and distorted. Some media deliberately
exaggerate tough perspectives on Chinas policies in order to define China as a destabilizing factor in the
sea. Unfortunately, the soft contents, which are the core of Chinas policies, have been neglected. When President Xi
advocated the idea of becoming a maritime power, he also emphasized that China would pursue
converging interests with other countries in oceanic development. He said that China would make overall plans and
take all factors into consideration, which means that China is acting in a responsible way to become a maritime power. Chinas
intention has also been clearly demonstrated in Hu Jintaos report delivered during the opening ceremony of the
18th CPC National Congress. The report outlined Chinas maritime policy as China should enhance capacity for exploiting marine
resources, develop the marine economy, protect the marine ecological environment, resolutely safeguard its maritime rights and
interests, and build itself into a maritime power. Two points can be concluded from the report. The first is that Chinas maritime
power dream is a comprehensive design instead of pure military ambition. It not only addresses the protection of
sovereignty but also stresses achieving joint development and win-win situation with other countries. The
concept of a maritime power is not equal to a power with overwhelming military capability in waters that can defeat other parties
according to its will. That is the consideration for which the report included the contents in the eighth part entitled making great
efforts to promote ecological progress instead of the ninth part addressing accelerating the modernization of national defense and
the armed forces. The second message from the report is that China attaches more importance to
development and cooperation rather than confrontation and conflict. China understands that the neighboring
countries worry about the disputes in the South China Sea and expect to promote cooperation among related parties in order to ease
the tension and maintain regional stability. China has made positive gestures. On August 2nd, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
proposed three suggestions for dealing with the South China Sea disputes during his visit to Thailand. China Is Cooperative, Not
Competitive as a Maritime Power The US should have the confidence that China cannot catch up with the US
maritime power for decades. According to a recent analysis by Russian experts, it will take 20 years for China to become a sea
power. At the same time, China is sober-minded. China has no intention to challenge the US presence in
waters. Based on this, the US should not overreact to Chinas maritime development and treat China as a
rival.
Impact non-unique China and US already work together in the ocean.
ENS, 13 international daily newswire since 1990 [ENS, U.S., China Collaborate on Climate,
Oceans, Energy, Wildlife, Environmental News Service, 7/12/13, http://ens-
newswire.com/2013/07/12/u-s-china-collaborate-on-climate-oceans-energy-wildlife/, 6/30/14] CC
The two governments affirmed their commitment to cooperate on establishing a marine protected area in
the Ross Sea of Antarctica especially in the time prior to and during the Second Special Meeting of the Commission on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to be held July 15-16, 2013, in Bremerhaven, Germany. The two countries
agreed to continue their 20-year partnership to combat the use of drift nets on the high seas. The U.S.
Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service will again welcome
officers from China Fishery Law Enforcement Command this summer on U.S. Coast Guard cutters patrolling the Pacific
Ocean for illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. NOAA and the Chinese Academy of Fishery
Sciences affirmed their commitment to the Living Marine Resources Panel, including the upcoming meeting in
February 2014 in Seattle, and ongoing projects, including joint research on the Western Gray Whale,
information exchange on alternative feeds research for aquaculture production and sea turtle research,
scientist staff exchange on stock enhancement and sea ranching, and a workshop to exchange information on oil
spill effects on living marine resources.
Obama unwilling to cede clean energy reform to China, says no to the CP
Goossens, 12 (Ehren Goossens is a reporter for Bloomberg News in New York,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-21/the-downside-of-chinas-clean-energy-push // MC)
In its 12th Five-Year Plan laid finalized this past August, China committed about $290 billion to clean
energy investments. The goal: to produce 20 percent of the nations energy from renewable sources by
2015. The world paid heed. President Obama in his 2012 State of the Union address warned that the U.S.
needed to invest more in renewables lest the Chinese ace it out. I will not cede the wind or solar or
battery industry to China because we refuse to make the same commitment here, the
president declared.
Lack of coordination with Chinese wind farm development means wind farms are a no
until setbacks resolved, could take years
GWEC, 12 (GWEC is a member-based organisation that represents the entire wind energy sector. The members of
GWEC represent over 1,500 companies, organisations and institutions in more than 70 countries, including
manufacturers, developers, component suppliers, research institutes, national wind and renewables associations,
electricity providers, finance and insurance companies. http://www.gwec.net/global-offshore-current-status-future-
prospects/ // MC)
Chinas installed offshore capacity today accounts for 258.4 MW, ranking number three globally. Offshore
wind still only provides a tiny share of the total wind capacity in China, accounting for less than 0.5% of
the total wind energy installed in the country. The Shanghai Donghai Bridge project, totaling 102MW
installed in 2010 is the first commercial offshore project outside Europe. As of the end of 2011, the biggest
offshore project in China was the 150 MW demonstration project in Jiangsu Rudong, with 99.3 MW
installed and grid connected by the end of 2011. Other installations are all small-scale demonstration
projects, including the second phase of the 65.6 MW Shanghai Donghai Bridge project, with 8.6 MW
installed in 2011. China has an ambitious target for offshore development of 5 GW by 2015, and 30 GW by
2020. To reach this goal, Chinas offshore development follows a concession tender model, in which both
developers and tariffs are determined by a tender. The second round of offshore concession tendering of
2,000 MW was supposed to take place take place in 2011, but has been postponed until 2012, primarily
due to planning and siting difficulties faced by the projects tendered in the first round in 2010. The
main cause for the delays with Chinas offshore plans is lack of coordination between state
administrations. The exploration of wind energy at sea seems to conflict with some other
marine economic businesses and two governmental bodies (National Energy
Administration and State Oceanic Administration) in charge of offshore wind power
development. A cohesive national plan for the offshore industry is necessary for long term
development. If the coordination is improved, Chinese offshore is likely to see quite some progress in the
coming years.
All of their cards are in the context of Chinas interest in the Arctic and the increase in
investment throughout that region due to its resources except for the 1
st
card which would
check with our Russia adv. because it would increase the likelihood of a war due to the
aggressive nature of both countries

Perm do both would solve. CA our Arendir 12 evidence, through the plans means of
cooperation, both countries are given the right to drill in specific locations that would not
interfere with one another and have a fair share of the Arctic.

US tops other Global powers for leadership approval ratings
Real Clear Politics, 14 [is a Chicago-based political news and polling data aggregator founded in 2000.
Poll: U.S. Leadership Tops That of Other Powers,April,11,014,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/11/poll_us_leadership_tops_that_of_other_powers
_122247.html] AS
Though United States is far from universally adored, its leadership is more popular worldwide than that of
other powerful nations, according to Gallup. The leadership of China, Russia, Germany, and the European
Union all scored lower approval ratings in a yearlong survey. Forty-six percent of respondents
approved of American leadership, four points more than Germany earned. Some 38 percent approved of
the European Union, and 29 percent backed China. Russia came in last place, with just 24 percent of
respondents approving. Gallup asked residents in as many as 137 countries last year to say
whether they approve or disapprove of leadership in the aforementioned countries, according to the
survey report. The polling firm has tracked the global leaders since 2008. 2013 proved to be a good
year for the United States in this regard; the country faced an overall five-percentage-point increase from
2012; the remaining countries stayed the same or earned negligible gains. Respondents in 17 countries
had a double-digital approval increase in their approval rating for the United States between 2012 and
2013, but the opposite was true in nine countries. The European Union, Germany, Russia, and China each
saw double-digit increases in 13, 11, 10, and seven countries, respectively. Notably, most of the global
leaders earned their highest approval ratings in Africa. The high ratings in sub-Saharan Africa may at
least be partly related to the amount of foreign aid that countries, such as the U.S., send to Africa,
according to Gallups Jon Clifton. The survey of approximately 1,000 adults per country was
conducted throughout 2013; each countrys results have a margin of error between 2.2 percentage points
and five percentage points. Gallup warned that in addition to sampling error, question wording and
practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion
polls.
International Fiat is a VI
a) Unpredictable- there are over 100 countries not to mention dozens of other
international organizations that can do the plan, kills AFF 2ac ground
b) By only allowing fiat of domestic actors does it make it fair and promotes the idea of
clash resolving the conflict of education that the neg skews
c) Its not reciprocal, we only go based on the resolution to see possible CPs to our
AFF so we can research front lines
d) Utopian mentality- abusive use of fiat, means that the affirmative can fiat world
peace then
2ACConsult Indigenous CP
Normal Means
Its normal meansstatements prove
Plouffe, 13 [JOL PLOUFFE AND SIMON SYLVESTER-CHAUDHURI,
Arctic Powers Canada and US Need Arctic Thinkers,
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/12/04/opinion-arctic-powers-canada-
and-the-us-need-arctic-thinkers/, Breaking Energy, Evan]
Obamas strategy signaled a renewed interest in developing the regions
sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources in the American
Beaufort and/or Chukchi Seas as part as the nations all of the above
approach to developing new domestic energy resources. It also implies an
emerging situation of rapprochement between Washington and Alaska on
future options for offshore development. In Barack Obamas own words,
we will partner with the State of Alaska and Alaska Natives, as well as
the international community and the private sector, to develop innovative
solutions and new ways of operating. All actors must now look for new
ways to balance Alaskan economic interests, national energy security
options, and, of course, Arctic environmental imperatives and sustainable
development.

2ACGeneric DA
Link non-unique
Link non-uniqueUS involvement in the Arctic now
Groves 6/26/14, research fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, Accession to Convention on the Law
of the Sea Unnecessary to Advance Arctic Interests, Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/accession-to-
convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-unnecessary-to-advance-arctic-interests)
In the early 1990s, the Defense Department began to publish its operational
assertions in annual reports. These reports indicate that from fiscal year
(FY) 1993 to the present the U.S. Navy conducted hundreds of FON
operations to dispute various types of excessive maritime claims made by
48 nations.[23] The United States has issued a limited number of FON
protests regarding excessive maritime claims in the Arctic Circle, including
protests of Russian historic waters claims in the Laptev and Sannikov
Straits and Canadian regulations on transit through the Northwest
Passage.[24] The U.S. has made clear that it will act in accordance with the
customary international law of the sea, including the navigational
provisions of UNCLOS, and will recognize the maritime rights of other
nations in the Arctic Ocean and elsewhere. When other nations assert
claims contrary to customary international law, the United States actively
contests such claims through the FON Program. No evidence suggests that
any Arctic nation plans to hinder U.S. military mobility in the Arctic Ocean
by making excessive maritime claims. Nor is there evidence that any Arctic
or non-Arctic nation intends to disregard U.S. sovereignty over its
territorial sea off Alaska. While the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard strongly
favor U.S. accession to UNCLOS, neither has said that they are incapable of
performing their respective missions without membership in the
convention. The navigational rights and freedoms enjoyed by the United
States and its armed forces in the Arctic are guaranteed not by membership
in a treaty, but rather through a combination of long-standing legal
principles and persistent naval operations.
No link uniquenessArctic activity is always increasing
Emmerson, 12Reporter and writer for the Diplomat (Charles, The
Arctic opening: Opportunities and risks in the high north, The Diplomat
and International Canada, October 4,
http://diplomatonline.com/mag/2012/10/the-arctic-opening-
opportunities-and-risks-in-the-high-north/)//VIVIENNE
The combined effects of global resource depletion, climate change and
technological progress mean the natural resource base of the Arctic
sheries, minerals and oil and gas is now increasingly signicant and
commercially viable. At the same time, economic value is beginning to be
attached to the Arctic natural environment, both for its role in regulating
global climate and for its biodiversity. This is giving rise to prospecting for
commercially viable biological processes and materials. The wind and
hydro-power potential of some parts of the Arctic is being explored. The
regions are attracting a growing number of tourists. Shipping activity
has expanded and intercontinental shipping, though several
decades away from reaching anything approaching the scale of existing
major shipping routes, is a developing commercial reality.

2ACChina DA
Link non-unique
US presence in the Arctic and cooperation is inevitableChina presence now means
nothing to policymakersempirical examples of conflict mean nothing in the context of the
Arctic
Baldor, 13 Reporter for the Associated Press (Lolita C., Hagel says
nations must avoid conflict in Arctic, Contra Costa Times, November 22,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_24577546/walker-seeks-middle-
path-gop-presidential-buzz)//VIVIENNE
HALIFAX, Nova ScotiaThe U.S. will assert its sovereignty in the
Arctic, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Friday, even as Russia,
China and other nations stake claims and expand their use of the
icy waters for military exercises and transit. Speaking at a security
forum, Hagel said energy exploration in the largely untapped Arctic region
could heighten international tensions, but that countries must work
together to avoid conflict, "We will remain prepared to detect, deter,
prevent and defeat threats to our homeland and we will continue to exercise
U.S. sovereignty in and around Alaska," Hagel said, as he unveiled the
Pentagon's new Arctic strategy. With a nod to the increased interest in the
Arctic's lucrative oil and gas deposits, he added: "Throughout human
history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after
time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict. We cannot erase this
history. But we can assure that history does not repeat itself in the Arctic."
Hagel's comments came as the military finalized plans to expand
operations in the vast waters of the Arctic, where melting ice caps are
opening sea lanes and giving nations like Russia greater access to the oil
and gas deposits. But it will take money and resources for the U.S. to fill the
wide gaps in satellite and communications coverage, add deep-water ports
and buy more ships that can withstand the frigid waters or break through
the ice. Hagel acknowledged the budget pressures, but he said the U.S.
must map out its long-range plans despite the ongoing "deep and abrupt"
spending cuts. There are no cost or budget estimates yet. But by the end of
this year, the Navy will complete plans that lay out what the U.S. needs to
do to increase communications, harden ships and negotiate international
agreements so that nations will be able to track traffic in the Arctic and
conduct search-and-rescue missions.
Also China has no incentive to drill or gather resources in the Arctic for they acknowledge
that both Russia and the US claim its territory and rather shift their focus upon Antarctica.
Chinese investment in Antarctica exploration increased double-fold
Brady 10, an Associate Professor in Political Science at the University of Canterbury and editor-in-
chief of The Polar Journal [Anne-Marie, 8/19/10, China's Rise in Antarctica?, University of California
Press, Jstor, 6/25/14] Jencide
Following on from Zou Keyuans concept of the different stages of Chinas Antarctic activities, I would argue that all these events
demonstrate that China has moved into a new stage in its Antarctic engagement. During Stage 4, beginning from 2005,
China has moved toward taking more of a leadership role in Antarctic affairs. Antarctic leadership takes many
forms, including holding leadership positions in Antarctic bodies, engaging in leading Antarctic research,
taking a leadership role on important issues such as environmental management, and making a major
investment in Antarctic capacity. Chinas aspiration to become a leader in Antarctic affairs has been expressed in
multiple forums, from media statements by its leading polar scientists and social scientists, to debates in
scholarly publications, and as seen by the dramatic increase in Chinas investment in its Antarctic
program. In the period from 19832003, China spent 900 million yuan (around US$110 million) on its Antarctic research. In
200508, China spent 500 million yuan (around $60 million) just to upgrade its existing Antarctic bases.24 Chinas overall
expenditure so far on Antarctic activities in 2010 was 300 million yuan (around $44 million).25 This is more than
double what was spent on an annual basis in the previous Five-Year Plan.26 Chinas future economic development
is measured in five-year plans, and its Antarctic agenda is no different. Pursuant to the 11th Five-Year Plan, from 200610, China
refurbished Zhongshan and Changcheng Stations; set up Kunlun Zhan (Kunlun Station) at Dome A over two austral summers,
2008 10; refitted the ice breaker Xue Long; established a dedicated berth for the ship and warehouse space in Shanghai;
dramatically increased the budget for Antarctic research; and promoted domestic and international awareness about its Antarctic
program. China also investigated how it might take on a greater leadership role in the ATS, catch up with, and even overtake
developed countries in Antarctica in terms of research and level of involvement. The new Kunlun Station is to be used for
deep ice core drilling, glaciology, astronomy, atmospheric science, weather observation, and studying the
geology of the Gamburtsev mountain range that lies beneath the ice cap. Initially, the base will be a summer only
station, although in the long run it will be developed as an all-year base. The choice of name for the station is significant. Although
Kunlun is an actual place in China, it also has mythical associations deeply rooted in Chinese culture. According to tradition, Kunlun
Mountain is a Daoist paradise, a place where communication between humans and gods is possible. The actual location of the
Kunlun Range, on the northern boundary of Tibet, marks the outer limits of the old Chinese empire. Kunlun Base in
Antarctica offers China unprecedented visibility for astronomical research27dialogue with the gods.

All marine activity will be carried out in cooperation Chinas president urges mutually
beneficial relationships.
CNTV, 13 China Network Television national web-based TV broadcaster [CNTV, Xi
advocates efforts to boost China's maritime power, CNTV, 7/31/13,
http://english.cntv.cn/20130731/105711.shtml, 6/30/14] CC
BEIJING, July 31 (Xinhua) -- President Xi Jinping has championed efforts to build China into a maritime power, adding
that the country will pursue "converging interests" with other countries in oceanic development. At a study
session with members of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee on Tuesday, Xi called for
efforts to learn more about and further manage maritime development. China will safeguard its maritime rights and interests, and
make overall plans and take all factors into consideration, he said. Xi said China will adhere to the path of peaceful
development, but "in no way will the country abandon its legitimate rights and interests, nor will it give up its core national
interests." The president said China will "use peaceful means and negotiations to settle disputes and strive to
safeguard peace and stability." Meanwhile, he stressed that China will prepare to cope with complexities, enhance
its capacity in safeguarding maritime rights and interests, and resolutely safeguard its maritime rights and interests.
The country will adhere to the policy of "shelving disputes and carrying out joint development" for areas
over which China owns sovereign rights, while also promoting mutually beneficial and friendly
cooperation and seeking and expanding common converging interests with other countries, Xi said.
Militant China is media distortion China prioritizes cooperation in the ocean and joint
development.
Xiaohui, 13 Deputy Director of the Department of International and Strategic Studies at
the China Institute of International Studies [Su, The Implication of Chinas Maritime Power
Dream, China US Focus, 8/29/13, http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/the-implication-of-
chinas-maritime-power-dream/, 6/30/14] CC
On July 30th, at a study session with members of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee,
President Xi Jinping championed efforts to build China into a maritime power. Xis remarks aroused
renewed concern about Chinas policy change in addressing disputes in East China Sea and South China
Sea. There is suspicion that China will rely on its military capability other than peaceful approaches such as
dialogue and negotiation to deal with the tension. Accordingly, the potential of risks in related waters will rise, which is against the
interests of a number of countries, including the US. Hard and Soft Contents of Chinas Maritime Policy As a rising power, Chinas
current naval capability does not match the countrys developments. Chinas strengthening of muscles and increasing expenses in
building sea power have not exceeded the normal level, and accordingly, should not be questioned or blamed. In the context of
increasing uncertainties in East China Sea and South China Sea, to become a maritime power is obviously consistent with Chinas
interests and demand for dealing with the challenges. China has made it clear that it will safeguard its maritime
rights and interests, which require the country to attach importance to the development of maritime
capability. However, Chinas posture will remain defensive and restrained. China is not trying to utilize
the muscles to gain advantages in resolving territorial disputes with the neighboring countries. China has
reaffirmed on various occasions that it persists in peaceful approaches such as negotiation and dialogue.
The problem is that Chinas policies have been misinterpreted and distorted. Some media deliberately
exaggerate tough perspectives on Chinas policies in order to define China as a destabilizing factor in the
sea. Unfortunately, the soft contents, which are the core of Chinas policies, have been neglected. When President Xi
advocated the idea of becoming a maritime power, he also emphasized that China would pursue
converging interests with other countries in oceanic development. He said that China would make overall plans and
take all factors into consideration, which means that China is acting in a responsible way to become a maritime power. Chinas
intention has also been clearly demonstrated in Hu Jintaos report delivered during the opening ceremony of the
18th CPC National Congress. The report outlined Chinas maritime policy as China should enhance capacity for exploiting marine
resources, develop the marine economy, protect the marine ecological environment, resolutely safeguard its maritime rights and
interests, and build itself into a maritime power. Two points can be concluded from the report. The first is that Chinas maritime
power dream is a comprehensive design instead of pure military ambition. It not only addresses the protection of
sovereignty but also stresses achieving joint development and win-win situation with other countries. The
concept of a maritime power is not equal to a power with overwhelming military capability in waters that can defeat other parties
according to its will. That is the consideration for which the report included the contents in the eighth part entitled making great
efforts to promote ecological progress instead of the ninth part addressing accelerating the modernization of national defense and
the armed forces. The second message from the report is that China attaches more importance to
development and cooperation rather than confrontation and conflict. China understands that the neighboring
countries worry about the disputes in the South China Sea and expect to promote cooperation among related parties in order to ease
the tension and maintain regional stability. China has made positive gestures. On August 2nd, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
proposed three suggestions for dealing with the South China Sea disputes during his visit to Thailand. China Is Cooperative, Not
Competitive as a Maritime Power The US should have the confidence that China cannot catch up with the US
maritime power for decades. According to a recent analysis by Russian experts, it will take 20 years for China to become a sea
power. At the same time, China is sober-minded. China has no intention to challenge the US presence in
waters. Based on this, the US should not overreact to Chinas maritime development and treat China as a
rival.
Impact non-unique China and US already work together in the ocean.
ENS, 13 international daily newswire since 1990 [ENS, U.S., China Collaborate on Climate,
Oceans, Energy, Wildlife, Environmental News Service, 7/12/13, http://ens-
newswire.com/2013/07/12/u-s-china-collaborate-on-climate-oceans-energy-wildlife/, 6/30/14] CC
The two governments affirmed their commitment to cooperate on establishing a marine protected area in
the Ross Sea of Antarctica especially in the time prior to and during the Second Special Meeting of the Commission on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to be held July 15-16, 2013, in Bremerhaven, Germany. The two countries
agreed to continue their 20-year partnership to combat the use of drift nets on the high seas. The U.S.
Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service will again welcome
officers from China Fishery Law Enforcement Command this summer on U.S. Coast Guard cutters patrolling the Pacific
Ocean for illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. NOAA and the Chinese Academy of Fishery
Sciences affirmed their commitment to the Living Marine Resources Panel, including the upcoming meeting in
February 2014 in Seattle, and ongoing projects, including joint research on the Western Gray Whale,
information exchange on alternative feeds research for aquaculture production and sea turtle research,
scientist staff exchange on stock enhancement and sea ranching, and a workshop to exchange information on oil
spill effects on living marine resources.
Cant Solve
Obama unwilling to cede clean energy reform to China, says no to the CP
Goossens, 12 (Ehren Goossens is a reporter for Bloomberg News in New York,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-21/the-downside-of-chinas-clean-energy-push // MC)
In its 12th Five-Year Plan laid finalized this past August, China committed about $290 billion to clean
energy investments. The goal: to produce 20 percent of the nations energy from renewable sources by
2015. The world paid heed. President Obama in his 2012 State of the Union address warned that the U.S.
needed to invest more in renewables lest the Chinese ace it out. I will not cede the wind or solar or
battery industry to China because we refuse to make the same commitment here, the
president declared.
Lack of coordination with Chinese wind farm development means wind farms are a no
until setbacks resolved, could take years
GWEC, 12 (GWEC is a member-based organisation that represents the entire wind energy sector. The members of
GWEC represent over 1,500 companies, organisations and institutions in more than 70 countries, including
manufacturers, developers, component suppliers, research institutes, national wind and renewables associations,
electricity providers, finance and insurance companies. http://www.gwec.net/global-offshore-current-status-future-
prospects/ // MC)
Chinas installed offshore capacity today accounts for 258.4 MW, ranking number three globally. Offshore
wind still only provides a tiny share of the total wind capacity in China, accounting for less than 0.5% of
the total wind energy installed in the country. The Shanghai Donghai Bridge project, totaling 102MW
installed in 2010 is the first commercial offshore project outside Europe. As of the end of 2011, the biggest
offshore project in China was the 150 MW demonstration project in Jiangsu Rudong, with 99.3 MW
installed and grid connected by the end of 2011. Other installations are all small-scale demonstration
projects, including the second phase of the 65.6 MW Shanghai Donghai Bridge project, with 8.6 MW
installed in 2011. China has an ambitious target for offshore development of 5 GW by 2015, and 30 GW by
2020. To reach this goal, Chinas offshore development follows a concession tender model, in which both
developers and tariffs are determined by a tender. The second round of offshore concession tendering of
2,000 MW was supposed to take place take place in 2011, but has been postponed until 2012, primarily
due to planning and siting difficulties faced by the projects tendered in the first round in 2010. The
main cause for the delays with Chinas offshore plans is lack of coordination between state
administrations. The exploration of wind energy at sea seems to conflict with some other
marine economic businesses and two governmental bodies (National Energy
Administration and State Oceanic Administration) in charge of offshore wind power
development. A cohesive national plan for the offshore industry is necessary for long term
development. If the coordination is improved, Chinese offshore is likely to see quite some progress in the
coming years.
US Leadership Key
US tops other Global powers for leadership approval ratings
Real Clear Politics, 14 [is a Chicago-based political news and polling data aggregator founded in 2000.
Poll: U.S. Leadership Tops That of Other Powers,April,11,014,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/11/poll_us_leadership_tops_that_of_other_powers
_122247.html] AS
Though United States is far from universally adored, its leadership is more popular worldwide than that of
other powerful nations, according to Gallup. The leadership of China, Russia, Germany, and the European
Union all scored lower approval ratings in a yearlong survey. Forty-six percent of respondents
approved of American leadership, four points more than Germany earned. Some 38 percent approved of
the European Union, and 29 percent backed China. Russia came in last place, with just 24 percent of
respondents approving. Gallup asked residents in as many as 137 countries last year to say
whether they approve or disapprove of leadership in the aforementioned countries, according to the
survey report. The polling firm has tracked the global leaders since 2008. 2013 proved to be a good
year for the United States in this regard; the country faced an overall five-percentage-point increase from
2012; the remaining countries stayed the same or earned negligible gains. Respondents in 17 countries
had a double-digital approval increase in their approval rating for the United States between 2012 and
2013, but the opposite was true in nine countries. The European Union, Germany, Russia, and China each
saw double-digit increases in 13, 11, 10, and seven countries, respectively. Notably, most of the global
leaders earned their highest approval ratings in Africa. The high ratings in sub-Saharan Africa may at
least be partly related to the amount of foreign aid that countries, such as the U.S., send to Africa,
according to Gallups Jon Clifton. The survey of approximately 1,000 adults per country was
conducted throughout 2013; each countrys results have a margin of error between 2.2 percentage points
and five percentage points. Gallup warned that in addition to sampling error, question wording and
practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion
polls.

2ACElections DA (Straight Turn)
Link Turn-plan is popular which in terms would allow the GOP to win this close battle,
there is GOP support behind the plan with senators Larson and Garmendi advocating it,
this would immensely assist the GOP senate board through perception. Their Silver card
says only a gain of 5.8 seats is sufficient to shift this battle in favor of the GOP which the
plan solves. In the world of the status quo, the six seats are un-gainable. A win must be
ensured in order for this battle to sway in favor of the GOP. A win is not bipartisan which
none of their warrants assume or the GOP wouldve already taken possession of those
seats.

This is a distinct bill from Obamas policies and does not increase his approval ratings. The
plan results in an improvement in the economy and the public would realize that it was the
GOP responsible for it and would tank Obamas credibility rather than bolstering it.

Increased Arctic research is popular with the public
Kahn and Lubchenco, 12Reporter for Climate.gov AND NOAA
Administrator (Brian and Jane, Talking about the Arctic with NOAA
Administrator Lubchenco, December 6, Climate,
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/aggregator/sources/14)//VIVIENNE
How can the Arctic Report Card help inform policymakers and the public?
A key role of science is to inform our understanding of whats happening to
the world around us and what the consequences of different choices we
make might be. The reason theres a big push for research in the Arctic is
its changing so rapidly and it has such huge consequences for the rest of
world; yet we dont understand a lot of it. Getting a better handle on Arctic
science and the ways its changing has an immediate benefit by informing
decision-making. I believe Arctic science should be accessible, relevant, and
understandable to citizens as well as policymakers since the Arctic is such a
special place; and its important for scientists to help share that information
in ways that are just that.
Plan is popularGOP support
Marex, 5/19Maritime Executive (Marex, GAO: U.S. Can Do Better on
Arctic Policy, 2014, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/GAO-US-
Can-Do-Better-on-Arctic-Policy-2014-05-19)//VIVIENNE
The U.S. needs a better strategy to coordinate and prioritize its policies
related to the Arctic region, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study out today that was released by Reps. Rick Larsen (WA-
02), Tim Bishop (NY-01), John Garamendi (CA-03) and Senator Lisa
Murkowski (AK). The GAO study focused on U.S. participation in the Arctic
Council, a voluntary body started in 1996 that includes the eight Arctic
nationsCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and
the U.S., as well as indigenous groups and other stakeholders. The State
Department leads participation for the U.S. The U.S. has not prioritized its
commitments to the Arctic Council and is limited in its ability to respond to
emergencies in the Arctic region, the report found. As sea ice melts, making
way for increased commercial activity, the report recommends a stronger
strategy for U.S. participation in the Arctic Council and better process to
track progress toward achieving Council goals. Larsen introduced a bill
with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) last month to establish a U.S.
Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs and has strongly supported
additional investments in icebreakers. The Arctic is the Northwest Passage
of the 21st century, but todays GAO report is another sign that the U.S. is
falling behind in Arctic policy. With next years chairmanship of the Arctic
Council, its time we appointed an ambassador to this important body. We
also need to make investments in infrastructure like icebreakers to
maintain a strong presence in this increasingly important region. Our
country has major commercial, environmental and security interests in the
region and we should start prioritizing them, Congressman Larsen said. If
the United States hopes to maintain its presence in the Arctic, it is time to
get serious about the region. The GAO report clearly points out that there is
much more we could be doing to protect our interests, both economic and
security-related. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to
explore how we can better prioritize our Arctic policies, Congressman
Bishop said. A warming climate that is opening up the Arctic to
commercial shipping, the intense global competition for energy resources,
and the absence of a comprehensive and binding international Arctic
management regime are threatening to turn this emerging region into the
Wild West. It is imperative that we avoid that scenario. Accordingly, the
United States should demonstrate purposeful leadership within the Arctic
Council to advance U.S. interests and obligations. We should also ensure
that federal agencies involved in the Arctic, especially the United States
Coast Guard, have a coordinated game plan and sufficient resources to
meet these challenges, Congressman Garamendi said. This GAO report
underlines and highlights the core threat to Americas future as an Arctic
nation: were late in carrying out a needed path ahead and we need our
agencies to work together as we move forward. This is one of the reasons we
need an Arctic Ambassador with the authority to make decisions, and
coordinate and oversee projects as were at this crucial juncture. The United
States will be chairing the Arctic Council starting next year, which will
either be an opportunity to highlight our leadership, or undermine it
depending on our governments approach, Senator Murkowski said.
2AC--- Elections DA (generic ans)
No Impact Nothing Will Pass after the Midterm
Link Turn-plan is popular which in terms would allow the GOP to win this close battle,
there is GOP support behind the plan with senators Larson and Garmendi advocating it,
this would immensely assist the GOP senate board through perception. Their Silver card
says only a gain of 5.8 seats is sufficient to shift this battle in favor of the GOP which the
plan solves.

This is a distinct bill from Obamas policies and does not increase his approval ratings. The
plan results in an improvement in the economy and the public would realize that it was the
GOP responsible for it and would tank Obamas credibility rather than bolstering it.

Increased Arctic research is popular with the public
Kahn and Lubchenco, 12Reporter for Climate.gov AND NOAA
Administrator (Brian and Jane, Talking about the Arctic with NOAA
Administrator Lubchenco, December 6, Climate,
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/aggregator/sources/14)//VIVIENNE
How can the Arctic Report Card help inform policymakers and the public?
A key role of science is to inform our understanding of whats happening to
the world around us and what the consequences of different choices we
make might be. The reason theres a big push for research in the Arctic is
its changing so rapidly and it has such huge consequences for the rest of
world; yet we dont understand a lot of it. Getting a better handle on Arctic
science and the ways its changing has an immediate benefit by informing
decision-making. I believe Arctic science should be accessible, relevant, and
understandable to citizens as well as policymakers since the Arctic is such a
special place; and its important for scientists to help share that information
in ways that are just that.
Plan is popularGOP support
Marex, 5/19Maritime Executive (Marex, GAO: U.S. Can Do Better on
Arctic Policy, 2014, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/GAO-US-
Can-Do-Better-on-Arctic-Policy-2014-05-19)//VIVIENNE
The U.S. needs a better strategy to coordinate and prioritize its policies
related to the Arctic region, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study out today that was released by Reps. Rick Larsen (WA-
02), Tim Bishop (NY-01), John Garamendi (CA-03) and Senator Lisa
Murkowski (AK). The GAO study focused on U.S. participation in the Arctic
Council, a voluntary body started in 1996 that includes the eight Arctic
nationsCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and
the U.S., as well as indigenous groups and other stakeholders. The State
Department leads participation for the U.S. The U.S. has not prioritized its
commitments to the Arctic Council and is limited in its ability to respond to
emergencies in the Arctic region, the report found. As sea ice melts, making
way for increased commercial activity, the report recommends a stronger
strategy for U.S. participation in the Arctic Council and better process to
track progress toward achieving Council goals. Larsen introduced a bill
with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) last month to establish a U.S.
Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs and has strongly supported
additional investments in icebreakers. The Arctic is the Northwest Passage
of the 21st century, but todays GAO report is another sign that the U.S. is
falling behind in Arctic policy. With next years chairmanship of the Arctic
Council, its time we appointed an ambassador to this important body. We
also need to make investments in infrastructure like icebreakers to
maintain a strong presence in this increasingly important region. Our
country has major commercial, environmental and security interests in the
region and we should start prioritizing them, Congressman Larsen said. If
the United States hopes to maintain its presence in the Arctic, it is time to
get serious about the region. The GAO report clearly points out that there is
much more we could be doing to protect our interests, both economic and
security-related. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to
explore how we can better prioritize our Arctic policies, Congressman
Bishop said. A warming climate that is opening up the Arctic to
commercial shipping, the intense global competition for energy resources,
and the absence of a comprehensive and binding international Arctic
management regime are threatening to turn this emerging region into the
Wild West. It is imperative that we avoid that scenario. Accordingly, the
United States should demonstrate purposeful leadership within the Arctic
Council to advance U.S. interests and obligations. We should also ensure
that federal agencies involved in the Arctic, especially the United States
Coast Guard, have a coordinated game plan and sufficient resources to
meet these challenges, Congressman Garamendi said. This GAO report
underlines and highlights the core threat to Americas future as an Arctic
nation: were late in carrying out a needed path ahead and we need our
agencies to work together as we move forward. This is one of the reasons we
need an Arctic Ambassador with the authority to make decisions, and
coordinate and oversee projects as were at this crucial juncture. The United
States will be chairing the Arctic Council starting next year, which will
either be an opportunity to highlight our leadership, or undermine it
depending on our governments approach, Senator Murkowski said.

No impact divided GOP means they wont get anything done
Costa 14, National Reviews Washington editor [Robert Costa is National Reviews Washington
Editor and a CNBC policy analyst, 5/15/14, Conservatives seek to regain control of Republican agenda,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-seek-to-regain-control-of-republican-
agenda/2014/05/15/aaa20c80-dc6e-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html, 6/26/14]JC
Although many Republicans are optimistic about their chances in this years elections, some of
Washingtons leading conservatives gathered Thursday to privately vent frustrations about what kind of
party they will be left with after November. The group, alarmed by a resurgence of the GOP establishment
in recent primaries and what activists view as a softened message, drafted demands to be shared with
senior lawmakers calling on the party to recommit to bedrock principles. Some of those principles laid
out in the new document strict opposition to illegal immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion
represent the hot-button positions that many Republican congressional candidates are trying to avoid as
the party attempts to broaden its appeal. Several attendees said they fear that elected Republicans, even if
they succeed in retaining control of the House and winning the Senate majority, would cast aside the core
conservative base. Conservatives ought not to delude themselves that if Republicans win the Senate
majority, it will somehow be a conservative majority, said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media
Research Center, which monitors perceived media bias. We should have no expectation whatsoever that
they will listen. Thats why were fighting. Others worry that a toned-down campaign message by the
party would dim GOP turnout and undercut Republicans in competitive races. Im terrified that
Republicans will blow this election if they are not going to stand for something, said Michael A.
Needham, the chief executive of Heritage Action, a conservative group. Thursdays gathering at the Ritz-
Carlton in Tysons Corner, Va., was coordinated by Reagan-era attorney general Edwin Meese III and
former congressman David McIntosh (Ind.) as part of an initiative called the Conservative Action Project.
It included dozens of leaders from across the conservative movement, including tea party organizer Jenny
Beth Martin and interest group executives such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. The meeting, which featured speeches from Sens. Ted Cruz
(Tex.) and Mike Lee (Utah), marked the first time this year that prominent national conservatives have
come together to candidly assess the GOP and their strategy for shaping it. The day-long session
underscored how simmering tensions between rival factions in the Republican Party appear to be
growing, even as polls point to the potential for a major GOP victory in midterm elections in the fall.
Congressional Republicans have been grappling over whether to compromise on immigration, some
Republicans are calling for a smaller military, and same-sex marriage is fading as a top issue in this years
campaigns. Meanwhile, mainstream GOP business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have
lifted establishment candidates to victory in a Senate primary in North Carolina and a special House
election in Florida. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is expected to easily defeat a tea party
challenger in his primary Tuesday. Many GOP strategists and party leaders think that tea party activists
successes in recent years nominating ideological purists resulted in weak candidates and crippling
general-election losses. They worry that efforts to revive the base could threaten Republican hopes again.
AT: GOP key to Immigration
No chance of a compromise between the GOP and Obama on immigration
Economist 7/2 [This time he's really mad The Economist. Jul 2nd 2014.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/immigration-reform]//vm
In an 11-minute speech delivered outside the White House, Mr Obama acknowledged what has been clear
to congressional observers for some time: that the prospects of the Republican-led House of
Representatives passing an immigration-reform bill this year have dwindled to zero. Mr Obama chastised
the Republicans for failing to take any sort of action on immigration a year after a bipartisan group of
senators shepherded a mammoth reform bill, including a path for citizenship for America's 11m-12m
illegal immigrants, through the upper house. Visibly irritated, he even allowed the word "darn" to escape
his lips. Mr Obama said that he would dispatch more immigration agents to the border to deal with an
unexpected influx of child refugees from Central America. But although this humanitarian crisis may have
hardened the positions of Republican legislators, the dilemmas it throws up have little to do with the
overall reform debate. On the broader issue, Mr Obama went on to say that he would act to fill the policy
void left by congressional inaction, as he has done in several other areas (climate change, equal pay)
where his agenda has been frustrated by Republican congressmen. In March he asked Jeh Johnson, head
of the Department of Homeland Security, to review deportation priorities. Yesterday he said he had asked
Mr Johnson and Eric Holder, the attorney general, to advise him on steps he could take without
congressional approval. The recommendations will be delivered by late summer; Mr Obama said he would
adopt them "without delay". Mr Obama offered no clues yesterday as to what these steps might be, but
immigration-reform advocates, such as the heckler the president encountered last year, are keen to see
fewer illegal immigrants removed from the United States. Mr Obama has exercised such discretion before:
in 2012 he created a programme that allowed illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors (so-
called Dreamers) to apply for "deferred action" (ie, the right to remain in the United States without fear of
deportation). Advocates would now like to see that extended, perhaps to Dreamers' families. Republicans
would decry such a move as counter to the law, and it would surely kill hopes for immigration legislation
for at least two years. But given the unlikelihood of a political compromise in the near future, the
president is keen to take that risk. How did this happen? Mr Obama's 2012 action earned him breathing
space with reform advocates (and helped him scoop up a large chunk of the Latino vote in his re-election
bid against Mitt Romney). As Mr Obama sought to woo Republicans in the House to back the Senate bill
(or anything else), he urged reformers to mute their guns. But as deportations of adults continued apace,
and a legislative fix that would allow most illegal immigrants to begin applying for citizenship stalled,
advocates started to lose patience. In March Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza,
a lobbying group, publicly denounced the president as the "deporter-in-chief". Such insults irked Mr
Obama, who felt he had fought the reformers' battle as astutely as he could. But when John Boehner, the
Republican House speaker and a supposed supporter of reform, told Mr Obama last week that he would
not bring a vote to the floor of the House, the president apparently saw no value in maintaining his
delicate line. Last week Mr Boehner said he will sue the president for executive overreach, and the speaker
will now have another case study to offer in evidence. But the suggestion that actions on deportation
amount to an "imperial presidency" are wide of the mark: these are acts of weakness rather than strength.
What has become clear is that with every passing executive order of Mr Obama's, the bipartisan comity he
once offered looks ever more remote.

No chance of a legislative push on immigration Obamas executive actions
Kim and Epstein 6/30 reporters for Politico [SEUNG MIN KIM and JENNIFER EPSTEIN. Obama:
GOP failed to pass a darn immigration bill. 6/30/14. Politico.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/obama-immigration-reform-108447.html]//vm
President Barack Obama plans to take administrative actions in the coming months to address problems
with the countrys immigration policies, he said Monday a clear acknowledgment that a legislative
overhaul is effectively dead this year. I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a
serious issue and Congress chooses to do nothing, Obama said in the Rose Garden. And in this situation,
the failure of the House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our economy and bad for the country.
Obama said he spoke with Speaker John Boehner last Tuesday at a White House event honoring
professional golfers, during which the Ohio Republican said he would not be bringing an immigration bill
to the floor at least for the remainder of this year, according to Obama. Boehners office confirmed the
discussion. In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months:
the American people and their elected officials dont trust him to enforce the law as written, Boehner said
in a statement. Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue. The
announcement reflects growing pressure Obama has faced in recent months from immigration reform
backers and comes at a time when a flood of unaccompanied children are crossing the southern border.
That development, on top of Eric Cantors surprise loss, appeared to dash any remaining hope of a
comprehensive rewrite of immigration laws this year. In his announcement, Obama repeatedly hammered
House Republicans arguing that they are aware of the problems with existing immigration laws but are
unwilling to take action. It makes no sense, he said. Its not on the level. Its just politics, plain and
simple.
AT: GOP key to Econ
Neither party helps the economy too ideological
Conant 14 [ED CONANT June 26, 2014 IT Manager/IT Operations Manager at Symmetry Medical
Ideological purity hurts U.S. economy http://savannahnow.com/column/2014-06-25/ed-conant-
ideological-purity-hurts-us-economy#.U7G2wfldVUU accessed June 30, 2014]PA
One thing all Americans agree on is the need to improve our economy. But as with so many other political
issues, extremists in both parties are working against that mutual goal. Two issues that hurt the economy
are lack of a rational energy policy and outdated immigration laws. Needed changes are resisted by the far
left and far right. The poster child for the far lefts reduced carbon energy policy is the proposed Keystone
XL pipeline. Those against the pipeline say the tar sands crude oil will increase pollution and global
warming because more greenhouse gases are produced during refining. Deferring to those who oppose
the XL pipeline, President Obama has postponed an approval decision indefinitely. Democrats are correct
to work towards reducing climate damage. But the Canadian crude will be refined even if the XL pipeline
is not built. The Canadians will instead build a western pipeline to an ocean port near Vancouver. In the
interim, the crude oil will be hauled by trains. But the increased use of trains has resulted in several actual
and near disasters. Pipelines are safer, less expensive and pollute less. America has 2.6 million miles of
gas and oil pipelines; an additional thousand miles is insignificant. The claim that the XL pipeline will
increase pollution is false. The pipeline would contribute $3.4 billion annually to the U.S. economy and
reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Recent events in Iraq demonstrate our need for more
energy independence. XL pipeline opponents should spend their political energy finding realistic
tradeoffs between our needs for energy and reducing pollution. But Republicans have their own
albatross: failure to fix outdated immigration laws. Their ire is focused on 12 million illegal immigrants,
mostly Hispanic, who violated the law when they entered this country. Republicans are right to search for
a solution. But in forging legislation, we must acknowledge the reality of the illegals presence and the
labor needs of the economy.
AT: Climate Agenda Impact
GOP win wont affect Obamas climate agenda not enough votes, Obama can protect his
policies
Yachnin 14- E&E staff writer (Jennifer, Enviros assert GOP Senate takeover wouldn't yield changes
in climate policies, voter attitudes, E & E.com, 6/16/14,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001323, 6/26/14] ML
Republicans may be bullish on their prospect of winning a Senate majority in November -- and even
exceeding the six-seat pickup they need to claim control -- but environmental activists assert a potential
wave of climate science skeptics won't dramatically change the dynamic on Capitol Hill. In a memo
published last week (E&E Daily, June 11), the National Republican Senatorial Committee boasted it could
pick off as many as 15 Democratic seats this cycle. In addition to states the GOP has named as top targets
in its efforts to grab the six seats it needs for a Senate majority next year -- Louisiana, Arkansas and
Alaska -- Republicans suggested they might win battlegrounds like North Carolina and Colorado, as well
as relatively safe Democratic seats like New Mexico and Minnesota. But while the Republican nominees in
many of those states can be categorized as climate science skeptics -- North Carolina state House Speaker
Thom Tillis has called global warming "false science" -- Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress Action Fund, said environmentalists aren't bracing for a significant shift on Capitol
Hill. "A majority of congressional Republicans are already on record as climate science deniers," Weiss
told E&E Daily. "If the Senate were to have Republican leadership, and the leadership remains the same,
its top two leaders are climate science deniers, Sen. [Mitch] McConnell [Ky.] and Sen. [John] Cornyn
[Texas]. Adding a lot more climate science deniers to the Senate will only increase their alienation from
Americans on this topic beyond what it is today." Weiss pointed to a Bloomberg News National Poll
conducted June 6-9 that showed a majority of voters view climate change as a threat. Among the 1,0005
adults polled, 46 percent said global warming constitutes a "major threat," 27 percent said it is a "minor
threat" and 24 percent said it is "no real threat" (ClimateWire, June 12). The survey, which had a 3.1-point
margin of error, also found Americans to be more likely to back a candidate who supports government
action to address climate change. Fifty-one percent of those polled said they would be more likely to
support such a candidate, while 26 percent said they would be less likely to do so and 19 percent said the
topic did not play a role in how they vote. Weiss, who said he doubted Republicans would be able to take
15 Senate seats from Democrats, also noted that environmentalists expect to see their interests protected
by the White House even if the GOP and its climate skeptics claim a strong majority in Congress. "The
really important number for climate science deniers that they need to have is 67, which is enough climate
science deniers to override a presidential veto," Weiss said. "If there are 53 Republicans climate science
deniers or 58, it won't have much impact on what they actually do."
AT: TPA Impact
TPA complicates U.S. politics and wont help pass TPP
Watson 2013-Trade Policy Analyst [K. William, Law Degree from Georgetown Law School, Stay Off the
Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority Is Wrong for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, The CATO
Institute, 12/19/13, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stay-fast-track-why-trade-
promotion-authority-wrong-trans-pacific, Accessed 6/30/14] SU
If trade promotion authority is to be useful in facilitating the TPP negotiations, it must subtract rather
than add negotiating objectives. The TPP, as envisioned by U.S. negotiators, will push forward a lot of
unpopular, new U.S. demands as a condition for access to the U.S. market. None of these ambitious
goalslike stricter intellectual property enforcement, investment protections, and regulatory good
governancehelps American consumers or furthers the goal of trade liberalization. They do, however,
attract substantial political opposition at home and abroad. Unless trade promotion authority is used to
make the TPP a better agreement, there is little point in pursuing it now. The battle over trade promotion
authority will likely involve a divisive debate about the value of trade in which support from individual
members is bought with guarantees of protection or favor for special interests. Such a debate will surely
occur again when Congress votes to pass a completed TPP agreement, so why have it twice? Unless
trade promotion authority can be used to simplify the trade debate and improve trade
agreementsto make them more about free tradethe American people will be better off
without it.

TPA doesnt eliminate trade barriers and protectionism
Watson 2013-Trade Policy Analyst [K. William, Law Degree from Georgetown Law School, Stay Off the
Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority Is Wrong for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, The CATO
Institute, 12/19/13, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stay-fast-track-why-trade-
promotion-authority-wrong-trans-pacific, Accessed 6/30/14] SU
The benefits of trade promotion authority, however, come with a substantial cost. Congress generally sees
trade promotion authority as a way not only to expedite the passage of trade agreements but also to
influence their content.5 Any agreement that receives fast track treatment is expected to conform to
demands imposed by Congress in the trade promotion authority statute. The 2002 Trade Promotion Act,
in particular, laid out extensive and detailed negotiating objectives. Topics covered in the objectives
included investment protection, intellectual property laws, administrative law, labor law, and
environmental protection.6 These objectives are mostly export-oriented and reflect the interests of certain
U.S. business interests in foreign markets. Their inclusion may garner additional political support for the
agreement, but they also attract opposition. Most importantly, achieving these negotiating goals
will not liberalize trade. Nevertheless, these non-trade issues are often the most politically
contentious aspect of trade agreements. At the same time, they distract negotiators from the
legitimate goal of lowering U.S. trade barriers and fighting protectionism.

TPA is useless to U.S. goals
Watson 2013-Trade Policy Analyst [K. William, Law Degree from Georgetown Law School, Stay Off the
Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority Is Wrong for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, The CATO
Institute, 12/19/13, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stay-fast-track-why-trade-
promotion-authority-wrong-trans-pacific, Accessed 6/30/14] SU
Many will argue that you need fast track to pass free trade agreements, but right now trade promotion
authority is largely useless and unacceptably costly. Recent history with fast track shows that the
obstacles to passing free trade agreements depend more on the partisan and ideological balance of
Congress. Imposing Congresss policy objectives into the negotiations at this stage wont help get the TPP
accomplished any sooner, and will surely reduce the value of the agreement as a vehicle to liberalize trade.
A clean fast track bill that reduces the role of controversial non-essential objectives in the TPP
negotiations would do wonders for the U.S. trade agenda. Unfortunately, Congress seems poised to insist
on making the TPP an even more ambitious agreement. The president has options to get the TPP
through Congress that dont involve the risks that come with a formal grant of trade promotion authority.
If he wants support for the TPP, President Obama should listen to congressional leaders, adapt his
negotiating goals accordingly and then lobby Congress to pass the agreement once its completed.
Terminal Impact Defense
Agriculture Impact Defense
Squo solves
Resurreccion 13 [Lyn. Science Editor for Business Mirror. Crop Biotechnology: A Continuing Success
Globally The Business Mirror, 2/23/13 ]
CROP biotechnology has been achieving continuing success globally as the number of farmers who use
it and the farms planted to biotech crops are increasing, recording 17.3 million farmers who planted the crops in 170.3 hectares
in 28 countries in 2012, Dr. Clive James, chairman of the board of directors of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA), said on Thursday. James said the trend in crop biotechnology is in favor of developing countries, which
compose 20 of the 28 countries that adopt the technology. Another significant development, he said, was
that for the first time developing countries planted more biotech crops in 2012, with 52 percent, against
the developing countries 48 percent. They registered equal production in 2011. This, James said, was contrary to the
perception of critics that biotech crops are only for the developed countries and would not be adopted by developing countries. The increase in
biotech farms in 2012 recorded a growth rate of 6 percent, or 10.3 million hectares more from 160 million
hectares in 2011, James told a select group of journalists at a hotel in Makati City when he announced the results of the ISAAA report Global
Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops for 2012. James said this development was remarkable because it recorded a 100-fold increase in
biotech crop hectarage in the 17th year of its adoptionfrom 1.7 million hectares in 1996, when it was first commercialized. It also reflects the
confidence of farmers in the technology. They make their decision on the second year [on the technology
they use] based on the performance of the first year, he said. He noted that of the 17.3 million farmers, 15.5 million, or 90
percent, are resource-poor, thereby helping farmers increase their income. He said biotech contributed to
economic gains of $100 billion from 1996 to 2011, half of this was from reduced production cost, such as
less pesticide sprays, less plowing and fewer labor, and the other half was from increased production per
hectare. Increased production, James said, resulted in increase in farmers income and more money in their
pockets.
Ag labor shortages are exaggerated
Martin 7 (Philip Martin, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California,
Davis, 07, Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html)
News reports and editorials suggest widespread farm labor shortages. The Los Angeles Times described a
nationwide farm worker shortage threatening to leave fruits and vegetables rotting in fields.1 The Wall Street Journal in a July 20, 2007, editorial claimed that farmers
nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years. The editorial asserted that 20 percent of American agricultural products were stranded at the farm gate
in 2006, including a third of North Carolina cucumbers, and predicted that crop losses in California would hit 30 percent in 2007. The Wall Street Journal editorial continued that,
since growers can only afford to pay so much and stay competitive, some U.S. growers are moving fruit and vegetable production abroad. The New York Times profiled a
southern California vegetable grower who rented land in Mexico to produce lettuce and broccoli because, the grower asserted: I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did
that [raise U.S. wages] I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal work force.2 These reports of farm labor shortages are not
accompanied by data that would buttress the anecdotes, like lower production of fruits and
vegetables or a rise in farm wages as growers scrambled for the fewer workers available. There is
a simple reason. Fruit and vegetable production is rising, the average earnings of farm workers
are not going up extraordinarily fast, and consumers are not feeling a pinch the cost of fresh fruits and
vegetables has averaged about $1 a day for most households over the past decade.

Failing agriculture infrastructure causes high food prices
UN Committee on Transport 8 United Nations Economic and Social Council, ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, TRANSPORT AND POVERTY: FROM FARM TO
MARKETEXTENDING THE REACH OF LOGISTICS,
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/ct2008/ctr_2e.pdf
SUMMARY Recent increases in the price of food and concerns over its availability and access to it have
focused attention on overcoming problems related to the transport of agricultural food products. Rising
transport costs can account for up to two thirds of food prices. In addition, spoilage between farm and
market as a result of inadequate transport, storage and processing render a large share of perishable food unusable, which is having
a major impact on the poorer segment of communities in the region. While food trades are increasingly complex and some countries
have put in place advanced logistics solutions, the majority of the countries in Asia and the Pacific have yet to establish the
infrastructure and institutional frameworks needed to ensure the efficient, seamless transport of foods from farm to market. This
document contains a preliminary investigation of the way transport and logistics impact the sustainable development of the food
industry and identifies issues that need to be further addressed at the national and regional levels. Delegations may wish to share
their experiences and progress and discuss challenges concerning food transport and logistics. The Committee may also wish to
propose further research that could be presented to the Forum of Asian Ministers of Transport in 2009 as the basis of a regional
exchange of experiences to enhance the availability of and access to food through improved transport and logistics.
INTRODUCTION 1. Recent soaring food prices have brought the agricultural food industry into the
international spotlight. Table 1 shows the dramatic increase in the cereal export prices of the main suppliers to the Asian
region. While prices in major grain trades increased by some 50-70 per cent between mid-2007 and mid-2008, those for rice, the
main staple food in Asia, nearly tripled over the same period of time. Although the food market situation differs from country to
country and future development remains highly uncertain, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
suggests that food prices are likely to remain high in the years to come. 2. Transport and logistics account for a
large part of final food prices and increasing oil and energy costs have made this topic even
more relevant. Despite the high share of transport costs and the increased incidence of food spoilage in
the process of transport and storage, questions of food transport and logistics have not been addressed in
a comprehensive and coherent manner at the international level. A report by the United States
Government Accountability Office in April 2007 showed that transport and other overhead costs
consumed 65 per cent of United States food aid dollars, mainly due to rising fuel prices. 2 3. Inadequate
logistics systems not only increase costs but also impact the availability of food to consumers. According
to a report by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, Chinas cold storage capacity is estimated to cover only
20-30 per cent of demand. A lack of controlled atmosphere and refrigeration equipment leads to spoilage losses of up to 33 per cent
of perishable food. 3 In India, various research studies by the Economic Times Intelligence Group and the Investment Information
and Credit Rating Agency reveal that large quantities of grain are wasted due to improper handling and storage, pest infestation,
poor logistics, inadequate storage and a lack of transport infrastructure. 4 4. Furthermore, adequate
infrastructure and access to transport services are prerequisites for the development of
sustainable food trade, and requirements are becoming increasingly complex in importing countries
and regions as more countries move into sophisticated trading in fresh fruit and vegetables, meat or fish
at the domestic or international levels.

Asia War Impact Defense
No risk of Asian war stability now
Desker 8 [Barry Desker: dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU and writes for
The Strait Times, Why war is unlikely in Asia, 6/25,
http://www.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080625-72716.html]
THE Asia-Pacific region is both a zone of relative insecurity as well as one of relative stability. On the one
hand, it contains some of the world's most significant flashpoints: the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan
Strait, the Siachen glacier. Tensions between nations at these points could escalate into major wars. The
region is also replete with border issues, acts of terrorism and overlapping maritime claims. It is a
strategically significant area, sitting astride key sea lines of communication and important choke-points.
Nevertheless, the region is more stable than one might believe. Separatism remains a challenge, but the
break-up of states is unlikely. The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is moving towards
a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula. Tensions between China and Taiwan seem
unlikely to erupt into conflict, especially after the recent victories of the Kuomintang in Taiwan. The
region also possesses significant multilateral structures such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the nascent Six-Party Talks forum and, in particular,
Asean. But the rise of China does not automatically mean that conflict is likely. First, a more
assertive China does not mean a more aggressive China. Beijing appears content to press its claims
peacefully (if forcefully) through existing avenues and institutions. Second, when we examine the Chinese
military buildup, we find that there may be less there than some might have us believe. The Chinese
war machine is not quite as threatening - although still worrisome - as some fear. Instead of
Washington's perspectives shaping Asia-Pacific affairs coercively, the rise of China is likely to see a new
paradigm in international affairs. The nascent 'Beijing Consensus', for want of a better term, would
consist of the following attributes: The leadership role of the authoritarian state, a technocratic approach
to governance, an emphasis on social rights and obligations over individual rights, a reassertion of the
principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, support for freer markets and stronger regional
and international institutions. The argument that there is an emerging 'Beijing Consensus' is not
premised on the rise of the 'East' and decline of the 'West', as sometimes seemed to be the sub-text of the
earlier 1990s 'Asian values' debate. But like the previous debate, this new debate will reflect alternative
philosophical traditions. At issue is the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and
those of the state. This debate will highlight the values China and other states in the region share. By
contrast, one conventional American view is that Sino-American competition will result in 'intense
security competition with considerable potential for war' in which most of China's neighbours 'will join
with the United States to contain China's power'. Asia's shared values are likely to reduce the risk of such
conflict and result in regional pressure for an accommodation of and engagement with China, rather than
a confrontation with it. In its interactions with the region, China itself is beginning to be interested in
issues of proper governance, the development of domestic institutions and the strengthening of regional
institutions. Nor is Chinese policy unchanging, even on the issue of sovereignty. For example, there has
been an evolution in Chinese thinking on the question of freedom of passage through the straits of
Malacca and Singapore. China supported the claims of the littoral states to sovereign control over the
straits when the Law of the Sea Convention was concluded in 1982. But its increasing dependence on
imported oil shipped through the straits has led to a shift in favour of burden-sharing, the recognition of
the rights of user states and the need for cooperation between littoral states and user states. China has
also revised its earlier advocacy of strict non-intervention and non-interference. Its support
for global initiatives such as peacekeeping and nuclear non-proliferation - as well as its restrained use of
its veto in the UN Security Council and its active role in the World Trade Organisation - indicates it is
aware that responsible participation in global institutions can shape perceptions of a rising China. Beijing
has also greatly lowered the tone and rhetoric of its strategic competition with the US. This is
significant as most South-east Asian states prefer not to have to choose between the US and China, and
have adopted 'hedging' strategies in their relationships with the two powers. The People's Liberation
Army (PLA) is certainly in the midst of the most ambitious upgrading of its combat capabilities since the
early 1960s. Its current defence doctrine is centred on the ability to fight 'Limited Local Wars'. The
emphasis is on pre-emption, surprise and shock value, given that the earliest stages of conflict may be
crucial to the outcome of a war. Thus the PLA has pursued the acquisition of weapons for asymmetric
warfare. It mimics the US military in terms of the ambition and scope of its transformational efforts - and
therefore challenges the US military at its own game. Nevertheless, China is still at least two decades
behind the US in terms of its defence capabilities. It is certainly acquiring new and better equipment, but
its current military buildup is indicative of an evolutionary, steady-state and sustaining - rather than
disruptive or revolutionary - innovation and change. War in the Asia-Pacific is unlikely. But the
emergence of East Asia, especially China, will require adjustments by the West, just as Asian societies had
to adjust to Western norms and values during the American century.

Econ Impact Defense
No impact to economy
Drezner 14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during
the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-
border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial
crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine
concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether through greater
internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the
Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement
fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The
Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is
approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the
financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great
Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude:
"[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular
decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes
that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have
been expected."43

Econ resilient, US isnt key, and impact empirically denied
Lamy 11 (Pascal Lamy is the Director-General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary
President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po
Paris, from HEC and NA, graduating second in his year of those specializing in economics. System
Upgrade BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)
The bigger test came with the 2008-2009 Great Recession, the first truly global recession since
World War II. When the international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it.
Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured products made
from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier
effect on trade statistics, which explains why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009,
trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works the other way around as well:
Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of
2010. Projections for trade in 2011 are also strong, with WTO economists predicting that trade
volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential
things: Markets stayed open despite ever-stronger pressures to close them, and trade is an
indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more dependent
on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy
response of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions
would prove too powerful for governments to resist. But this is not what happened. Instead, the system
of rules and disciplines, agreed to over 60 years of negotiations, held firm. In a series of reports
prepared for WTO members and the G-20, we found that governments acted with great restraint.
At no time did the trade-restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports.
Moreover, the measures used -- anti-dumping duties, safeguards, and countervailing duties to offset
export or production subsidies -- were those which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under
WTO rules. I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty imposed during
those difficult days was in compliance with WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally
undertaken within an internationally agreed-upon framework. Countries by and large resisted overtly
noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import bans or
quotas. As markets stayed open, trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the
impact of the crisis and continued to grow -- notably China, India, and Brazil -- became ever-
more attractive markets for countries that were struggling, including those in Europe and
North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in
the far greater trade-to-GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade
expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing,
and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these
countries to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Best study proves no conflict from econ decline
Brandt and Ulfelder 11 (*Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an
Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas.
**Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, is an American political scientist
whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent conflict, April, 2011, Economic
Growth and Political Instability, Social Science Research Network)
These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 20082010 reflect a
widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries political stability.
When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in
protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their
own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they
inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with
their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial
resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war,
coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries economic
growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful
empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously
support it. Theoretical models of civil wars, coups detat, and transitions to and from democracy often
specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on
the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects
of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in
recent years, as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political
opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously
re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms
of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to
develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to
many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a
detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability
in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with
statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects
from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that
explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth.
To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously address the
possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity. As such, we believe this paper offers what is
probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date. As the results show, some of
our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil
violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around
periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship
between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime
changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to
democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our
findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as
uniform nor as strong as the conventional wisdom(s) presume(s). We think these findings also
help explain why the global recession of 20082010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of
coups and regime failures that some observers had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent
uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.


EU Relations Impact Defense
No impact and collapse inevitable
Leonard, 12 (Mark Leonard is co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations,
the first pan-European think tank., 7/24/2012, "The End of the Affair",
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/24/the_end_of_the_affair)
But Obama's stellar personal ratings in Europe hide the fact that the Western alliance has never loomed
smaller in the imagination of policymakers on either side of the Atlantic. Seen from Washington, there is
not a single problem in the world to be looked at primarily through a transatlantic prism. Although the
administration looks first to Europeans as partners in any of its global endeavors -- from dealing with
Iran's nuclear program to stopping genocide in Syria -- it no longer sees the European theater as its core
problem or seeks a partnership of equals with Europeans. It was not until the eurozone looked like it
might collapse -- threatening to bring down the global economy and with it Obama's chances of reelection
-- that the president became truly interested in Europe. Conversely, Europeans have never cared less
about what the United States thinks. Germany, traditionally among the most Atlanticist of European
countries, has led the pack. Many German foreign-policy makers think it was simply a tactical error for
Berlin to line up with Moscow and Beijing against Washington on Libya. But there is nothing accidental
about the way Berlin has systematically refused even to engage with American concerns over German
policy on the euro. During the Bush years, Europeans who were unable to influence the strategy of the
White House would give a running commentary on American actions in lieu of a substantive policy. They
had no influence in Washington, so they complained. But now, the tables are turned, with Obama passing
continual judgment on German policy while Chancellor Angela Merkel stoically refuses to heed his advice.
Europeans who for many years were infantilized by the transatlantic alliance, either using sycophancy and
self-delusion about a "special relationship" to advance their goals or, in the case of Jacques Chirac's
France, pursuing the even more futile goal of balancing American power, have finally come to realize that
they can no longer outsource their security or their prosperity to Uncle Sam. On both sides of the Atlantic,
the ties that held the alliance together are weakening. On the American side, Obama's biography links him
to the Pacific and Africa but not to the old continent. His personal story echoes the demographic changes
in the United States that have reduced the influence of Americans of European origin. Meanwhile, on the
European side, the depth of the euro crisis has crowded out almost all foreign policy from the agenda of
Europe's top decision-makers. The end of the Cold War means that Europeans no longer need American
protection, and the U.S. financial crisis has led to a fall in American demand for European products
(although U.S. exports to Europe are at an all-time high). What's more, Obama's lack of warmth has
precluded him from establishing the sorts of human relationships with European leaders that animate
alliances. When asked to name his closest allies, Obama mentions non-European leaders such as Recep
Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. And his transactional nature has led to a
neglect of countries that he feels will not contribute more to the relationship -- within a year of being
elected, Obama had managed to alienate the leaders of most of Europe's big states, from Gordon Brown to
Nicolas Sarkozy to Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Americans hardly remember, but Europe's collective
nose was put out of joint by Obama's refusal to make the trip to Europe for the 2010 EU-U.S. summit.
More recently, Obama has reached out to allies to counteract the impression that the only way to get a
friendly reception in Washington is to be a problem nation -- but far too late to erase the sense that
Europe matters little to this American president. Underlying these superficial issues is a more
fundamental divergence in the way Europe and the United States are coping with their respective
declines. As the EU's role shrinks in the world, Europeans have sought to help build a multilateral, rule-
based world. That is why it is they, rather than the Chinese or the Americans, that have pushed for the
creation of institutionalized global responses to climate change, genocide, or various trade disputes. To
the extent that today's world has not collapsed into the deadlocked chaos of a "G-zero," it is often due to
European efforts to create a functioning institutional order. To Washington's eternal frustration, however,
Europeans have not put their energies into becoming a full partner on global issues. For all the existential
angst of the euro crisis, Europe is not as weak as people think it is. It still has the world's largest market
and represents 17 percent of world trade, compared with 12 percent for the United States. Even in military
terms, the EU is the world's No. 2 military power, with 21 percent of the world's military spending, versus
5 percent for China, 3 percent for Russia, 2 percent for India, and 1.5 percent for Brazil, according to
Harvard scholar Joseph Nye. But, ironically for a people who have embraced multilateralism more than
any other on Earth, Europeans have not pooled their impressive economic, political, and military
resources. And with the eurozone's need to resolve the euro crisis, the EU may split into two or more tiers
-- making concerted action even more difficult. As a result, European power is too diffuse to be much of a
help or a hindrance on many issues. On the other hand, Obama's United States -- although equally
committed to liberal values -- thinks that the best way to safeguard American interests and values is to
craft a multipartner world. On the one hand, Obama continues to believe that he can transform rising
powers by integrating them into existing institutions (despite much evidence to the contrary). On the
other, he thinks that Europe's overrepresentation in existing institutions like the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund is a threat to the consolidation of that order. This is leading a declining
America to increasingly turn against Europe on issues ranging from climate change to currencies. The
most striking example came at the 2009 G-20 in Pittsburgh, when Obama worked together with the
emerging powers to pressure Europeans to give up their voting power at the IMF. As Walter Russell
Mead, the U.S. international relations scholar, has written, "(I)ncreasingly it will be in the American
interest to help Asian powers rebalance the world power structure in ways that redistribute power from
the former great powers of Europe to the rising great powers of Asia today." But the long-term
consequence of the cooling of this unique alliance could be the hollowing out of the world order that the
Atlantic powers have made. The big unwritten story of the last few decades is the way that a European-
inspired liberal economic and political order has been crafted in the shell of the American security order.
It is an order that limits the powers of states and markets and puts the protection of individuals at its core.
If the United States was the sheriff of this order, the EU was its constitutional court. And now it is being
challenged by the emerging powers. Countries like Brazil, China, and India are all relatively new states
forged by movements of national liberation whose experience of globalization has been bound up with
their new sense of nationhood. While globalization is destroying sovereignty for the West, these former
colonies are enjoying it on a scale never experienced before. As a result, they are not about to invite their
former colonial masters to interfere in their internal affairs. Just look at the dynamics of the United
Nations Security Council on issues from Sudan to Syria. Even in the General Assembly, the balance of
power is shifting: 10 years ago, China won 43 percent of the votes on human rights in the United Nations,
far behind Europe's 78 percent. But in 2010-11, the EU won less than 50 percent to China's nearly 60
percent, according to research by the European Council on Foreign Relations. Rather than being
transformed by global institutions, China's sophisticated multilateral diplomacy is changing the global
order itself. As relative power flows Eastward, it is perhaps inevitable that the Western alliance that kept
liberty's flame alight during the Cold War and then sought to construct a liberal order in its aftermath is
fading fast. It was perhaps inevitable that both Europeans and Americans should fail to live up to each
other's expectations of their respective roles in a post-Cold War world. After all, America is still too
powerful to happily commit to a multilateral world order (as evidenced by Congress's reluctance to ratify
treaties). And Europe is too physically safe to be willing to match U.S. defense spending or pool its
resources. What is surprising is that the passing of this alliance has not been mourned by many on either
side. The legacy of Barack Obama is that the transatlantic relationship is at its most harmonious and yet
least relevant in 50 years. Ironically, it may take the election of someone who is less naturally popular on
the European stage for both sides to wake up and realize just what is at stake.

Heg Impact Defense
Even if the US declines, liberal international norms will survive - solves the impact
IKENBERRY 11 (May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, G. John, PhD, Albert G. Milbank Professor of
Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, The Future of the Liberal World Order,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67730/g-john-ikenberry/the-future-of-the-liberal-world-
order?page=show)
For all these reasons, many observers have concluded that world politics is experiencing not just a
changing of the guard but also a transition in the ideas and principles that underlie the global order. The
journalist Gideon Rachman, for example, says that a cluster of liberal internationalist ideas -- such as faith
in democratization, confidence in free markets, and the acceptability of U.S. military power -- are all being
called into question. According to this worldview, the future of international order will be shaped above all
by China, which will use its growing power and wealth to push world politics in an illiberal direction.
Pointing out that China and other non-Western states have weathered the recent financial crisis better
than their Western counterparts, pessimists argue that an authoritarian capitalist alternative to Western
neoliberal ideas has already emerged. According to the scholar Stefan Halper, emerging-market states
"are learning to combine market economics with traditional autocratic or semiautocratic politics in a
process that signals an intellectual rejection of the Western economic model." Today's international order
is not really American or Western--even if it initially appeared that way. But this panicked narrative
misses a deeper reality: although the United States' position in the global system is changing, the liberal
international order is alive and well. The struggle over international order today is not about fundamental
principles. China and other emerging great powers do not want to contest the basic rules and principles of
the liberal international order; they wish to gain more authority and leadership within it. Indeed, today's
power transition represents not the defeat of the liberal order but its ultimate ascendance.
Brazil, China, and India have all become more prosperous and capable by operating inside the existing
international order -- benefiting from its rules, practices, and institutions, including the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and the newly organized G-20. Their economic success and growing influence are
tied to the liberal internationalist organization of world politics, and they have deep interests in
preserving that system. In the meantime, alternatives to an open and rule-based order have yet to
crystallize. Even though the last decade has brought remarkable upheavals in the global system -- the
emergence of new powers, bitter disputes among Western allies over the United States' unipolar
ambitions, and a global financial crisis and recession -- the liberal international order has no competitors.
On the contrary, the rise of non-Western powers and the growth of economic and security
interdependence are creating new constituencies for it. To be sure, as wealth and power become less
concentrated in the United States' hands, the country will be less able to shape world politics. But the
underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive. Indeed, now may be the
best time for the United States and its democratic partners to update the liberal order for a new era,
ensuring that it continues to provide the benefits of security and prosperity that it has provided since the
middle of the twentieth century.

Iran Prolif Impact Defense
No prolif and long timeframe
Kahl 12 (Colin H. Kahl 12, security studies prof at Georgetown, senior fellow at the Center for a New
American Security, was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Not Time to Attack
Iran, January 17, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-time-to-attack-
iran?page=show
Kroenig argues that there is an urgent need to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure soon, since Tehran
could "produce its first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so." Yet that last phrase is
crucial. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented Iranian efforts to achieve the
capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point, but there is no hard evidence that Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to develop them. In arguing for a six-month
horizon,Kroenig also misleadingly conflates hypothetical timelines to produce weapons-grade uranium
with the time actually required to construct a bomb. According to 2010 Senate testimony by James
Cartwright, then vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and recent statements by the former
heads of Israel's national intelligence and defense intelligence agencies, even if Iran could
produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in six months, it would take it at least a year to
produce a testable nuclear deviceand considerably longer to make a deliverable weapon. And David
Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (and the source of Kroenig's six-
month estimate), recently told Agence France-Presse that there is a "low probability" that the Iranians
would actually develop a bomb over the next year even if they had the capability to do so. Because there is
no evidence that Iran has built additional covert enrichment plants since the Natanz and Qom sites were
outed in 2002 and 2009, respectively, any near-term move by Tehran to produce weapons-
grade uranium would have to rely on its declared facilities. The IAEA would thus detect such activity with
sufficient time for the international community to mount a forceful response. As a result, the Iranians are
unlikely to commit to building nuclear weapons until they can do so much more quickly or out of sight,
which could be years off.
No impact to Iran prolif their ev is biased
rationality, nuclear deterrence and defense posture check escalation
Waltz 12 Senior Research Scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies and Adjunct
Professor of Political Science at Columbia University (Kenneth N., Jul/Aug, Why Iran Should Get the
Bomb, EBSCO)

UNFOUNDED FEARS One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the
debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how
states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many
others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian
policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other
leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for
self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume
otherwise. Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran
as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic
Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike
against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the
Iranian regime holds dear. Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely
that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its
offensive capabilities (or destroy itself). Iran may be intransigent at the negotiating table and defiant in the
face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation. Iran's leaders did not, for example,
attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz despite issuing blustery warnings that they might do so after the EU
announced its planned oil embargo in January. The Iranian regime clearly concluded that it did not want
to provoke what would surely have been a swift and devastating American response to such a move.
Nevertheless, even some observers and policymakers who accept that the Iranian regime is rational still
worry that a nuclear weapon would embolden it, providing Tehran with a shield that would allow it to act
more aggressively and increase its support for terrorism. Some analysts even fear that Iran would directly
provide terrorists with nuclear arms. The problem with these concerns is that they contradict the record of
every other nuclear weapons state going back to 1945. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb,
they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential
target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action.
Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and
India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe
Iran would break this mold.


Israel Strikes Impact Defense
No Israel war
Schramm 11 (Madison Schramm is a program associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Hey
America, Iran still isn't threat No. 1" Oct 12 www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/1012/Hey-
America-Iran-still-isn-t-threat-No.-1/)
Iran and Israel have never directly engaged in combat. Although Iran does sponsor Hezbollah and
Hamas, Tehran is not directly calling the shots within those organizations. Israel actually provided Iran with
weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Tehrans condemnation of Israel vis--vis the Palestinians is primarily
a political platform for Iranian influence in the region. Iran happily accepted Israeli aid when it served
Tehrans more immediate interests. Additionally, the Middle East at large isnt interested in Irans
brand of Islam. Iran, as a Persian Shiite state, is the minority in an Arab Sunni region. The Iran
doctrine is well contained. But by continuing to label an intractable country as "evil," policymakers in
Washington have turned a red herring into a Goliath.
No risk of unilateral Israel strikes on Iran media bias
Lindorff 11 (Dave, Washingtons Fake Concern About a Possible Israeli Attack on Iran
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/13-8)
When it comes to mainstream press reports about a possible Israeli attack on Irans nuclear facilities, its
time to check the bullshit detector. Corporate media reports are claiming that the Pentagon and the White House are worried or concerned
that the Israeli government may decide to attack Iran, and that the US is trying to learn what Israels real intentions are: is there a serious plan to attack or is this all just an
effort to blackmail the US into taking stronger measures against Iran? As CNN put it in a Nov. 4 report: The United States has become
increasingly concerned Israel could be preparing to strike Iran's nuclear program, a senior U.S. military official told CNN
on Friday. The U.S. military and intelligence community in recent weeks have stepped up "watchfulness" of both Iran and Israel, according to the senior U.S. military official and
a second military official familiar with the U.S. actions. Asked if the Pentagon was concerned about an attack, the senior military official replied "absolutely." Both officials
declined to be identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the matter. Bzzzzzzzzzzz Oops! The Bullshit detector just went off. Missing
from all these reports about Washington concern, and from statements being leaked by Pentagon and White House sources, is any mention of the
fact that Israels entire air force consists of planes built in and funded by the United States. The F-15s and F-16s and
the specially designed F-16I and F-15I, manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Boeing to Israeli Air Force specifications, are the planes that would have the job of delivering
bombs to Iranian targets and providing cover against Iranian fighter defenses. One word from the US and those weapons systems would
be grounded. After all, without US spare parts and US financing, Israels air force ceases to exist. So the claim
that Washington is worried about Israel going it alone in a strike on Iran is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Now you
could get deeper into it and speculate if you like that both the Israeli government and the Obama Administration want to promote media speculation that Israel may be planning
an attack, and for the same reason: to allow, or to pressure, Washington to tighten the economic screws on Iran and perhaps to step up covert attacks on Iran. Or alternatively,
Washington wants Israel to attack Iran, but wants to be able to claim that the US isnt behind it. I tend to lean towards the first theory, because I dont think that the US really
wants the kind of explosion in the Middle East which would surely happen if Israel were to attack Iran. But then, who knows? The Neo-Cons have considerable sway in
Washington, and these psychopaths do want such a conflict. Whatever the truth of whats going on, lets at least clear away the Big Lie. With the Israeli Air
Force almost totally dependent upon the largesse of the United States, Israel is not going to do anything to
Iran that is not 100 percent approved in advance by Washington.
LA Relations Impact Defense
U.S. influence and relations in Latin America are inevitable
Alvarado, 13 --- former diplomat in the Mission of Venezuela to the Organization of American States
(5/31/2013, Liza Torres Alvarado, The U.S. Must Re-evaluate its Foreign Policy in Latin America,
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=164370, JMP)
Although there has been a decline in U.S. influence in the region, its presence is still there. In Venezuela,
for example, U.S. oil companies have seen their actions limited, yet they still operate there. The United
States is Venezuelas top commercial partner, as Venezuela supplies 12 percent of U.S. oil imports. Relations between
the United States and Latin America have experienced cyclical ups and downs. Geographically, the United
States and Latin America are linked and have a natural shared market, so there will always be a
relationship of one sort or another. The United States will continue to seek to exert its influence over
the region, whether through future plans for the placement of military bases or the promotion of bilateral
trade agreements.
Alt causes - Buy American, Subsidies, Honduras and Columbia Scandals
Lowentha, 10 (Lowenthal, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California,
a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and President Emeritus of the Pacific Council on
International Policy, July/Aug 2010 (Abraham F. Obama and the Americas Foreign Affairs)
The Obama administration's approach to trade policy was confusing at best. First, it rejected
protectionism; then, it accepted a "Buy American" provision in the stimulus package. Having signaled a
willingness to proceed with the free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, it postponed taking
any concrete action. It talked up energy cooperation with Brazil but continued subsidizing U.S. corn-
based ethanol and maintained high tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil. Even as it was actively
promoting an enhanced U.S. partnership with Mexico, it let lapse an experimental program that allowed
Mexican truckers to enter the United States, thus placing the United States in noncompliance with an
important nafta provision. Perhaps even more damaging than the failure to implement its own stated
goals was the administration's handling of two issues that were not on its original to-do list. Washington's
first response to the overthrow and deportation of the constitutionally elected president of Honduras,
Manuel Zelaya, by the Honduran armed forces in June 2009 was to reject the move and push for a strong
multilateral response through the oas. But then Washington proved reluctant to apply the harsh sanctions
that many Latin American countries-not just those it often disagrees with, such as Venezuela, but also
Brazil, Chile, and others-were calling for. Although its reticence reflected its general preference for less
intervention and its assessment that restoring Zelaya would be widely unpopular in Honduras,
Washington was also responding to criticism in the United States that intervening to restore Zelaya, an
erratic leader and an acolyte of Chavez, would hurt those Hondurans who were longtime friends of the
United States. Shannon, who was then still assistant secretary (he is now U.S. ambassador to Brazil), was
sent to Honduras to break the impasse between Zelaya and the regime that had replaced him. He
brokered an accord between the two parties, but each interpreted it differently. No mutually acceptable
solution took effect, and the de facto government, which had the explicit blessings of the Honduran
Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court but was unrecognized by any other government, proceeded to
organize previously scheduled national elections. Washington continued to deny the government
recognition but also indicated that it would treat as Honduras' legitimate leader whoever won the
election-so long as the new government established a truth commission, as mandated in the accord
brokered by Shannon, and worked to ease the country's divisions. No Latin American government
presented a practical alternative to the U.S. approach, but many nonetheless criticized it on the grounds
that Washington's behavior had weakened the hard-won norm against condoning military coups in the
region. In August 2009, the Obama administration mishandled its communications with South American
nations about a new ten-year defense cooperation agreement it had negotiated with Colombia. The plan
would give U.S. military personnel in the country (capped at 1,400, as before) access to seven Colombian
military bases. When news of the accord was leaked in advance of an official statement, Brazil and several
other South American governments expressed concern, and some called for full disclosure of the deal's
provisions and formal guarantees that U.S. military activities would be restricted to Colombian territory.
Worry subsided when the U.S. and Colombian governments provided additional details and, earlier this
year, Brazil reached its own security cooperation agreement with the United States. Still, the incident
undercut the Obama administration's stated commitment to consultation and transparency.

Middle East War Impact Defense
Middle East war is inevitable for four reasons-lack of hope government policies, power vacuum and no
intervention
Perthes 10 (Volker Perthes, Chairman and Director of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the German
Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin Is Middle East War Inevitable?
7/28/10http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/perthes6/English/)
Fuad Siniora, Lebanons former prime minister, is a thoughtful man with deep experience in Middle
Eastern politics. So when he speaks of trains with no drivers that seem to be on a collision course, as he
recently did at a private meeting in Berlin, interested parties should probably prepare for unwanted
developments. Of course, no one in the region is calling for war. But a pre-war mood is growing. Four
factors, none of them new but each destabilizing on its own, are compounding one another: lack of hope,
dangerous governmental policies, a regional power vacuum, and the absence of active external mediation.
It may be reassuring that most Palestinians and Israelis still favor a two-state solution. It is less reassuring
that most Israelis and a large majority of Palestinians have lost hope that such a solution will ever
materialize. Add to this that by September, the partial settlement freeze, which Israels government has
accepted, will expire, and that the period set by the Arab League for the so-called proximity talks between
the Palestinians and Israelis, which have not seriously begun, will also be over. Serious direct negotiations
are unlikely to begin without a freeze on settlement building, which Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu is
unlikely to announce or implement, given resistance within his coalition government. Syria, which until
the end of 2008 was engaged in its own Turkish-mediated proximity talks with Israel, does not expect a
resumption of talks with Israel anytime soon. This may be one reason why Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad mentions war as an option, as he recently did in Madrid.Moreover, Israelis and people close to
Hezbollah in Lebanon are talking about another round, while many pundits in the Middle East believe
that a limited war could unblock a stagnant political situation. Their point of reference is the 1973 war,
which helped to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel. But the wars that followed, and the latest
wars in the region the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of December 2008/January 2009 do
not support this reckless theory. Iran, whose influence in the Levant is not so much the cause of
unresolved problems in the Middle East as the result of them, continues to defy the
imposition of new sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Iranian rulers have as
little trust in the West as the West has in them, and they continue to increase international
suspicion by their words and actions. Repeated calls by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad about Israels eventual disappearance play into the hands of those in Israel
who argue that Irans nuclear program must be ended militarily.Some of the Middle Easts
most important players are increasing the risks of confrontation because they have either
lost a proper feeling for their regional and international environment, or seek to increase
their own political power through provocation and brinkmanship. Netanyahus short-sighted
reluctance to give up settlements and occupied territory threatens Israels long-term interest to reach a
fair settlement with the Palestinians. In its deadly assault on the Gaza flotilla in May, Netanyahus
government demonstrated a kind of political autism in its inability to realize that even Israels best friends
no longer wish to accept the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza blockade. In the Arab world,
there is currently no dominant power able to project stability beyond its own national
borders. It will take time before Iraq will play a regional role again. The Saudi reform agenda mainly
concerns domestic issues. Egypts political stagnation has reduced its regional influence. Qatar over-
estimates its own strength.The only regional power in the Middle East today is Iran, but it is
not a stabilizing force. The Arab states are aware of this. Much as they dislike it, they are also fearful of
a war between Israel or the United States and Iran, knowing that they would have little influence over
events. Indeed, intra-regional dynamics in the Middle East today are driven by three states, none of which
is Arab: Israel, Iran, and, increasingly, Turkey. In recent years, Turkey tried to mediate between
Israel and Syria, Israel and Hamas, opposing factions in Lebanon, and lately between Iran
and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.Turkey should
continue to play this role. But the Turkish government has increasingly allowed itself to be
dragged into Middle East conflicts, rather than functioning as an honest broker.The Obama
administration has had a strong start with respect to the Middle East. But a year and a half
after his inauguration, Obamas outstretched hand to Iran has turned into a fist, and his
attempts to encourage Israeli-Palestinian negotiations seem stuck. Domestic issues are
likely to preoccupy Obama and his team at least up until the mid-term elections this
November, thus precluding active diplomacy during the critical months ahead. And the
European Union? There has not been much active crisis-prevention diplomacy from
Brussels or from Europes national capitals. None of the leading EU states foreign
ministers seems even to have made an attempt to mediate between Europes two closest
Mediterranean partners, Israel and Turkey.Twenty years ago, in the weeks that preceded Iraqs
invasion of Kuwait, many observers saw signs of a looming crisis. But Arab and Western players somehow
managed to convince themselves that things would not get out of hand.That crisis, and others before
and since, showed that tensions in the Middle East rarely dissolve with the passage of time.
Sometimes they are resolved through active diplomatic intervention by regional or
international players. And sometimes they are released violently.
Middle Eastern countries have incentives to not escalate instability
Maloney and Takeyh 7 [Susan Maloney and Ray Takeyh, 6/28/2007. Senior fellow for Middle East
Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Studies at the Brookings Institution and senior fellow for
Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Why the Iraq War Wont Engulf the Mideast,
International Herald Tribune, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0628iraq_maloney.aspx].//
CG
Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war
either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in
Iraq. The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere,
are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently
risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover,
most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus have little
capability for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback
scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into
conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab
fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and
became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in
and going from their countries. In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately
200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its
frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally, there is no precedent for
Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis
and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either
ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a
compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to protect
the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as
someone else's fight. Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo,
Amman and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight. As
far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have long preferred to press their interests through proxies as
opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite
militias, a massive cross-border incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary. So Iraqis will remain locked
in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders of
Iraq. The Middle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its
experience with ambiguous conflicts, the region has also developed an intuitive ability to
contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire Middle East.

Trade Impact Defense
Trade does not solve wartheres no correlation between trade and peace
MARTIN et al 8 (Phillipe, University of Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne, Paris School of Economics, and
Centre for Economic Policy Research; Thierry MAYER, University of Paris 1 PantheonSorbonne, Paris
School of Economics, CEPII, and Centre for Economic Policy Research, Mathias THOENIG, University of
Geneva and Paris School of Economics, The Review of Economic Studies 75)
Does globalization pacify international relations? The liberal view in political science argues that
increasing trade flows and the spread of free markets and democracy should limit the incentive to use
military force in interstate relations. This vision, which can partly be traced back to Kants Essay on
Perpetual Peace (1795), has been very influential: The main objective of the European trade integration
process was to prevent the killing and destruction of the two World Wars from ever happening again.1
Figure 1 suggests2 however, that during the 18702001 period, the correlation between trade openness
and military conflicts is not a clear cut one. The first era of globalization, at the end of the 19th century,
was a period of rising trade openness and multiple military conflicts, culminating with World War I. Then,
the interwar period was characterized by a simultaneous collapse of world trade and conflicts. After World
War II, world trade increased rapidly, while the number of conflicts decreased (although the risk of a
global conflict was obviously high). There is no clear evidence that the 1990s, during which trade flows
increased dramatically, was a period of lower prevalence of military conflicts, even taking into account the
increase in the number of sovereign states.

No trade war
Qingfen 12 [*Ding Qingfen (China Daily), Frictions to 'heat up' over trade, 5/30,
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-05/30/content_15418479.htm]
Trade frictions between China and the United States will probably become more heated in the months
ahead, but no trade war will break out between the two biggest economies in the world, Pascal Lamy,
director-general of the World Trade Organization said on Tuesday. "As Chinese trade with the rest of the
world grows, there is a normal statistical proportion of trade frictions, and we believe that the frictions
can be handled peacefully," said Lamy. "But nothing like a trade war." Lamy made the remarks in an
interview conducted at the Beijing 2012 Round Table on WTO Accession Best Practices for the least
developed countries, which was held in the capital city. During the forum, Chen Deming, minister of
commerce, said China is willing to help the least developed countries in the world join the WTO. Having
them in the organization will be good for the world economy and global trade, as well as for China. China,
together with other countries in the WTO, is calling for a simplification of the procedures countries must
go through to join the trade organization. Agreements meant to bring about that goal are expected to be
signed by July, Chen said. Last week, the Ministry of Commerce wrote on its website about policies used
to support wind, solar and other sorts of renewable energy projects in five US states, including
Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and California, saying they violate WTO policies and trade
treaties. China also complained to the WTO about the US imposition of anti-subsidy duties on $7.29
billion worth of Chinese goods from 22 different categories that were imported to the US last year. The
announcements came on the heels of the US Commerce Department's preliminary decision to place anti-
dumping tariffs of up to 250 percent on imports of Chinese solar cells. Analysts at home and abroad
expressed worries that China's response to that action will provoke a trade war between the two nations.
Lamy, though, said a member of the WTO has the right to challenge other members if it thinks they have
violated trade rules. "Sometimes, China challenges the US, EU, with anti-dumping or countervailing
duties, and sometimes it is other way round," he said. "There are trade frictions, trade disputes, but there
are no trade wars." As the US presidential election draws near, the US may take further actions against
China and its trade policies in the hope of quieting critics who complain about their countrys trade deficit
with China and high unemployment rate, experts said. Obama has announced plans to establish a trans-
agency trade enforcement unit that will be charged with investigating the policies and practices of the
countrys most important trade partners. In November, China began investigating whether the US was
improperly using subsidies to lower the price of US products. That scrutiny came a month after the seven
US solar manufacturers filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission and the
Department of Commerce. The Ministry of Commerce said the US has used subsidies in ways that are
"inconsistent with the WTO rules and rulings in many regards". "Trade frictions are a normal statistical
proportion volume of trade," Lamy said. "As trade grows, the number of trade frictions grows." The
Commerce Department is scheduled to make a final determination on solar tariffs in early October. The
US agency also announced it would investigate Chinese exports of wind turbines, saying makers of that
equipment have received unfair government subsidies. It plans to make an announcement on Wednesday
about the duties it will impose on those products. Along with the EU and Japan, the US filed a complaint
in March with the WTO to challenge Chinas policies governing exports of rare-earth minerals. "We are
concerned that during the financial crisis, protectionism is growing," Lamy said. "That's the reality." "But
on the whole, there are not dramatic surges of protectionist measures, although there are signs that
remain worrying. It's like going to a doctor from time to time. We do checkups, and we tell the patients,
'Be careful'."

Warming Impact Defense
Warming inevitable even if we cut emissions to zeromultiple studies confirm
Gillett et al 10director @ the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis [Nathan, Ongoing
climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions. Nature Geoscience]
Several recent studies have demonstrated that CO2-induced 17 global mean temperature change is
irreversible on human 18 timescales1_5. We find that not only is this climate change 19 irreversible, but
that for some climate variables, such as Antarctic 20 temperature and North African rainfall, CO2-
induced climate 21 changes are simulated to continue to worsen for many centuries 22 even after a
complete cessation of emissions. Although it is 23 also well known that a large committed
thermosteric sea level 24 rise is expected even after a cessation of emissions in 2100, 25 our finding of a
strong delayed high-latitude Southern Ocean 26 warming at intermediate depths suggests that this effect
may be 27 compounded by ice shelf collapse, grounding line retreat, and ensuing accelerated ice discharge
in marine-based sectors of the 28 Antarctic ice sheet, precipitating a sea level rise of several metres. 29
Quantitative results presented here are subject to uncertainties 30 associated with the climate sensitivity,
the rate of ocean heat 31 uptake and the rate of carbon uptake in CanESM1, but our 32 findings of
Northern Hemisphere cooling, Southern Hemisphere 33 warming, a southward shift of the intertropical
convergence zone, 34 and delayed and ongoing ocean warming at intermediate depths 35 following a
cessation of emissions are likely to be robust. Geo- 36 engineering by stratospheric aerosol injection has
been proposed 37 as a response measure in the event of a rapid melting of the 38 West Antarctic ice
sheet24. Our results indicate that if such a 39 melting were driven by ocean warming at intermediate
depths, as 40 is thought likely, a geoengineering response would be ineffective 41 for several centuries
owing to the long delay associated with 42 subsurface ocean warming.

No modeling in China its structurally impossible
Downs 8 Eric, Fellow @ Brookings, China Energy Fellow, Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center
U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, Chinas Energy Policies and Their Environmental
Impacts, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0813_china_downs.aspx
China suffers from a disconnect between the increasingly prominent position of energy issues on its
domestic and foreign policy agendas and the capacity of the countrys institutions to manage the energy
sector. Some Chinese commentators have even argued that the biggest threat to Chinas energy security is
posed by the very institutions responsible for enhancing it. Consequently, restructuring Chinas energy
policymaking apparatus has been a subject of intense debate in recent years as the country has grappled
with an unexpected surge in energy demand, growing dependence on energy imports, rising global energy
prices and periodic domestic energy supply shortages. Authority over Chinas energy sector at the national
level is fractured among more than a dozen government agencies, the most important of which is the
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). Within the NDRC itself, responsibility for
energy is similarly scattered among multiple departments. Prior to the restructuring in March 2008, the
key component was the Energy Bureau, which had a broad mandate but lacked the authority, tools and
manpower to fulfill it. In 2005, the government added another cook to the kitchen with the establishment
of the National Energy Leading Group, an advisory body headed by Premier Wen Jiabao. While the
leading groups creation reflected recognition of the need to strengthen energy sector management, it did
not eradicate Chinas energy governance woes. Chinas fragmented energy policymaking structure has
impeded energy governance because there is no single institution, such as a Ministry of Energy, with the
authority to coordinate the interests of the various stakeholders. For example, the implementation of
energy laws is hampered by the fact that those laws often do not specify the government agencies
responsible for implementation because of disputes over who should be in charge. Similarly, the fuel tax
that the NPC approved in 1999 has not been implemented because of the failure of the relevant
stakeholders to reach an agreement. The policy paralysis within the energy bureaucracy stands in sharp
contrast to the activism of Chinas state-owned energy companies. These firms are powerful and relatively
autonomous actors. Their influence is derived from their full and vice ministerial ranks, the membership
of some top executives in the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, industry expertise,
internationally listed subsidiaries and profitability (at least until recently). More often than not, it is
Chinas energy firms who initiate major energy projects and policies that are later embraced by the
government, such as the West-East Pipeline and the acquisition of foreign energy assets. The companies
also have some capacity to advance corporate interests at the expense of national ones. For example, oil
and power generating companies have periodically reduced their output to pressure the government to
raise the state-set prices of refined products and electricity, which have not kept pace with increases in the
market-determined prices of crude oil and coal. Similarly, Chinas national oil companies have ignored
guidance from the central government about where they should invest overseas. II. Chinas new energy
policymaking structure The recent changes to Chinas energy policymaking apparatus are the latest in a
series of institutional reforms aimed at improving energy governance. In March 2008, the NPC approved
two additions to Chinas energy bureaucracy the State Energy Commission (SEC) and the National
Energy Administration (NEA). The SEC, a high-level discussion and coordination body whose specific
functions, organization and staffing have not yet been determined, will replace the National Energy
Leading Group. The daily affairs of the SEC will be handled by the NEA, a vice-ministerial component of
the NDRC, which is the successor to the NDRCs Energy Bureau. In addition to the Energy Bureau, the
NEA is also comprised of other energy offices from the NDRC, the Office of the National Leading Group,
and the nuclear power administration of the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for
National Defense. The NEA has a broad mandate, which includes managing the countrys energy
industries, drafting energy plans and policies, negotiating with international energy agencies and
approving foreign energy investments. The NEA, like its predecessor, will struggle to fulfill its mandate
because it lacks the authority, autonomy, manpower and tools to deal with the countrys energy
challenges. Although the NEAs capabilities in each of these areas are greater than those possessed by the
NDRC Energy Bureau, they still fall short of what the NEA needs to do its job. Authority: The NEA has
more political clout than its predecessor, but not enough to mitigate the bureaucratic infighting that
undermines energy decision-making. The NEA is a vice-ministerial body, which is a step above that of the
Energy Bureau, which was a bureau-level organization. However, the NEA still does not have the
authority it needs to coordinate the interests of ministries, commissions and state-owned energy
companies. One of the frustrations of officials in the NDRC Energy Bureau was that the energy companies
often undercut their authority by circumventing the Bureau to hold face-to-face discussions with Chinas
senior leadership. The authority of the NEA is somewhat enhanced by the appointment of Zhang Guobao,
a Vice-Chairman of the NDRC with full ministerial rank, as head of the NEA. While it was widely expected
that Zhang would retire, his new position is a reflection of his substantial energy expertise. Zhang, who
has worked at the NDRC since 1983, is a smart and skillful bureaucrat with encyclopedic knowledge of
Chinas energy sector. He has overseen the development of some of the countrys major infrastructure
projects, including the West-East Pipeline, the transmission of electricity from west to east, the Qinghai-
Tibet Railway and the expansion of Beijing Capital International Airport. Autonomy: The NEA is a
creature of the NDRC. Some Chinese media reports speculated that the fact that the NEAs offices will be
separate from those of the NDRC and that the NEA will have its own Party Group which will give the
NEA greater autonomy in managing its affairs, including personnel decisions are signs of the NEAs
independence. However, the fact that Zhang Guobao an NDRC lifer is head of the NEA and its Party
Group indicates that the NEAs room to maneuver will be constrained by the NDRC. Moreover, the NEAs
independence is limited by the fact that key tools it needs to effectively manage the energy sector are in
the hands of the NDRC. Tools: Arguably the greatest constraint on the NEAs ability to fulfill its mandate
is the fact that is does not possess the authority to set energy prices, which remain the purview of the
NDRCs Pricing Department. The issue of who would end up with the power to determine energy prices
was, in the words of Zhang Guobao, a subject of constant dispute during the bureaucratic
reorganization. Although the NEA can make suggestions about energy price adjustments and should be
consulted by the NDRC on any proposed changes, the shots are still being called by the NDRC (and
ultimately the State Council, whose approval is needed for any major energy price changes). The fact that
the NDRC retained control over energy prices is hardly surprising. The power to set prices is one of the
NDRCs main instruments of macroeconomic control, which it understandably is reluctant to relinquish,
especially to a subordinate component which might be tempted to adjust energy prices in ways that run
counter to broader NDRC objectives, such as combating inflation. The NEAs lack of authority over energy
prices makes its task of mitigating the current electricity shortages, which are partly rooted in price
controls, especially challenging. Electricity prices are set by the state, while coal prices are determined by
the market. The failure of electricity price increases to keep pace with soaring coal prices has contributed
to the national power shortage because some electricity producers can't afford coal while others are
unwilling to operate at a loss. With no pricing power, the NEA has little choice but to resort to
administrative measures to achieve an objective that would be more effectively realized by raising and
ultimately liberalizing electricity prices. Personnel: The central government is still managing the energy
sector with a skeleton crew. Contrary to rumors that the NEAs staff would be as large as 200, it ended up
with just 112 people. This staff quota is certainly larger than that of the NDRC Energy Bureau, which had
only 50 people, but it does not represent a major increase in the number of people directly involved in
managing the energy sector at the national level. Moreover, some Chinese media reports have speculated
that the NEA may face the problem of too many generals and not enough soldiers because at least half of
the 112 slots at the NEA are for positions at the deputy department head level and above. The Party organ
that determines the functions, internal structure and staff quotas for government institutions probably
resisted calls for more personnel out of concern that if it approved a large staff for the NEA, then other
government bodies would also press for more manpower at a time when the State Council is trying to
streamline the bureaucracy. In sum, Chinas new energy administration is unlikely to substantially
improve energy governance. The organizational changes are tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Although the energy bureaucracy looks a bit different, its limited capacities remain largely
unchanged. Consequently, we can expect to see a continuation of business as usual: conflicts of interest
will impede decision-making; the energy companies will remain important drivers of projects and
policies; state-set energy prices will continue to contribute to periodic domestic energy supply shortfalls;
and the NEA, with no authority to adjust energy prices, probably will resort to second best
administrative measures to try to eradicate those shortages. The modest tinkering to Chinas energy
policymaking apparatus unveiled during the March 2008 NPC meeting reflects the conflicts of interest
that stymie energy decision-making. Despite widespread recognition among Chinese officials and energy
experts of the need to get the countrys energy institutions right and the growing chorus of voices calling
for the establishment of a Ministry of Energy (MOE), there are powerful ministerial and corporate
interests that favor the status quo. The opposition to the creation of a MOE, a hot topic of debate in
Chinese energy circles in recent years, was led by the NDRC and the state-owned energy companies. The
mere specter of a MOE strikes fear in the heart of the NDRC because it would deprive the NDRC of a
substantial portion of its portfolio and important tools of macroeconomic control. The NDRCs aversion is
shared by the energy firms who are reluctant to have another political master and afraid that a MOE
would limit their direct access to Chinas leadership. Such opposition helps explain why the government
was unable to forge a consensus in favor of more robust changes to Chinas energy policymaking
apparatus. Implications for the United States First, US policymakers should recognize that Chinas
fractured energy policymaking apparatus may constrain the Chinese government from doing all that US
policymakers would like it to do and indeed what Chinese leaders themselves might want to do to
enhance international energy security and combat climate change. If China falls short of our expectations
it may not reflect a conscious decision by Beijing to shirk its global responsibilities but rather the limited
capacity of its national energy institutions to bend other actors, notably firms and local governments, to
its will.

2ac- Oil DA
Conflict in Iraq would bring prices down, oil prices unstable
Lynch 6/23 (Michael, contributor for Forbes, Forbes Energy, Could conflict in Iraq bring
oil prices down? http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2014/06/23/could-news-
from-iraq-drive-oil-prices-down/)
Obviously, military conflict in a major oil producing country (which is adjacent to other oil producers) gives oil traders a
tingle in their private holdings. An attack shutting down the northern pipeline, or a strike south of Baghdad at oil fields (threatening
foreign workers, for instance, as well as facilities), or sabotage against the export terminal would boost prices quickly. But is
it possible that some developments could make prices drop? One lesson of oil markets is never say
never. A quick defeat of ISIS or their expulsion by Sunni tribesmen (who might then keep out federal
forces) would cause a drop in prices, especially if it appears decisive. The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
the ISIS leader, might drop oil prices, especially if he is replaced by someone notably more moderate
(almost everyone being somewhat more moderate), or the group becomes riven by internecine rivalry. Obviously, a
negotiated peace or, more likely, a truce between ISIS and the Baghdad government (which might change before
this is finished) would bring prices down, implying stability and an end to the threat to production and
transport facilities. However, this seems unlikely to happen until after further fighting, at least enough to convince the two sides
that no easy victory can be expected. Two other events seem likely to effect prices. First, Baghdad signs and ratifies an oil
development and export agreement with the government of Kurdistan, and they accelerate moves to expand pipeline capacity into
and through Turkey. Second, if Baghdad expedites development of its southern oil fields, making operations
easier for the project operators and particularly development of water supplies for enhanced recovery,
then oil prices would drop. However, neither of these two would add significant supplies in the near term, and
thus wouldnt have a major impact on prices. That is going to have to wait for supplies to raise inventories to higher levels,
which seems unlikely to happen in the next six to nine months.
Your DA is wrong- even if the US went Totally Energy independent it wouldnt affect prices
Dlouhy 12 [September 22 Jennifer A covers energy policy and congressional affairs for the Houston
Chronicle and Hearst Newspapers Energy independence won't guarantee low prices, Houston Chronicle ,
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Energy-independence-won-t-guarantee-low-prices-
3886657.php]
WASHINGTON - On the presidential campaign trail, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have vowed to break the United States
free of foreign oil, offering a pledge of at least North American "energy independence." In some ways, that's an easy promise to
make. No matter who resides in the White House for the next four years, the United States is already on a trajectory to
derive much of its oil and all of its natural gas from within its own borders, thanks to technologies
allowing energy companies to harvest the fossil fuels from dense rock formations. Tied to global market
But abundant domestic supplies don't guarantee a drop in the cost of energy. Oil prices are set on a world
market, subject to a complex mix of factors outside the United States' control. And even if net U.S. or North
American oil imports plummeted to zero, the United States would still be connected to that global market. Michael
Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the notion of real energy
independence requires more than just "impressive arithmetic": It isn't just adding up total imports and
exports to get to zero. "So long as you are part of a global oil market, your economy remains vulnerable to
unrest in that market - even if you are buying oil from yourself," Levi said. For instance, OPEC countries could cut
their production to offset any spikes in U.S. oil - a scenario even bullish analysts anticipate. "There will be times when OPEC
may respond and cut production and that will temporarily pop up the price again," said analyst John Freeman,
managing director of Raymond James & Associates. Romney unveiled his energy plan last month in a 21-page white paper that
promises "North American energy independence by 2020," largely by expanding offshore drilling, relaxing environmental
regulations and putting states in control of permitting energy projects on federal land within their borders. Obama's energy
approach would combine support for renewable fuels and alternative power with domestic oil and gas production. Obama also has
broadly touted the promise of newly available natural gas supplies. Prices likely to rise Regardless of who is president the
next four years, the United States is likely to pursue policies that would curb the pricing advantage for
American energy. For instance, Romney has pledged to sign off on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver crude
from Alberta to refineries along the Gulf Coast, while simultaneously freeing supplies now trapped in the Cushing, Okla., oil hub.
The dearth of infrastructure between Cushing and the Gulf Coast is one reason West Texas Intermediate crude is trading at roughly
$17 less per barrel than Brent, the international benchmark. "That's solely because of a lack of pipeline capacity," noted David
Hughes, a geologist and fellow at the Post Carbon Institute. "People who think Keystone XL is going to increase U.S. energy security
and lower prices should think again, because as soon as Canadian oil daylights to the Gulf Coast, it can command world prices."
Even the surge in domestic natural gas production doesn't guarantee costs will remain low. The
government's Energy Information Administration forecasts that the United States will be producing more
natural gas than it uses by 2022, but energy companies and analysts widely say current prices - between
$2 and $3 per thousand cubic feet - are unsustainably low. The Obama administration is considering allowing more
companies to liquefy and export natural gas, effectively putting the fossil fuel on a world marketplace for the first time and almost
inevitably sending domestic prices up. Creating new jobs Both Obama and Romney have touted increased energy development as a
way to rev up the U.S. economy and create jobs. Daniel Ahn, chief commodity economist at Citi, predicts that new U.S. oil and gas
production could add between $200 billion and $300 billion in revenue, stimulate many hundreds of billions more in economic
activity and create 2 million to 3.5 million new jobs. The surge in drilling in North Dakota, Ohio and south Texas has been made
possible by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that free natural gas and oil from dense rock formations. The
crude extracted from the Bakken formation in North Dakota, the Eagle Ford shale in Texas and other unconventional oil plays has
enabled the U.S. to reverse a nearly four-decade-long decline in domestic production. "By opening the door to vast resources of
unconventional liquids, and, of course, natural gas too, the industry has radically reshaped the trajectory of U.S. oil production," said
Raymond James analysts in a report that was the foundation for much of Romney's proposal. Citigroup forecasts that by 2020, the
United States will be producing 15 million barrels per day of liquid fuels, up from 5.6 million barrels per day last year. Raymond
James predicts net oil imports to essentially reach zero by 2020, based on more biofuel, declines in demand and boosted domestic
crude production. But not everyone's convinced. Even under the most bullish forecasts, the United States' thirst for energy eclipses
what the country is able to produce. The government's Energy Information Administration - which has at times been criticized as too
optimistic - projects that while U.S. crude production will climb for much of the next decade, it will peak at 6.7 million barrels per
day in 2020. By 2035, according to the EIA, the United States will be producing just 6 million barrels per day and importing 36
percent of the oil it consumes. Declining plays Other energy analysts say the optimistic forecasts ignore the rapid decline rates from
hydraulically fractured wells. "You almost always find the biggest and best stuff in the beginning. The longer you are in the basin, the
smaller the fields and the more expensive it gets to produce," said Art Berman, a Sugar Land energy consultant. "People are
forgetting that." Wells in the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations generally produce a lot of oil initially, but that starts dropping fast.
Berman, oft-criticized by the industry, and Hughes estimate decline rates of about 40 percent - which means just keeping production
flat requires drilling hundreds of new wells each year. Berman suggests that the question isn't whether the U.S. has enough oil to
become energy independent, but at what price. "It's tremendous we are producing more oil than we have in a
couple years," Berman said. "At the same time, we have to be realistic about what the costs are to do this
and how sustainable it is." Even under the most bullish forecasts, the United States' thirst for energy eclipses what the country
is able to produce. According to the EIA, the United States consumed 18.8 million barrels per day of refined petroleum products and
biofuels in 2011 - about 22 percent of world consumption. Much of that goes to fuel the nation's cars and trucks. Even with new
Obama administration fuel economy standards that would nearly double average gas mileage for passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles
per gallon by 2025, the transportation sector drives U.S. demand for oil. "Our vulnerability stems primarily from the fact
that we consume a lot of oil, not from the fact that we consume a lot of imported oil," Levi said.

Turn: High oil prices hurts US econ and growth
Blackwell 6/23 (Ken, Fellow of The National Academy of Public Administration and the Family Research Council, writer for
Huffington Post, Iraq Crisis, : Latest sign of US vulnerability to Oil Prices Spikes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-
blackwell/iraq-oil-price_b_5521892.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business 6/23/14)
The ongoing conflict in Iraq has serious implications for vital U.S. interests, the extent of which are difficult to
decipher at this early stage. Who ends up holding the keys to power within Iraqi territory? What
happens to the regional balance of power? How will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons -- and our
efforts to stop them -- be affected? One immediate effect of the turmoil, however, is painfully obvious: oil
prices have already hit a nine-month high. Brent crude reached $115 per barrel this week, a level our
country has not experienced since the height of U.S. tensions with Syria in September 2013. As a
result, a number of market analysts now expect U.S. gasoline prices to surpass their highest levels
for the month of June since 2008, rising from today's level of $3.68 per gallon to as much as $3.80
per gallon by the end of the month. If that were not troubling enough, Iraq's vital importance to the global oil
market could mean that today's rising prices may be just the beginning. Markets are already reeling from a series
of oil production outages in countries across the globe -- from Nigeria, Libya, and South Sudan to Iraq, Iran, and
Syria. Any additional loss of supplies from Iraq could stress the system to its limit and send oil prices
to levels that many of America's political leaders had hoped were a thing of the past. A recent
analysis by the Commission on Energy and Geopolitics, a group of former high-ranking military and
civilian government officials, found that a partial disruption to Iraq's oil supplies -- 1 mbd, or about a
third of Iraq's current production -- would cause oil prices to rise by more than $30 per barrel,
amounting to an approximate 50 cent per gallon increase at the pump for American consumers.
With the United States consuming close to 20 million barrels of oil per day, it doesn't take a trained economist to
understand that we would take a serious economic hit. At today's oil price levels, the average U.S. family is already
spending more than twice as much on gasoline as they were a decade ago -- a total of $2,700 per household
in 2012 compared to $1,200 in 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. An oil price spike of
the magnitude described by the Commission andother analysts would send spending on oil to record levels and
have an immediate, damaging impact on economic growth. We need to take back control of our economic
fate. We shouldn't accept as fact the idea that our overall prosperity and economic well-being are
held hostage to the kinds of violence, extremism, corruption, and mismanagement that are
endemic to the global oil market. We can do better, and we have options. Part of the answer can be
found in rising domestic oil production. The U.S. oil boom has provided significant benefits,
including an improved balance of trade and hundreds of thousands of new American jobs. That
should be embraced and supported. However, no matter how much we produce at home, oil will be priced in
a global market, meaning that geopolitical events beyond our control will still have the ability to send our economy
into a tailspin. Energy security starts and ends with oil consumption, and that means we have to do
something about transportation. About 70 percent of the oil America consumes is used in the
transportation sector, and 92 percent of all fuel used to power that sector is derived from oil.
Reducing oil dependence in the transportation sector is a tremendous opportunity to de-link the
American economy from the global oil market and the various events -- like the crisis in Iraq -- that
impact that market. The solutions have already begun to be implemented. More than 200,000
electric vehicles and 140,000 vehicles powered by natural gas are currently on America's roadways.
Simply converting the nation's fleet of heavy-duty, long-haul trucks to natural gas would save 2
million barrels of oil every day. The widespread adoption of passenger vehicles powered by
electricity would have an even greater impact, and such vehicles are selling at a crisp pace and
earning rave consumer reviews. Still, more must be done to accelerate this progress. The country
needs to increase its investment in oil-displacement transportation technologies so that we can
more quickly sever our ties to the global oil market and shield our economy from its volatility. Doing
so will also benefit our national security, as decreasing our economic exposure to oil price spikes
will provide foreign and defense policymakers with expanded options. Time and time again, we've
learned the lesson that oil dependence makes us vulnerable to flare-ups in the Middle East and
around the globe. Of all the serious fallout that will stem from the current crisis in Iraq, all we can predict with
confidence is that any resultant high oil prices will harm our economy at a time when our families and businesses
can hardly afford another setback. Let this latest lesson be the one that motivates us to embrace the
solutions that are now at our fingertips.
High oil prices hurt various global economies
Times of India 6/23 (Times of India, How a further spike in crude oil prices would influence Indias
econ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-23/news/50798697_1_crude-prices-oil-
prices-second-largest-oil-exporter 6/23)
The rising crude oil prices pose a big risk to the Indian economy. If the oil prices continue to spiral up. Iraq, the
second-largest oil exporter in the 12-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC) bloc after Saudi
Arabia, is hit badly by the ongoing sectarian war. The country accounts for nearly 3 per cent of the global oil supply
and exports around 2.5 million barrels a day. The Brent crude has moved above $115 per barrel on concerns that
the ongoing violence in Iraq would hurt supplies. India, one of the largest importers of energy, may end up being
at the receiving end due to high crude oil prices. India's net energy imports in FY14 were 6.3 per cent of its GDP.
"India, which imports 75 per cent of its oil, is more vulnerable to rising oil prices, with a US$10/barrel rise likely to
shave 0.5 per cent off its GDP," says a latest Barclays report. China imports 60 per cent of its oil and every $10 rise
in oil prices may lower its GDP by 0.2 per cent, the report says. According to Bank of America-Merrill Lynch report,
$10/barrel swings about $8 billion on the current account deficit (0.4 per cent of GDP). "We estimate that
$125+/barrel could further pull import cover down to six months from the current eight months in two years,
especially if portfolio flows switch away from oil importers like India at the same time," the report said. Analysts
warn that a continuous rise in price will be negative for India's balance sheet. "We feel that a progressive
budget as well as other reform initiatives will likely lead to continued out performance of Indian indices
versus emerging market peers. However, if there is a continued rise in crude price, it will be a negative from the
CAD, rupee and inflation perspective," said Dipen Shah, Head- Private Client Group Research, Kotak Securities.
Rising crude prices and depreciating rupee are indeed major concerns for our markets. In the past we have
observed that these two were the key reasons for widening the gap of current account deficit says Ajit Mishra, AVP
- Equity Retail Research, Religare Securities. "However, recently RBI stated that India is having enough
foreign exchange reserves to face any such global challenges, but we cannot ignore the fact that rising crude
prices would also add fuel to Inflation. Now, it's important to see how effectively the Indian government would
take the measures to offset the probable impact, will direct the next move of markets," he said.


2ACRussia DA
US presence in the Arctic and cooperation is inevitableRussian presence now means
nothing to policymakersempirical examples of conflict havent escalated the Arctic
Baldor, 13 Reporter for the Associated Press (Lolita C., Hagel says
nations must avoid conflict in Arctic, Contra Costa Times, November 22,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_24577546/walker-seeks-middle-
path-gop-presidential-buzz)//VIVIENNE
HALIFAX, Nova ScotiaThe U.S. will assert its sovereignty in the
Arctic, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Friday, even as Russia,
China and other nations stake claims and expand their use of the icy
waters for military exercises and transit. Speaking at a security
forum, Hagel said energy exploration in the largely untapped Arctic region
could heighten international tensions, but that countries must work
together to avoid conflict, "We will remain prepared to detect, deter,
prevent and defeat threats to our homeland and we will continue to exercise
U.S. sovereignty in and around Alaska," Hagel said, as he unveiled the
Pentagon's new Arctic strategy. With a nod to the increased interest in the
Arctic's lucrative oil and gas deposits, he added: "Throughout human
history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after
time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict. We cannot erase this
history. But we can assure that history does not repeat itself in the Arctic."
Hagel's comments came as the military finalized plans to expand
operations in the vast waters of the Arctic, where melting ice caps are
opening sea lanes and giving nations like Russia greater access to the oil
and gas deposits. But it will take money and resources for the U.S. to fill the
wide gaps in satellite and communications coverage, add deep-water ports
and buy more ships that can withstand the frigid waters or break through
the ice. Hagel acknowledged the budget pressures, but he said the U.S.
must map out its long-range plans despite the ongoing "deep and abrupt"
spending cuts. There are no cost or budget estimates yet. But by the end of
this year, the Navy will complete plans that lay out what the U.S. needs to
do to increase communications, harden ships and negotiate international
agreements so that nations will be able to track traffic in the Arctic and
conduct search-and-rescue missions.
Link is non unique US companies oil drilling in Arctic waters
Korsunskaya, 11 [Darya Korsunskaya, Reuters, Exxon, Rosneft strike deal to drill in Russian Arctic,
The Calgary Herald, August 31, 2011, Lexis, Evan]
U.S. oil company Exxon and state-owned Russian peer Rosneft are to develop oil and gas reserves in the
Russian Arctic jointly, opening up one of the last unconquered drilling frontiers to the global industry. Tuesday's deal ended
any hope British group BP had of reviving a pact with Rosneft to develop the same Arctic territory. That deal was blocked in May by
the billionaire partners in BP's existing Russian venture. "New horizons are opening up. One of the world's leading companies,
ExxonMobil, is starting to work on Russia's strategic shelf and deepwater continental shelf," said Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Putin attended the signing of the deal in the Black Sea resort of Sochi by Exxon chief executive Rex
Tillerson and Russia's top energy official, Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Under the deal, Exxon and Rosneft will invest $3.2
billion developing East Prinovozemelsky Blocks 1, 2, and 3 in the Arctic Kara Sea and the Tuapse licensing block in the Black Sea.
Rosneft will own 66.7 per cent and Exxon 33.3 per cent of a joint venture to develop the blocks, which
Exxon said were "among the most promising and least explored offshore areas globally, with high
potential for liquids and gas." Rosneft said the Kara Sea blocks contained an estimated 36 billion barrels of recoverable oil
resources. Total resources were estimated at 110 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The Black Sea block was estimated to hold nine
billion barrels of oil reserves. First drilling was planned to start in 2015, with Exxon shouldering most of the costs. "The Russians
very quickly had a plan B and plan B was Exxon," said Fadel Gheit, energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co, referring to the quick
switch to Exxon from BP. The deal marked a turnaround for Exxon in Russia. The U.S. oil giant was widely thought to be on the
verge of taking over Yukos, then Russia's largest oil firm, before its head Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested in 2003. Khodorkovsky
was subsequently jailed for fraud and tax evasion and Yukos's prime assets bought at bankruptcy auctions by Rosneft, now Russia's
industry leader and with enough reserves to cover 27 years of production. "Politically, it is significant that this is an
American company," said Clifford Kupchan, a Russia-watcher at the Eurasia Group. "Three years ago, American
companies were being excluded. Here, an American company is at the centre of a flagship announcement."
The deal also demonstrated that the "reset" in relations sought by President Barack Obama was working
to reduce the significant political risk for U.S. business of investing in Russia, analysts said. Uncertainty
persists over whether Putin or President Dmitry Medvedev will seek the presidency next March. Putin can now show off the deal as a
success if he decides to run. The transaction also marks a comeback for Sechin, who was ousted as Rosneft chairman earlier this year
in a purge of state company boards ordered by Medvedev. Sechin estimated total investment in the project at $200-$300 billion.
Rosneft will be offered an equity interest in Exxon exploration projects in North America, including deepwater Gulf of Mexico and
fields in Texas, as well as in other countries. Thus, the deal fulfils the demand for reciprocity so often made by Putin, helping
Rosneft, which already works with Exxon offshore Russia's Sakhalin island, toward its long-term goal of being a global energy major.
Exxon's coup deals a setback to other international oil majors, after Royal Dutch Shell was named earlier by Putin as a possible
partner for Rosneft in the Arctic. Rosneft shares closed up 1.4 per cent in Moscow. Exxon stock traded one per cent weaker.
Cooperation despite tensions disproves the DA
Yershov, 14 [Vadim, RBTH News, Getting to the heart of the original frozen conflict,
http://rbth.com/business/2014/04/23/getting_to_the_heart_of_the_original_frozen_conflict_36147.h
tml, 4-23-2014, Evan]
Amid the ongoing tensions between Russia and Western countries over developments in Ukraine, it
should come as no surprise that news of an expedition by the Arctic Research and Design Center for
Continental Shelf Development has gone underreported. The expedition is worth noting, however, not
least because the Arctic Research Center is a joint project of Russias oil giant Rosneft and U.S. firm
ExxonMobil. The willingness of the center to go ahead with the expedition indicates that the companies
continue to maintain business ties despite political tensions, and they intend to increase their cooperation
in a strategically important area the Arctic. According to U.S. Geological Survey estimates, as much as
13 percent of the worlds undiscovered oil reserves and up to 30 percent of undiscovered gas reserves are
located in the Arctic. Half of these reserves are located in the Russian Arctic sector. Given these statistics,
its not shocking that, so far, political tensions between Moscow and Washington have not disrupted
cooperation between energy companies in this region.
Perception links non uniquetons of US actions already make them perceive the US as a
threat
Magen, 13 [Zvi Magen, Senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, United
StatesRussian Friction: Implications for the Middle East, 8-13-2013,
http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=5421, Evan]
On the global level, which plays a major role on the superpowers' agenda, efforts at positive dialogue
continued until recently, though hindered by an accumulation of crises. Russia has long felt pressure from
NATO along its borders and in its areas of interest in the former Soviet Union, including NATO eastward
expansion, which from Russias point of view amounts to existential harm. The dispute on future strategic
arms control agreements remains unresolved, along with the American trend toward deployment of a
ballistic missile defense system (BMD) despite vigorous objections from Russia, which sees this as a
security threat. In addition, Russia perceives the new American deployment in Asia and the Pacific Ocean
(the pivot to Asia) as directed against Russia a large scale military exercise conducted recently in
eastern Russia was intended to send the US a clear message in this regard. Furthermore, the Russians
claim that the Americans are engaging in subversive activity in countries of the former Soviet Union (the
color revolutions), and in Russia itself (encouragement of protests), and there are other items on the
crisis list.
The plan doesnt cause conflict with Russia
Griggs, 11Reporter for Popular Mechanics (Mary Beth, Who Owns the
North Pole?, Popular Mechanics, June 14,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/who-
owns-the-north-pole)//VIVIENNE
That hasnt stopped the United States from preparing for the fight over the
future of the Arctic. The State Department heads up the Extended
Continental Shelf Task Force, which coordinates with 12 other government
agencies to define the Extended Continental Shelf for the United States.
Norway and Russia have already put their extended shelf claims before the
Commission, with particular aggressiveness on Russias part. The country
first put a claim to the North Pole in 2001, but the commission decided that
it needed more evidence. So the Russians completed more missions to the
underwater Lomonosov Ridge over the next six years. In 2007, they tried to
drive home the point: They planted a Russian flag on the seafloor at the
North Pole. It was quite the publicity stunt, Mayer says. Though it had no
legal bearing, the flag incident ignited interest in the U.S. Extended
Continental Shelf Project. When he and his team were jetting off from
Bostons Logan airport on their first expedition post-flag, a woman
approached him who wanted to know if he was going to protect the Arctic
from the Russians. I said, Yes, maam, Mayer says. Arctic mapping
isnt quite a Cold War conflict. Researchers from the different
countries have an amicable relationship, Mayer says; the United States and
Canada go on joint missions to gather data (despite the fact that the two
countries have multiple maritime border disputes). I think we all realize
that its so hard to map up there, Mayer says. They all know the difficulty
of mapping the areas needed before the ice begins to close back in on the
ships. So the attitude remains remarkably cordial for what is essentially a
territorial dispute, and thats a good thing. These nations . . . are not
sending armies, Mayer says. Theyre sending mappers.
Russian Arctic militarization spills over lack of US Arctic presence causes global Russian
expansionism
SSI, 11 Strategic Studies Institute Monograph RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC Stephen J. Blank Editor July
2011 http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf

The Arctic has reemerged as a strategic area where vital U.S. interests are at stake. The geopolitical and
geo-economic importance of the Arctic region is immense, as its mineral wealth is likely to turn the region
into a booming economic frontier in the 21st century. The Arctic coasts and continental shelf are estimated to hold large
deposits of oil, natural gas, methane hydrate (natural gas) clusters, and large quantities of valuable minerals. With the shrinking of
the polar ice cap, navigation through the Northwest Passage along the northern coast of North America may become increasingly
pos- sible with the help of icebreakers. Similarly, Russia is seeking to make the Northern Sea Route along the northern coast of
Eurasia navigable for considerably longer periods during the year and is listing it as part of its national boundaries in the Kremlins
new Arc- tic strategy. Passage through these shorter routes will significantly cut the time and costs of shipping.
(See Map 1-1.) In recent years, Russia has been particularly active in the Arctic, aggressively advancing its
inter- ests and claims by using international law and also establishing a comprehensive presence in the Arctic,
including the projection of military might into the re- gion. Despite the Arctics strategic location and vast re- sources,
the United States has largely ignored this vi- tal region. In the 11th hour of the Bush administration, however, the White House
issued a new Arctic policy, but follow-through was left to the Obama administra- tion, which has been slow to move on the issue.
The United States needs to implement a comprehensive policy for the Arctic, including diplomatic, naval,
military, and economic policy components. The United States needs to swiftly map U.S. territorial claims to determine
their extent and to defend against claims by other countries. Thus exploiting the rich hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic will
continue to remain relevant as China and India continue on courses of growth and global economies rebound. These resources
have the potential to significantly enhance the economy and the energy security of North America and the
world, and reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. THE ARCTICS VAST UNTAPPED RESOURCES The U.S. Geological
Survey estimates that the Arc- tic might hold as much as 90 billion barrels of oil13 percent of the worlds undiscovered oil
reservesand 47.3 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of natural gas30 per- cent of the world's undiscovered natural gas. At cur-rent
consumption rates, assuming a 50 percent utiliza- tion rate of reserves, this is enough oil to meet global
demand for 1.4 years and U.S. demand for 6 years. Arctic natural gas reserves may equal Russias proven reserves, the worlds
largest.1 (See Table 1-1.)
That triggers nuclear war
Blank 2009 Stephen J. Blank, strategic Studies Institute's expert on the Soviet bloc and the post-Soviet world since 1989;
former Associate Professor of Soviet Studies at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force
Base; B.A. in History from the University of Pennsylvania, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago, March
2009. RUSSIA AND ARMS CONTROL: ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat
of retaliation.168 Given a multipolar world structure with little ideological rivalry among major powers, it is unlikely that they will go
to war with each other. Rather, like Russia, they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their own sphere of
influence and use nuclear instruments towards that end. However, wars may well break out between major powers
and weaker peripheral states or between peripheral and semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence
of the means of crisis prevention, the visible absence of crisis management mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that
asymmetric wars might give them the victory or respite they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of periphery and semiperiphery
have far more opportunities for political maneuvering. Since war remains a political option, these states may find it
convenient to exercise their military power as a means for achieving political objectives. Thus international
crises may increase in number. This has two important implications for the use of WMD. First, they may be used
deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in Russias case, to achieve intra-war escalation controlauthor170) to the
striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances 67 in military capabilities are significant; and second,
crises increase the possibilities of inadvertent or accidental wars involving WMD.171 Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that
are expanding their nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon world politics if they chose to
defy the prevailing consensus and use their weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought,
but as offensive weapons to threaten other states and deter nuclear powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative
security and strengthened international military-political norms of action, or for individual national egotism will critically affect
world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if they drift away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security], the
consequences could be profound. At the very least, the effective functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order, such as the
special responsibility of the great powers in the management of the interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression,
under the aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired. Armed with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose
substantial costs in blood or money on an intervening force or the populaces of the nations marshaling that force, the newly
empowered tier could bring an end to collective security operations, undermine the credibility of alliance
commitments by the great powers, [undermine guarantees of extended deterrence by them to threatened
nations and states] extend alliances of their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on their neighbors
or their own people.172
1ar ext. Energy Prices
Non-uniqueRussias developing in the Arctic and its key to the
oil sector
Mitchell 14, MA candidate in public policy, Russias Territorial Ambition
and Increased Military Presence in the Arctic, Foreign Policy Journal,
6/30/14, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/23/russias-
territorial-ambition-and-increased-military-presence-in-the-arctic/)
As the U.S. and E.U. keep a very close eye on the situation with Russia and
Ukraine, Russia is also increasing its presence and influence elsewhere: the
Arctica melting region that is opening up prime shipping lanes and real
estate with an estimated $1 trillion in hydrocarbons.[1] With the opening of
two major shipping routes, the North Sea route and the Northwest Passage,
the potential for economic competition is fierce, especially among the eight
members of the Arctic council: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Iceland,
Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the United States.[2] President Putin made
statements this week concerning Russias national interests in the Arctic
region: chiefly, militarization and the preparation of support elements for
commercial shipping routes.[3] The Russian President called for full
government funding for socio-economic development from 2017-2020,
including a system of Russian naval bases that would be home to ships and
submarines allocated specifically for the defense of national interests that
involve the protection of Russian oil and gas facilities in the Arctic.[4]
Russia is also attempting to accelerate the construction of more icebreakers
to take part in its Arctic strategy.[5] The Russian Federation recently staked
a territorial claim in the Sea of Okhotsk for 52,000 square kilometers,[6]
and is currently preparing an Arctic water claim for 1.2 million square
kilometers.[7] The energy giant owns 43 of the approximate 60
hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic Circle.[8] With Russian energy
companies already developing hydrocarbon deposits and expanding border
patrols on its Arctic sea shelf (in place by July 1, 2014),[9] Putin is actively
pursuing a strong approach to the Arctic region. Russian oil fields, which
significantly contribute to the countrys revenue, are in declineforcing
Russian oil companies to actively explore the Arctic region.[10] While the
U.S. Defense Secretary called for a peaceful and stable Arctic region with
international cooperation, the Arctic has created increased militarization
efforts, particularly by Russia.

1ar ext. US Presence Good
US Arctic hegemony solves war --- specifically key to prevent Arctic war
Murray 12 Professor of Political Science @ Alberta
Robert, Arctic politics in the emerging multipolar system: challenges and consequences, The Polar
Journal, 2.1

It is no overstatement to say that the end of the Cold War was one of the most important events in recent world history. Scholars
from many areas of study have used the fall of the Soviet Union as a starting point to explain shifts in security,
globalization, humanitarianism and institutional integration, all of which played important roles in world affairs in
the immediate post-Cold War era. Since 1991, explanatory models for international and global politics have
broadened their scope to include variables such as individual preferences, capitalist oppression,
ideational construction, environmentalism, gender and sexual politics, and discursive power to levels
previously unforeseen throughout the Cold War years. As such, we now see the world as a far more complex and
nefarious arena in which power and dominance are exercised each day. At the systemic level, the fall of the Soviet Union equated to
nothing short of a monumental shift in the way states would make foreign and defence strategy. For 50 years, the bipolar system was
dominated by two superpowers constantly competing and building arms in an effort to balance one another. The end of the Cold
War signalled a major shift in systemic arrangement, as the system went from being bipolar to the world entering what was often
referred to as the unipolar moment.1 The era of unipolarity and American hegemony in the international system has
been marked by stability in an interstate sense, and the realignment of various spheres of influence in the wake of the Soviet
Unions demise. Far from being just a theoretical notion, the unipolar moment has also provided states with
an environment in which to pursue their national self-interest where the likelihood of conflict is
decreased and great power security competition has been minimized.2 As such, new areas of foreign affairs and
defence strategy have become far more important than they could have been throughout the bipolar con- strained Cold War years.
One of the most notable examples in this regard has been the increased desire for territorial protection
and extension in the Arctic region. In an era of state preoccupation with humanitarianism, terrorism and economic reces-
sion, it is being suggested by some observers that the Arctic has become the primary stage through which states,
both great and minor in power, can pursue their self-interest in a way that combines soft power cooperation through bodies of
gov- ernance with hard power and military build-up. As things presently stand, there are a variety of nations and institutions all
seek- ing to claim governing authority over different parts of the circumpolar region. Nations making claims to parts of the Arctic
Ocean or other northern waters include Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway, Iceland and Denmark/Greenland. On the
institutional side, Arctic governance has been debated and defined by bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Arctic Council.3 To date, no clear resolution to
competing claims is in sight, and in some cases the situation is on the verge of becoming far more competitive
as nations such as Russia have resorted to asserting possible military solutions to contested Arctic issues
to bolster their declarations. It is important to note the increased levels of interest over Arctic relations between states, but,
on this point, little attention has been given to the influence of the international system over this situation. If the unipolar moment
has been defined as an era of relative stability and diplomatic coexistence, and tensions in the Arctic are already on the rise, what is
to happen when the multipolar system finally emerges in the near future? Since 2005, the status of the United States as systemic
hegemon has been in decline due to economic, military and political strains placed on American power capabilities throughout the
Bush era and beyond. This decrease in relative power preponderance has been even further exacerbated by the economic recession
starting in 2008 and the nations inability to stabilize its markets. As such, the predictions of those like Christopher Layne and John
Mearsheimer are on the verge of coming to fruition, in that the unipolar moment is about to end.4 New great powers are ris- ing, the
United States is no longer able to prevent these nations from balancing their power, and the once obvious prevalence of American
power is far murkier than it was a decade ago. As the multipolar era becomes increasingly likely, one must ponder the effects this
shift might have on state foreign and defence strategy- making, especially towards the Arctic region. To date, though its relative
power position has declined significantly in recent years, the United States remains the hegemon of the international
system, but it is contended here that such status is soon to evaporate. In this context, this article argues that the emergence of
a multipolar systemic arrangement is very likely to increase security competition in the system as a whole, and
the Arctic will be at the epicentre of such conflict. To lend support to this hypothesis, an examination of the impending shift
from unipolarity to multipolarity will be made, as will an account of current security dynamics in the circumpolar region. The article
concludes with a stark warning that without some kind of real action towards settling competing Arctic claims, it will be
left to states to secure their own territorial assertions through hard power and forceful means. The system is
unipolar ... for now In order to evaluate the polarity of the international system in a given historical period, one must identify the
hierarchy of power in terms of the number of super or great powers dominating international outcomes. Counting great or super
powers can be somewhat difficult in contemporary international relations, as scholars have begun to expand the notions of power
and capabilities, but the clearest guideline for being able to identify great powers is through determining capabilities. The rea- son it
is essential to understand the great powers in international relations is that they, above all other states, institutions, non-state actors
and ideational forces, are responsible for the daily conduct of behaviour in the international system, and they have been historically
accountable for substantial alterations to power distribution since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. Measuring capabilities allows
observers to explain which states are most likely to affect the behaviour of other states, to use force or violence; also, the number of
great powers in a given era determines how stable or unstable the international system will be. Identifying great powers is literally
done by evaluating each states capabilities in essential areas of political life that can maximize security or extend ones power. When
discussing the distribution of power across states, there is a clear hierarchy of capabilities among states that leads observers to
classify these utility maximizing, rational actors as super, great, major, middle or minor powers in the international system. In terms
of actual measurement, Kenneth Waltz argues: Their rank depends on how they score on all of the following items: size of
population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence.5 Once
these various factors are taken into account, one can clearly determine the given polarity of the system at a given moment in history.
Why is polarity important? According to structural realist theory, the number of great powers in the system determines how
conflictual, violent or stable interna- tional politics will be. While the overall structure of the system remains anarchic, meaning a
clear absence of a governing authority above states that can control their actions, there can be consequential variations within the
anarchic structure that can impact how states will evaluate their foreign and defence policy strategies and affect their overall
behaviour. Waltz claims that consequential variations in number are changes of number that lead to different expectations about
the effect of structure on units.6 There are three types of structure within the system that have been determined throughout the
history of the modern state system unipolarity, bipolar- ity and multipolarity. The consequential variations described by Waltz
take place when great powers either rise or fall, and induce shifts from one type of polarity to another. The rise and fall of great
powers is perhaps the most important explanatory aspect of international politics because it is these states that inherently possess
some offensive military capability, which gives them the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other.7 Though the primary
motivation for all states is secu- rity maximization, great powers become the most important actors because while they are capable of
defending themselves, they also have the ability to extend their sphere of influence in offensive posturing. It is in this context that
the polarity of the system becomes even more vital, in that the more great powers there are, the greater likelihood of
violence and conflict there is. In each systemic arrangement, the abilities of great powers to pursue their ultimate goal, which is
hegemony, dic- tates whether foreign and defence policy strategies will be overtly defensive or potentially offensive. All states are
like-units, in that they all strive for survival by making rational calculations about how to best pursue their interests in an anarchic
system. Of course, strategies of states will differ greatly based on the distribution of power, meaning that great
powers are able to pursue their goals more freely than minor powers because they can operate without allies or institutions in
achieving their goals. Lesser powers, however, typically try to increase their power position in world affairs through various alliance
blocs and institutional binding. In doing so, it is hoped that middle and minor powers are able to guarantee their survival by align-
ing themselves with powers larger than themselves. Given the arrangement of the system, the number of alliances or blocs of power
will differ, which also contributes to just how stable or violent the system will be. Conflict, or the possibility of it, is a constant
problem in international relations due to the anarchic structure of the international system. Anarchy, by its definition, denotes a lack
of overarching authority and thus states, especially the most powerful states, are able to behave as they would like, without any
external body capable of controlling their actions. Robert Art and Robert Jervis aptly define anarchy by argu- ing: States can make
commitments and treaties, but no sovereign power ensures compliance and punished deviation. This the absence of a supreme
power is what is meant by the anarchic environment of international politics.8 In anarchy, just as in the state of nature or war
prior to the establishment of civilized human society, there is no harmony and actors are left to their own inclinations to pursue their
self-interest. The key elements of anarchy that precipitate conflict are the con- stant distrust of others motives, the assumption that
other actors may not be as rational as oneself, and, as Waltz notes, a state will use force to attain its goals if, after assessing the
prospects for success, it values those goals more than it values the pleasures of peace.9 The constant tensions between states, and
the ability of great powers to more freely pursue their national interests, contributes to a system where security and survival are at a
premium, and the polarity of the system matters to all states. By definition, bipolar systems are the most stable. According to
Mearsheimer, this assumption is made based on three criteria: First, the number of conflict dyads is fewer, leaving fewer possibilities
for war. Sec- ond, deterrence is easier, because imbalances of power are fewer and more easily averted. Third, the prospects for
deterrence are greater because miscalculations of rela- tive power and opponents resolve are fewer and less likely.10 By contrast,
multipolar systems have a far greater probability of conflict, tension and distrust among states. War is far more likely in multipolar
systems because major power dyads are more numerous, each posing the potential for conflict. Conflict could also erupt across
dyads involving major and minor powers. Dyads between minor powers could also lead to war [...]. Wars in a multipolar world
involving just minor powers or only one major power are not likely to be as devastating as a conflict between two major powers.
However, local wars tend to widen and escalate. Hence there is always a chance that a small war will trigger a general conflict.11
While bipolarity is considered to be the most stable arrangement, and multipolarity the least stable, there is also the rare time when
the system is unipolar in character. Put simply, unipolarity occurs when there is such a preponderance of power by one state that
others are incapable of balancing against it. According to William Wohl- forth, unipolarity is also a stable and peaceful arrangement:
unipolarity favors the absence of war among the great powers and comparatively low levels of competition for prestige or security for
two reasons: the leading states power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics, and it reduces the
salience and stakes of balance-of-power politics among the major states.12 The status of the hegemonic power in a unipolar
system allows for the expansion of its normative agenda, but also allows it to pacify international affairs because it
lacks both a hegemonic rival and the effects of balance of power politics.13 As such, unipolar systems can be stable,
depending on whom the hegemon is and what its vision for dominance might be. Since the end of World War II, only two types of
polarity have been seen. Between 1945 and 1991, the system was bipolar, in that there were only two super- powers dominating the
affairs of international politics. This bipolar arrangement was surprisingly stable and though smaller proxy wars erupted throughout
the years of the Cold War, the relations between the two dominant powers, namely the United States and the Soviet Union, never
came to a head. There are various explanations for why this was the case, but John Mearsheimer provides perhaps the most concise
and accurate explanations as he contends that the absence of war in Europe and beyond throughout the Cold War can be attributed
to three specific factors: the bipolar distribution of military power on the [European] Continent; the rough mili- tary equality
between the two states comprising the two poles in Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union; and the fact that each
superpower was armed with a large nuclear arsenal.14 At the conclusion of the Cold War, there was a clear and major shift in the
distribution of power in the system, which translated into the unipolar moment. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States
retained its superpower status and held a preponderance of power in virtually all areas of capabilities measurement. Christopher
Layne contends that American hegemony is contingent upon two factors: First, the United States enjoys a commanding preeminence
in both military and eco- nomic power. Second, since the Soviet Unions disappearance, no other great power has emerged to
challenge US preponderance. In this sense, US hegemony is the result of objective material conditions.15 Throughout the Clinton
and early years of the Bush administrations, the role of the United States as systemic hegemon was virtually unquestioned, and it
seemed as if American hegemony could last for a very long time. It was not until the latter years of the Bush administration that the
waning of American hegemony began to become apparent. One of the key reasons the system remains unipolar is that there has yet
to be a state that can balance against US power in either the hard or soft power senses. That said, the main reason for the decline in
American hegemony has been a costly set of irrational and ill-advised foreign policy decisions, combined with years of economic
overvaluation that eroded the hegemonic position of the worlds lone superpower.16 Both the intervention into Iraq, starting in
2003, and the fallout of the 2008 recession have served to substantially weaken the United States in both the hard and soft power
contexts, and thus it is clear that a multipolar system is on the horizon. As Layne notes, although a new geopolitical balance has yet
to emerge, there is considerable evidence that other states have been engaging in bal- ancing against the United States including
hard balancing.17 The emerging great powers, especially China and Russia, will have a profound impact on the
conduct of international relations in the years to come. Perhaps the most important area of security competition
that has gone under- scrutinized from a systemic standpoint is the increased level of interest in the Arctic.
Currently, the competing claims for the circumpolar region are mostly peaceful and focusing on diplomatic and legal battles, but
recent trends suggest that non-violent strategy may not continue. As the era of American hegemony comes to
an end, and a multipolar system begins to emerge, the impact on the Arctic region is likely to be profound due to
the militaristic nature of state security strategies, unpredictability and a potential retreat from
cooperation normally seen in multipolar structures. The Arctic in the unipolar moment One of the cornerstones
of Americas unipolar moment has been the remarkable decline in interstate conflict. Since the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991, the interna- tional system has not been on the verge of any major war, nor have great powers aggressively pursued
policies that would balance against American power in a way that would be taken seriously. According to many scholarly studies, the
world since the end of the Cold War has become far more secure in the interstate sense, and security and defence policies of states
are now preoccupied more with human- centric and intrastate variables than anything else. Though it is difficult to deny that the
world has become more stable at the systemic level, the role of hard power and military capabilities did not disappear with the Soviet
Union; instead, the use of militarism to achieve national goals in the unipolar moment greatly decreased as a direct result of the
values and grand strategy of the United States. The impact of a unipolar systemic arrangement on state behaviour is best
explained by the hegemonic stability theory.18 According to this theory, a unipolar structure is able to pacify the relations
of states because there is recognition of the hegemons ability to control or intervene in conflicts that may threaten its power, or the
order of the system. Wohlforth summarizes the basic precept of hegemonic stability theory by contending: The theory stipulates that
especially powerful states (hegemons) foster international orders that are stable until differential growth in power produces a
dissatisfied state with the capability to challenge the dominant state for leadership. The clearer and lar- ger the
concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the international order associated with it will be [...] If
the system is unipolar, the great power hierar- chy should be much more stable than any hierarchy lodged within a system of more
than one pole. Because unipolarity is based on a historically unprecedented concentra- tion of power in the United States, a
potentially important source of great power con- flict hegemonic rivalry will be missing.19 It is essential to note two things about
the status of the United States as systemic hegemon throughout the immediate post-Cold War era first, that its preponderance of
power in every area of capability measurement created a stable and less tense system in which states were able to interact; and
second, that the United States time as hegemon has fostered the growth of multilateral institutions and agreements rather than a
bullying type of unipolarity.20 From a systemic standpoint, it would seem that there is little reason to be concerned about military
aggression, arms racing and distrustful competition in the modern system, but one vital concern to note is that much of the unipolar
and hegeomic stability literature completely ignores the role of the Arctic in state security calculations. Throughout an era of
institutional binding, regional integra- tion, humanitarianism and soft power growth, the competition for the Arctic was following
much of the same pattern, with states preferring to make their claims in institutional or legal settings. Yet, as the unipolar
moment has started to decline, and multipolarity is on the horizon, the competition in the circumpolar region has
taken on a very different tone. Competing claims over Arctic territories, such as the Northwest Passage, Beaufort Sea and
other maritime boundaries, and the use of the region as a space for military exercises are by no means new and they have not come
to the forefront of the strategic security agendas of states since the post-9/11 era. Rather, throughout the Cold War, the Arctic was a
realm of constant supervision, not because either superpower wanted to develop the region, but more because of the mutual fear
each side had of offensive attacks being launched over the pole. Even throughout the unipolar moment, the Arctic has been a space
for sovereignty competition, but the nature of the competition had been mostly legal, institutional or soft power focused.21 Worth
noting as well is the very complex nature of reasons for state interests in the Arctic. Mark Nuttall effectively summarizes the
complexities of the high north as he claims: In the post-Cold War world [the Arctic] is seen as a natural scientific laboratory, under-
stood as a homeland for indigenous peoples, a place of sovereignty conflicts, an emerg- ing hydrocarbon province with which the
world is coming to think of as one of the last major frontiers for oil and gas, and a region of dramatic environmental change.22
Though the intricacies of Arctic competition are intriguing to note, it is how states are strategically asserting their claims that is of
particular importance. The start of Americas hegemonic decline has allowed states to revisit their approaches to
the Arctic as nations jockey for position by balancing or rivalling American preferences. As a result, the nature of Arctic
competition has incorporated both soft power and hard power elements. Further, the nature of militarism and hard power tension
has increased due to the recent spending and strategic shifts by many Arctic states in recent years, including Canada, Norway,
Sweden and Russia.23 The reasons for Americas decline are relatively unsurprising military overextension in Afghanistan and
Iraq; the lack of international support for American foreign policy objectives throughout the Bush era; the 2008 economic recession;
and the utter dis- trust by most states, including close American allies, of the United States political objectives.24 The system
remains unipolar, of course, but as stated above, the pre- ponderance of power capabilities has substantially
diminished, opening the door for others to balance and rival American power in the coming years. Coincidentally,
it has also been the revelations of science in recent years that have also promoted a faster pace for those states making Arctic claims.
The role of climate change and its impact over the Arctic has allowed for states to more freely move into the region and pursue
strategies previously unavailable.25 According to Lotta Numminen, climate change has recently affected states perceptions of the
possible economic opportunities in the Arctic in four ways: first, that the subsurface of the Arctic Ocean floor is assumed to contain
substantial oil and gas reserves, to which there will be increased access; second, that melting waters will provide new waters for
international fisheries; third, the increase in research strategies; and fourth, is the greater access to sea passages.26 One of the main
reasons states see the Arctic region as such a lucrative area is the potential for increasing their respec- tive economic and natural
resource capabilities. Previously, the northern ice caps prevented states from entering most of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding
areas, but as these environmental situations change, states have readily identified the high north as a priority in both their security
and economic strategies. Among the main reasons the Arctic has not been more readily seen as a poten- tial area for security
competition and conflict is the interpretation that the United States has little or no interest in the circumpolar region at all.
According to Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, American hegemony throughout the post-Cold War era was seen as passive,
stable and enduring because of the lack of counterpower being demonstrated in the system: Bounded by oceans to the east and west
and weak, friendly powers to the north and south, the United States is both less vulnerable than previous aspiring hegemons and
also less threatening to others. The main potential challengers to its unipolarity, mean- while China, Russia, Japan, and Germany
are in the opposite position. They can- not augment their military capabilities so as to balance the United States without
simultaneously becoming an immediate threat to their neighbors. Politics, even interna- tional politics, is local. Although American
power attracts a lot of attention globally, states are usually more concerned with their own neighborhoods than with the global
equilibrium. Were any of the potential challengers to make a serious run at the United States, regional balancing efforts would
almost certainly help contain them, as would the massive latent power capabilities of the United States, which could be mobilized as
necessary to head off an emerging threat.27 Almost completely omitted from such interpretations, however, are Americas north- ern
borders over Alaska and into the Arctic. Latitudinal thinking would seem to indicate that Brooks and Wohlforth are correct in terms
of Americas interests in many areas of the globe, but this ignores what has been happening at the top of the world in the high north.
It is not as if the United States has been ignorant of its own decline in power, especially regarding the Arctic. In 2009, the United
States issued National Security Presidential Directive 66 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 that deal exclusively with
American Arctic policy. According to these directives, the altera- tions to national policies of other states regarding the Arctic
compelled the United States to clearly outline the security and development strategies they would use to protect its Arctic interests.
Among the first, and most clear, elements of the direc- tives is the clear intention of the United States to defend their national
security interests. According to Article III, subsection B 1 of the directives: The United States has broad and fundamental national
security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to
safeguard these interests. These interests include suchmatters as missile defense and early warning; deployment ofsea and air
systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of
navigation and overflight.28 The contemporary changes to the international system as the era of American hegemony has
begun to wane, the effects of climate change and greater access, and the increasingly militaristic strategies of most every Arctic
state have led to a situa- tion where tensions are at an all time high, and that legal or institutional processes are unlikely
to resolve anything amicably. As the system continues its transition away from unipolarity, observers are left to ponder what
might come next after an era of relative interstate stability. Multipolarity and the circumpolar In their 2002 article on the nature of
United States primacy and the enduring aspects of American hegemony, Brooks and Wohlforth argue that the United States would
have to act as a benevolent hegemon in order to prevent counterbalancing and to be able to build effective regimes worldwide. They
argue: Magnanimity and restraint in the face of temptation are tenets of successful statecraft that have proved their worth from
classical Greece onward. Standing taller than lead- ing states of the past, the United States has unprecedented freedom to do as it
pleases. It can play the game for itself alone or for the system as a whole; it can focus on small returns today or larger ones
tomorrow. If the administration truly wants to be loved as well as feared, the policy answers are not hard to find.29 The problem
with such analyses of American hegemony is that the Bush administration chose to ignore utterly such warnings and, rather than
acting mag- nanimously, post-9/11 American foreign policy did precisely what it should not have. Pre-emption, coercion and
irrational interventions, combined with a major economic recession, all serve to explain why American hegemony began to decline
by 2005 in terms of both actual power levels and perceptions of legitimate hege- monic status.30 The clearest sign that American
exceptionalism has been decreasing is the aggressive and regional balancing dynamics taking place between states in the Arctic
region. Security strategy in the circumpolar region has altered dramatically since 2005, with more states showing interest, hard
power spending increasing, and legal pro- cesses being coupled by at times overtly offensive strategy.31 Russia, Canada and a
number of European states, especially Norway and Sweden, exemplify this line of argument about how sovereignty claims have
become focused on traditional inter- state arms racing and militarism while soft power components, like governance structures and
legal processes, continually evolve.32 As mentioned previously, even the United States has woken up to see that, as their hegemony
declines, other states have begun to balance against them in the Arctic, thus provoking the 2009 Presi- dential Directives. Even so,
Arctic interested nations have not yielded to American claims, nor has there been any evidence of Americas closest
allies backing down in the face of its Arctic assertions, most clearly evidenced by Canadas continued claims over the Northwest
Passage.33 In the international relations canon, most observers point to either India or China as emerging
great powers that are the most likely to counterbalance Ameri- can power. The 2004 American National Intelligence Council
report highlights this theory by stating: The likely emergence of China and India as new major global players similar to the rise of
Germany in the 19th century and the United States in the early 20th century will transform the geopolitical landscape, with
impacts potentially as dramatic as those of the previous two centuries. In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the
American Century, the early 21st century may be seen as the time when some in the developing world led by China and India came
into their own.34 Both China and India have recently expressed their interest in Arctic affairs, but no power is as close to
rivalling or challenging American power in hard power terms than Russia. This is especially true in the Arctic, as
Russias Arctic policies have made its intentions towards asserting its control over territory it deems to be
sovereign very clear. The role of the Arctic in Russian foreign policy cannot be understated. According to
Russias 2008 Arctic policy document, the region is seen as the epicentre of Russias military and socio-economic development. The
top two priorities for Russian Arctic interests are defined as follows: (a) In the sphere of socio-economic development the
expansion of the resource base of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation, in order to substantially satisfy Russias needs in
hydrocarbon resources, hydro-biological resources, and other types of strate- gic raw materials; (b) In the sphere of military security,
defense, and safekeeping of the state borders of the Russian Federation located in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation the
upkeep of a favorable operational regime in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federa- tion, including the maintenance of the required
combat potential of military groupings under the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military formations and
agencies in this region [...]35 In order to achieve these goals, the Russians have created a unique military brigade to be permanently
posted in the Arctic, have placed a Russian Federation flag on the Arctic Ocean seabed, have conducted various missile tests, have
sailed their nuclear submarines through contested waters and have openly challenged the abilities of other states to enforce their
own claims. In response to Russian offensive posturing and the inability of the United States to dissuade
security competition in the area, middle and minor powers have begun to use hard power as a means of
trying to enforce their sovereignty. Perhaps the best example here is Canada, whose military capabilities are extremely
weak, but strong rhetoric and a drastically increased level of high-north military spending since 2006 seems to indicate that the
Canadian government cannot rely on its American alliances to protect its interests, and that posturing by states like Russia or even
Denmark clearly threaten Canadas national interests. As Norway, Sweden and Denmark have begun to put an emphasis on hard
power capabilities to extend or defend northern claims, Canada has done the same. Worth noting as well in the Canadian context is
that, while great powers like Russia and the United States can easily defeat any middle or minor power, Canadas capabilities are
being either rivalled or surpassed by European states like Norway.36 Canadas realization of the evolving security and environmental
climate in the Arctic has compelled changes to its domestic and foreign security policies, each seeking to assert Canadian sovereignty
over areas of the Arctic, especially the Northwest Passage. One of the main components of now Prime Minister Harpers 200506
campaign was to bolster Arctic security resources, as many Canadians have identified the region as an essential part of Canadas
national security and identity.37 Rob Huebert argues: The Harper government has increasingly recognized the significance of
maintaining a strong presence in the Arctic and has vigorously begun to improve Canadas northern abilities [...] The Harper
government has also made a series of promises to consider- ably expand Canadas northern capability [...] If these promises are
implemented, Canada will have significantly improved its ability to control activity in its Arctic.38 In virtually any other area of the
world, Canadian national security cannot be divorced from the United States, which is a partial explanation for why Canada has
traditionally been considered a middle power since the end of World War II.39 Yet, since the start of American decline, the Canadian
government has recognized that its fate in the Arctic will be its own, and not intrinsically tied to the protection of the United States,
as the Americans have their own interests in the region and have shown a complete disregard for Canadian claims over the
Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea. As the world moves towards multipolarity, it has become increasingly obvious that the
Arctic region represents an area of increased security competition and a potentially conflictual region in
the future. Multipolar systems are the most unsta- ble, and history has shown these to produce military
conflict due to the natural effects brought by a larger number of self-interested powers vying for power
and security. Further, as new great powers begin to emerge, American strategic consid- erations will be spread so thin that they
will be unable to prevent against their even- tual loss of hegemony. The largest mistake being made at this time by
international security scholars and policymakers is their normal obsession with China, India and latitudinal
thinking. The next area of major war is not likely to be the Middle East, the Indian Ocean or the South
China Sea, due to traditional security balancing, deterrence and economic interests in each of these areas.
Multipolarity naturally brings the possibility of war. Mearsheimer contends that war is far more likely in multipolar systems for
three reasons: First, there are more opportunities for war, because there are more potential conflict dyads in a multipolar system.
Second, imbalances of power are more commonplace in a multipolar world, and thus great powers are more likely to have the
capability to win a war, making deterrence more difficult and war more likely. Third, the potential for miscalculation is greater in
multipolarity: states might think they have the capabil- ity to coerce or conquer another state when, in fact, they do not.40 Presently,
there is little reason to believe that tension and strategic posturing will lead to the outbreak of war in the near future. That said, as
Americas influence continues to wane, other states have shown their desire to take full advantage of the
United States inability to control northern affairs. If the United States does lose its hegemony, which many
commentators believe is inevitable, there will be at least four dyads in security calculations, with Russia, China and India entering
the fray, and two of those states have Arctic borders and a historical legacy of conflict. Power imbalance in the Arctic is already
apparent, with only Russia and the United States as great powers, while the other Arctic states are middle or minor powers with no
hope of preventing a great power from doing as it pleases. Lastly, miscalculation is evident in the present context, as
Sweden and Norway are both arming for possible Russian aggression, though Russia has shown little or no overtly aggressive
tendencies towards Nordic nations. Unipolarity was not going to last forever, but as it fades the probability of northern
conflict is ever increasing. The shift to hard power strategies, the effects of cli- mate change, and the decline of the United
States all speak to the fact that multipolarity can increase levels of tension and mistrust, thus altering the currently
stable nature of Arctic affairs. Efforts at Arctic governance through institutional binding or legal claims, as seen in the Arctic
Council and UNCLOS, are able at present to mitigate the ongoing and ever increasing security competition in the high
north, but as the system changes from unipolarity to multipolarity, constraining state behaviour becomes
increasingly difficult. As such, observers must be mindful of the systemic variables at play when explaining and forecasting
Arctic politics, as changes to the structure are very likely to translate into changes to state security strategies.



2ACAgenda Politics DA
Plan popular
Plan expands Arctic presencethats bipartisan
Bergh 12, The Arctic Policies of Canada and the United States: Domestic
Motives and International Context, SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security,
July 2012, books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1201.pdf)
US foreign policy on the Arctic region is set out in a presidential directive
from 9 January 2009.4 This document, the nal presidential directive
issued by US President George W. Bush, has largely been accepted by the
succeeding administration of President Barack Obama and is considered
largely biparti san. The US policy emphasizes issues of national security in
the changing and increasingly accessible Arctic region. Other issues
highlighted in the document include the environment, economic
development, governance, indigenous communities and science. Canadas
domestic policy for the Arctic, the Northern Strategy, was presented in
2009.5 It was published under the authority of the Minister of Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development (who is also Federal Interlocutor for
Mtis and Non-status Indians) and focuses on four priority areas: (a)
sovereignty; (b) social and economic development; (c) the environment;
and (d) improved governance for the people of the north. Canadas Arctic
foreign policy, presented in a statement in August 2010, focuses on the
international dimensions of the same four pillars, with an emphasis on
Arctic sovereignty.6 Security Both the Canadian and US policies place
heavy emphasis on sovereignty and security in the Arctic region. The US
directive states that the USA has broad and fundamental national security
interests in the Arctic region, while Canadas policy states that exercising
sovereignty over Canadas North . . . is our number one Arctic foreign policy
priority.7 Both countries acknowledge that increasing accessibility will lead
to more human activity in the region, with positive and negative
consequences. While the USA mentions concerns about terrorist activities
and maritime law enforcement, Canada identies concerns about organized
crime and trafficking of drugs and people. The USA names several military
challenges with implications for the Arctic, including missile defense and
early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift,
strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations;
and ensuring freedom of navigation and overight.8 Canadas foreign
policy strategy is less clear on the issue of military threats in the region.
While acknowledging that sovereignty is the foundation for realizing the
full potential of Canadas North, it also states that Canada does not
anticipate any military challenges in the Arctic.9 For both Canada and the
USA the issue of sovereignty is closely related to the prospect of new
resource discoveries in the Arctic region, and the extended continental shelf
and boundary issues that may affect their access to these resources. The
USA recognizes that several disputed areas in the Arctic may contain
resources critical to its energy security, including in the Beaufort Sea, where
Canada and the USA disagree on the maritime boundary. Canada regards
this and other disputes as discrete boundary issuesthat neither pose
defence challenges nor have an impact on its ability to cooperate with other
Arctic states. Another point of disagreement between Canada and the USA
is the Northwest Passage, which the USA views as an inter national strait
through which any ship has the right of free passage. Numerous US
Government agencies acknowledge the status of both the Northwest
Passage and the Northern Sea Route as having implications for strategic
straits anywhere in the world. Canada, in contrast, claims that it controls
all maritime navigation in its waters which, according to its own denition,
includes the Northwest Passage.10

Plan is popularGOP support
Marex, 5/19Maritime Executive (Marex, GAO: U.S. Can Do Better on
Arctic Policy, 2014, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/GAO-US-
Can-Do-Better-on-Arctic-Policy-2014-05-19)//VIVIENNE
The U.S. needs a better strategy to coordinate and prioritize its policies
related to the Arctic region, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study out today that was released by Reps. Rick Larsen (WA-
02), Tim Bishop (NY-01), John Garamendi (CA-03) and Senator Lisa
Murkowski (AK). The GAO study focused on U.S. participation in the Arctic
Council, a voluntary body started in 1996 that includes the eight Arctic
nationsCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and
the U.S., as well as indigenous groups and other stakeholders. The State
Department leads participation for the U.S. The U.S. has not prioritized its
commitments to the Arctic Council and is limited in its ability to respond to
emergencies in the Arctic region, the report found. As sea ice melts, making
way for increased commercial activity, the report recommends a stronger
strategy for U.S. participation in the Arctic Council and better process to
track progress toward achieving Council goals. Larsen introduced a bill
with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) last month to establish a U.S.
Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs and has strongly supported
additional investments in icebreakers. The Arctic is the Northwest Passage
of the 21st century, but todays GAO report is another sign that the U.S. is
falling behind in Arctic policy. With next years chairmanship of the Arctic
Council, its time we appointed an ambassador to this important body. We
also need to make investments in infrastructure like icebreakers to
maintain a strong presence in this increasingly important region. Our
country has major commercial, environmental and security interests in the
region and we should start prioritizing them, Congressman Larsen said. If
the United States hopes to maintain its presence in the Arctic, it is time to
get serious about the region. The GAO report clearly points out that there is
much more we could be doing to protect our interests, both economic and
security-related. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to
explore how we can better prioritize our Arctic policies, Congressman
Bishop said. A warming climate that is opening up the Arctic to
commercial shipping, the intense global competition for energy resources,
and the absence of a comprehensive and binding international Arctic
management regime are threatening to turn this emerging region into the
Wild West. It is imperative that we avoid that scenario. Accordingly, the
United States should demonstrate purposeful leadership within the Arctic
Council to advance U.S. interests and obligations. We should also ensure
that federal agencies involved in the Arctic, especially the United States
Coast Guard, have a coordinated game plan and sufficient resources to
meet these challenges, Congressman Garamendi said. This GAO report
underlines and highlights the core threat to Americas future as an Arctic
nation: were late in carrying out a needed path ahead and we need our
agencies to work together as we move forward. This is one of the reasons we
need an Arctic Ambassador with the authority to make decisions, and
coordinate and oversee projects as were at this crucial juncture. The United
States will be chairing the Arctic Council starting next year, which will
either be an opportunity to highlight our leadership, or undermine it
depending on our governments approach, Senator Murkowski said.

AT: spending unpopular link
Hagel will push for the plan even if there are spending cuts
Baldor, 13 Reporter for the Associated Press (Lolita C., Hagel says
nations must avoid conflict in Arctic, Contra Costa Times, November 22,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_24577546/walker-seeks-middle-
path-gop-presidential-buzz)//VIVIENNE
Hagel's comments came as the military finalized plans to expand
operations in the vast waters of the Arctic, where melting ice caps are
opening sea lanes and giving nations like Russia greater access to the oil
and gas deposits. But it will take money and resources for the U.S. to fill the
wide gaps in satellite and communications coverage, add deep-water ports
and buy more ships that can withstand the frigid waters or break through
the ice. Hagel acknowledged the budget pressures, but he said the U.S.
must map out its long-range plans despite the ongoing "deep and abrupt"
spending cuts. There are no cost or budget estimates yet. But by the end of
this year, the Navy will complete plans that lay out what the U.S. needs to
do to increase communications, harden ships and negotiate international
agreements so that nations will be able to track traffic in the Arctic and
conduct search-and-rescue missions.
2ac at: HTF PTX
Non-uniquemapping is inevitablenational geographic 13 indicates that foreign
countries will inevitably develop aquacultureits just a question of whether the aff is
regulated and environmentally sustainable
Non-uniquehydrographers are mapping in the status quo
.
Fiat solves the linkmajority of congress passes planthey wont backlash against
themselves
Extend Frezza 12clear regulations incentivize lobbying to fend off the opposition which is
exactly what their cards are talking aboutthe fishing lobby is uniquely influential
A logical policymaker can pass both
Wont pass no incentive for Obama or other members of Congress to back the deal
WP 6-20
[The Washington Post. Commuter Digest: Bipartisan Senate proposal seeks 12-cent increase in federal
gas tax 6/20/14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/commuter-digest-
bipartisan-senate-proposal-seeks-12-cent-increase-in-federal-gas-tax/2014/06/19/8d93282e-f648-11e3-
a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html]
A bipartisan Senate proposal emerged Wednesday to rescue beleaguered federal transportation funding by
raising the tax on gasoline by 12 cents a gallon. The proposal to increase the 18.4-cent federal tax for the first time since 1993 came from
Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and won the quick endorsement of an array of advocates ranging from road builders to AAA.
In addition to increasing the tax by six cents in each of the next two years, the senators want the rate indexed to inflation. Failure to keep pace with
inflation over the past 20 years, along with steadily increasing fuel economy, has caused the Federal Highway Trust Fund that receives the money to
sink to a dangerous level. The Transportation Department has projected that by midsummer, the fund will no longer be able to meet its obligations.
The Obama administration, citing a fragile recovery in the nations economy, has been reluctant to endorse a
gas-tax increase. Members of Congress facing midterm elections have preferred to look to other sources.
Voting negative means the plan still comes up for a vote.
Normal means is that the plan would be debated after the high way bill crisis --- means the
plan doesnt trigger the link.
No linkplan doesnt cause money
Raising the gas tax would devastate growth and doesnt solve TI
NRO 6-20
[The National Review Online. Dont Raise the Gas Tax 6/20/14
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380799/dont-raise-gas-tax-editors //GBS-JV]
The federal Highway Trust Fund, historically, is a fund that the government cant be trusted to spend on
federal highways. Unfortunately, Senator Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) is proposing to put more money in it by raising the federal gasoline tax, a proposal hes
concocted with Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.). Corkers idea is bad policy and bad politics. The politics: Gas prices are rising rapidly, taxes on fuel are regressive, and
Americans, rightly, really dont like when you raise any kind of tax at all. Theres no pressing policy reason to increase the tax.
The trust fund has plenty of money to fund highway priorities that the federal government needs to
address especially if federal money were spent more efficiently. But the fund is running dry because, instead, Congress has repeatedly
lavished spending on non-highway priorities and on intrastate issues. Drivers across America shouldnt have to pay for projects
that House appropriators like, but thats the way the trust fund works now. Corker is proposing to let this continue. Corker is bound by a pledge hes made to voters not to raise
taxes, but his plan has a way around it: Package the gas-tax hike with renewing a bunch of tax breaks called extenders that expired at the beginning of this year. This more than
adds up as a fiscal matter, but not an economic or political one. The result would be to cut taxes on particular corporations and for
particular kinds of consumption and investment (producing wind energy, for instance) while raising taxes on almost all
consumers. Moreover, its expected that most of these tax extenders will be renewed at some point anyway, as they are
every year, so Corker cant really claim that theyll make up for the new tax increase hes proposing. We have a better
idea: Cut the gas tax and let states pay for the highways within their borders. Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) and Representative Tom Graves (R., Ga.) have proposed a bill that
would do essentially this, and it makes a number of other important improvements to highway policies. Some American infrastructure needs improvement, and some taxpayer-
funded projects eventually pay for themselves, but states are in a far better position to decide which projects are worth
financing. American infrastructure is also so expensive that many projects that might be economically
sensible are not. This is especially true of federal projects, and Congress should work on that the
requirement that all federal contractors pay an excessive prevailing wage is one problem before it digs
its hand deeper into the taxpayers pocket.
No link
a) Their link card is talking about NOAA pushing the billnot Obama or Congress
b) Its not in the context of our affirmativetheir cards are about mapping in general not
the Arctic in specifics
The plan will have widespread support --- even from environmental communities which is
what their link author is talking about
***Note --- the plan essentially passes the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act (explained in
1ac Johns, 13 ev)
Naylor & Leonard, 9 --- *director of the Program on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford
University, AND **director of the Aquaculture Program at the Ocean Conservancy (12/17/2009, Roz
Naylor & George Leonard, Ensuring a Sustainable Future for U.S. Ocean Fish Farming,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roz-naylor-george-leonard/ensuring-a-sustainable-fu_b_396415.html,
JMP)
Right now in the United States we have an opportunity to help ensure that the emerging marine aquaculture sector meets both
human and environmental needs. This week, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) will introduce in the House of Representatives a bill
called the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act that addresses the potential threats of poorly regulated fish
farming in U.S. ocean waters. These threats include spread of disease and parasites from farmed to wild fish; discharge of effluents
into surrounding waters; misuse of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals and chemicals; escape of farmed fish into wild fish habitat;
killing of marine mammals and sharks that might prey on ocean farm cages; and reliance on use of wild-caught fish in aquaculture
feeds, which could deplete food supplies for other marine life and the aquaculture industry itself over time. These environmental
impacts have been evident in many other countries with intensive marine fish farming. The recent collapse of salmon aquaculture in
Chile, where industry expansion was prioritized over environmental protection, is the most glaring example. Salmon, one of Chile's
leading exports, has suffered a major blow as a result of poor regulation and environmentally unsound management. Tens of
thousands of people are now jobless in southern Chile, where the salmon farming industry once boomed. There are three critical
points to be made about the Capps bill. First, unlike previous attempts to legislate on fish farming at the national level, the bill would
ensure that U.S. aquaculture adopts a science-based, precautionary approach that establishes a priority for the protection of wild fish
and functional ecosystems. This approach is consistent with President Obama's recent call to develop a
comprehensive and integrated plan to manage our ocean's many competing uses to ensure protection of
vital ecosystem services in years to come. Second, the Capps bill would preempt the emergence of
ecologically risky, piecemeal regulation of ocean fish farming in different regions of the U.S. Efforts are
already afoot in Hawaii, California, the Gulf of Mexico and New England to expand marine aquaculture
without consistent standards to govern their environmental or social performance. If these piecemeal
regional initiatives move forward, there will be little hope of creating a sustainable national policy for U.S.
open-ocean aquaculture. Finally, the Capps bill as currently written has a solid, long-term vision for the appropriate role
of fish farming in sustainable ocean ecosystems and thus should win widespread support among
environmental and fishing constituencies. It should also garner support from the more progressive
end of the aquaculture industry that aspires to sustainable domestic fish production.
They have no internal link as to what is pushing for the atmosphere of cooperation in
Congress for the bill to pass
The impact is empirically denieddomestic oil production in the US hasnt solved
anythingif anything, energy production and consumption leads to wars
Wont pass none of the proposed solutions can make it through
Donlan 6-21
[Staffer for Barrons (The Wall Street Journal.) Magical Budgeting 6/21/14 Barrons, ln]
With a fine grasp of the obvious, Senators Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) have proposed bridging the
funding gap by raising the federal gas tax. At 18.4 cents per gallon, it hasn't been raised since 1993. The Highway Trust Fund provides
nearly half of all the money spent on highway projects, but each dollar of revenue has lost more than a third of its purchasing power since then, because
the tax is not adjusted for inflation. Transportation spending, however, has risen by more than a third. The gas tax also isn't adjusted for the higher
price of gas. (In 1993, the average price of a gallon of regular gas was $1.11.) The only source of increased revenue has been the rising consumption of
gasoline, and that stopped increasing several years ago. Corker and Murphy suggest a 12-cent hike, phased in over two
years and adjusted for inflation thereafter. Every penny added to the federal per-gallon rate will raise about $1.3 billion, so the
Corker-Murphy plan would restore the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund at the current spending rate, without providing a gusher of new money for
the states. But the two senators are making little headway against the prevailing philosophies in the
capital city. Most Republicans don't want any federal tax increase; most Democrats want more taxes
from corporations, not consumers.

1ar xt: plan popular
Obama already prioritizing ocean policies and igniting a congressional backlash
Eilperin, 6/17 (Juliet, 6/17/2014, Obama will propose expanding Pacific Ocean marine sanctuary,
http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/06/17/obama-will-propose-expanding-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuary,
JMP)
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday will announce his intent to make a
broad swath of the central Pacific Ocean off limits to fishing, energy exploration and other activities,
according to senior White House officials. The proposal, slated to go into effect later this year after a
comment period, could create the worlds largest marine sanctuary and double the area of ocean globally
that is fully protected. The announcement details of which were provided to The Washington Post is
part of a broader push on maritime issues by an administration that has generally favored other
environmental priorities. The oceans effort, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and White House
counselor John Podesta, is likely to spark a new political battle with Republicans over the scope of
Obamas executive powers. The president will also direct federal agencies to develop a comprehensive
program aimed at combating seafood fraud and the global black-market fish trade. In addition, the
administration finalized a rule last week allowing the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off U.S.
coasts and in the Great Lakes. Obama has used his executive authority 11 times to safeguard areas on
land, but scientists and activists have been pressing him to do the same for untouched underwater
regions. Former president George W. Bush holds the record for creating U.S. marine monuments,
declaring four during his second term, including the one that Obama plans to expand. Under the
proposal, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be expanded from almost 87,000
square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles all of it adjacent to seven islands and atolls controlled by
the United States. The designation would include waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore from the
territories. Its the closest thing Ive seen to the pristine ocean, said Enric Sala, a National Geographic
explorer-in-residence who has researched the areas reefs and atolls since 2005. Obama has faced
criticism from a variety of groups including cattle ranchers, law enforcement officers and ATV
enthusiasts over his expansion of protections for federal lands. The ocean area under consideration, by
contrast, encompasses uninhabited islands in a remote region with sparse economic activity. Even so, the
designation is expected to face objections from the U.S. tuna fleet that operates in the region. Fish caught
in the area account for up to 3 percent of the annual U.S. tuna catch in the western and central Pacific,
according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. When Bush created the monument in 2009, he exempted sport
fishing to address industry opposition. Podesta said a public comment period over the summer will allow
the Commerce and Interior departments to fully understand the commercial activity out there and
modify the plan if necessary. Kerry said Monday that the United States and other nations need to take
bolder steps to protect marine habitat and combat other threats. If this group cant create a serious plan
to protect the ocean for future generations, then who can and who will? he asked during an appearance at
a State Department oceans conference. On Capitol Hill, some Republicans have sought to limit the
administrations ability to influence offshore activities, viewing it as another attempt by the president to
test the limits of White House power. Its another example of this imperial presidency, House Natural
Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said in an interview, noting that Obama
established a National Ocean Policy during his first term to coordinate competing interests at sea. If
there are marine sanctuaries that should be put in place, that should go through Congress. For the past 5
1/2 years, the administration has focused on the nuts and bolts of marine issues, aiming to end
overfishing in federally managed fisheries and establishing a new planning process for maritime activities.
This weeks State Department ocean summit launches what officials there call a broader global
campaign to address the problems of overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification. When the president
is besieged by the problems as this administration has faced, its tough to keep your focus on ocean
policy, said former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who co-founded the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative nearly a decade ago while in Congress. Thats the problem, you just cant afford to put oceans
on the back burner. No other country governs more of the sea than the United States, which controls
more than 13 percent of the ocean area overseen by nations. And only China consumes more seafood each
year. The potential expansion area would quintuple the number of underwater mountains under
protection. It would also end tuna fishing and provide shelter for nearly two dozen species of marine
mammals, five types of threatened sea turtles, and a variety of sharks and other predatory fish species.
Other countries are moving ahead with their own marine reserves. The British government is considering
creating a sanctuary around the Pitcairn Islands an area in the Pacific inhabited by descendants of the
mutineers from the HMS Bounty and their Tahitian companions according to people briefed on the
decision. Anote Tong, president of the small Pacific island nation of Kiribati, announced Monday that he
will close an area roughly the size of California to commercial fishing by the end of this year. Its our
contribution to humanity, Tong said in an interview. Pew Charitable Trusts Executive Vice President
Joshua Reichert said Obama should also consider expanding the borders of the monuments Bush created
in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench. He said the 1906 Antiquities Act, which
allows such designations, is one of the great equalizers in the ongoing struggle to preserve some of the
best examples of Americas natural heritage. Without it, many of these places would long ago have
succumbed to the pickax, the chain saw, and the dredge, leaving us all poorer as a result. Ben Halpern,
an environmental science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the lead scientist
for the Ocean Health Index, said maritime issues rank low on politicians priority lists because people are
disconnected from the sea. Every single person on the planet benefits from the health of the ocean, but
most of them dont realize it, he said. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations chief,
Kathryn Sullivan, said her agency has focused on increasing the ability of coastal communities to cope
with climate change and on monitoring how the marine ecosystem is being transformed. Data are critical
to all of it, she said. George Cooper, a lobbyist for the recreational fishing industry, said NOAA has made
strides but still overstates the economic impact of the commercial fish industry by comparing the
combined imported and domestic seafood trade to U.S. sport fishing. Budget constraints and
congressional opposition also remain obstacles for the administration. During a panel last week for
Capitol Hill Ocean Week, Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said NOAA might have to consider changing its name
to NAA because of cuts to its wet side. William Ruckelshaus, a co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, who served as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Presidents Richard
M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, said the new flurry of activity on maritime issues could represent an
important shift. These kinds of issues only get elevated if the president puts it high on his priority
list, he said.

1ar xt: wont pass
Cantor has every Republican on notice. No compromise on HTF
Malouff 6-11
[Daniel. Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of
Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free
lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his
employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local
Opinions blog. Will Cantor's loss push congressional Republicans to balk on transportation
compromise? 6/11/14 http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/23200/will-cantors-loss-push-
congressional-republicans-to-balk-on-transportation-compromise/ ]
Last night, US House majority leader Eric Cantor lost the Republican primary to a tea party challenger who painted
Cantor as too willing to compromise with Democrats. Cantor's loss makes this summer's looming
congressional fight over transportation funding all the more unpredictable. MAP-21, the federal transportation
funding bill, expires in October. But the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) will begin running out of money in August. Without a bipartisan
bill to add new money, federal transportation funding will trickle to a halt. Transportation wasn't a major issue in Cantor's election, but immigration
reform was. Cantor mostly opposed immigration reform, but he briefly contemplated compromise, giving his more conservative opponent David
Brat an opening to attack. Some pundits fear that will push every other House Republican away from compromise in
general, and grind whatever progress Congress was making on anything to a halt. From an immigration perspective
that probably makes little difference; House Republicans were not going to compromise anyway. But it could make a huge
difference for transportation. Transportation funding was a non-partisan issue in the 20th Century. Every six years Congress
would pass a transportation bill with broad support from both parties. But in recent years, amid declining gas tax revenue and increasing need for
supplemental funding, transportation has become a partisan spark. Congress seemed primed to act, but now it's an open
question. Up until Cantor's defeat, the general assumption in the transportation world has been that Congress would do something this summer.
"Something" might mean a long term solution like a new bill and new taxes. Or it might mean a band-aid, like an extension of MAP-21 with an infusion
of federal general fund dollars. Either way, Congress appeared to be making some progress. But now? House Republicans might very well
cease all legislative activity, and hope to ride out the rest of election season without upsetting their
conservative base. Polls show that raising money for transportation is popular, and voters rarely punish officials for doing so. But that may not
matter to Republicans concerned about attacks from the extreme right. While in Congress, Cantor fought against progressive transportation funding.
But in this case his personal vote, and even his leadership on the specifics, might be less important than the simple fact that he was probably willing to
advance a bill. On the other hand, maybe the Republican establishment will take this as a call to arms, and
moderate legislators will become more powerful. But that seems unlikely the day after the biggest tea
party victory of the season.
1ar xt: bill hurts growth
Doesnt solve growth and trades off with more effective solutions
Goff 6-22
[Emily. Emily Goff advances conservative solutions to economic challenges by analyzing federal budget,
transportation and agriculture policy issues as research associate in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Hiking the Federal Gas Tax is a Mistake. Heres
Why. The Daily Signal, 6/22/14 http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/22/federal-government-makes-traffic-
problems-worse/]
Much clamoring for more federal transportation spending, and fuel tax hikes to pay for it, has come out of Washington recently. The Highway
Trust Fund faces a $15 billion gap in 2015 between projected spending and the money it will collect in fuel taxes and fees. Trouble is,
our Washington-centric approach isnt solving our traffic and mobility issues. Its getting us nowhere but
stuck in traffic in some cities, for the equivalent of a full work week or more each year. The main culprits? Spending priorities are
determined more by politicians appeasing special interests than local needs or consumer choices. And the
federal regulatory burden delays projects and smothers state and private-sector innovation. When car and truck
drivers pay the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax (24.4 cents per gallon for diesel) at the pump, they expect better roads and less traffic congestion in
return. Instead, Washington diverts more than 25% of that money to subways, streetcars, buses, bicycle and
nature paths, and landscaping, at the expense of road and bridge projects. A federal gas tax hike
presumably would continue this unfair trend. The beneficiaries of these local activities take from, but do not contribute
to, the Highway Trust Fund. Better for New York and New Jersey to fund their subways, Oregon its bike paths and Maryland its trails. Funds
reserved for road and bridge projects go through the regulatory wringer. The flawed Davis-Bacon Act
hikes federally funded construction projects by 10%. The average federally mandated environmental review for a highway project
takes more than eight years, according to the non-partisan group Common Good. Translation: States get less for their money. Washington is an
unnecessary middleman in transportation. Instead of raising taxes, it should repeal oppressive
regulations and remove barriers to let states fund their infrastructure. Better yet, it should hand over
transportation funding decisions to the states.
2acat: Export/Import PTX
Wont Pass
Cantor Loss generates momentum to block reauthorization
Memoli and Puzzanghera 6/24
Michael A. Memoli has worked in the Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C., bureau since 2010, and now
spends most of his time in the halls of the Capitol covering Congress.Jim Puzzanghera writes about
business and economic issues from the Times Washington, D.C., bureau. Shift in GOP leadership leaves
Export-Import Bank at risk of closing http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-export-import-bank-
20140625-story.html#page=1
A tough fight two years ago led to the bank's reauthorization despite strong Republican opposition. The
bank had a key ally then in House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who helped forge a
compromise. But incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), who was selected after
Cantor's stunning primary loss this month to a tea party Republican, said over the weekend that he favors
allowing the bank's charter to expire. "It's something that the private sector can be able to do," McCarthy
told "Fox News Sunday." That gave momentum to a push in recent weeks led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-
Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to block the bank's reauthorization.
Closed until midterms
Todd et all 6/26
Chuck Todd, Mark Murrary, and Carrie Dann, June 26th, 2014, Stick a Fork in this Congress: It's Done
Until Midterms, http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/stick-fork-congress-its-done-until-
midterms-n141481//SQR
Sick a fork in this Congress; its done at least until the midterms (and maybe until Jan. 2017) Mark yesterday, June 25,
on your calendars: It was the day Congress all but closed up shop to focus on the midterms -- after House
Speaker John Boehner announced he would introduce legislation next month to authorize a lawsuit against President
Obama over his executive actions in office. President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and
excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce, he wrote. Tellingly, Boehners letter didnt cite a specific example of illegal or
unconstitutional executive action, but his aides say the suit will likely focus on the health-care laws and energy regulations. But how do you
expect Congress to get anything done for the rest of the year when the House has decided to sue the
president? Immigration reform? Forget about it (and it was already on life support). Any other big items? Done. Of course, theres always the
possibility that SOMETHING might take place during the lame duck. But only the stuff that HAS to get done to avoid operational shutdowns. Yet for
now, House Republicans have signaled theyre done working with the White House and
Democrats. And the White House and Dems are pretty much saying the same thing. Im not sure an announcement that House Republicans
are preparing a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the president for doing his job is going to be warmly received by the American public, White House
Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday.
Also Logical Policy maker can pass both, the revitalization of the bank if at all is also either
popular to the extent that there is bipartisan support or it simply isnt in the GOP nor
Demos interest to pass

Free-market Republicans oppose
Lane 6/25
Charles Lane an American journalist and editor who is an editorial writer for The Washington Post and a
regular guest on Fox News Channel The Export-Import Bank faces extinction under new GOP June 25,
2014 leadershiphttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-the-export-import-bank-faces-
extinction-under-new-gop-leadership/2014/06/25/c7615b38-fbd0-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html
Now Ex-Im suddenly faces extinction: Its charter expires Sept. 30, and the agencys best friend in the
House Republican leadership, former majority leader Eric Cantor (Va.), who shepherded a bipartisan
reauthorization bill in 2012, lost his GOP primary this month. Ex-Im must contend instead with free-
market Republicans such as Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), chairman of the committee that oversees Ex-Im, and a
new majority leader, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has abandoned his past support for Ex-Im in
deference to the tea party.

Reauthorization is not necessary private sector will fill in
James 12 trade policy analyst at the Cato Institutes Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies
(October 2012, Sallie, Ending the Export-Import Bank, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/export-
import-bank#7)//spark
However, that is only one side of the equation. The bank does not create the resources to provide financing out of
thin air: the money comes from taxes or the repayment fees from previous loans, which would otherwise
flow to the U.S. Treasury. In that sense, the bank only redistributes resources by taking them from other areas of the
economy. It reallocates capital that would otherwise be available for other uses. When the bank diverts resources to
politically selected activities, economic efficiency is lost unless the reallocation corrects a true market failure. But there is no
reason to think that the Ex-Im Bank knows how to better deploy resources than consumers, investors, and
businesses in private markets. Ex-Im Bank supporters often say that the bank creates jobs without acknowledging any
offsetting losses to the rest of the economy. Thus the 227,000 jobs that Hochberg claims to have created are not necessarily "net
jobs" that would not exist in a world without the Ex-Im Bank. The relevant question is whether the Ex-Im Bank's activities create
more valuemeasured in terms of jobs, or exports, or economic growththan they destroy. At best, the activities of the
bank have no discernible net impact on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. In many
cases, Ex-Imbacked sales would have been completed anyway with private financing. The bank says that it
tries to avoid displacing private-sector finance, but it can't avoid displacement entirely. Because the Ex-Im Bank is ready to step in
with financing, no one can know what terms might have been offered by private lenders had the bank not existed.
Cant solve- fraud allegations
Katz 6/24
Diane Katz, who has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades, is a research
fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, At Least 74 Cases of Fraud and Corruption at Ex-
Im Bank Since 2009, http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/24/fraud-corruption-rampant-ex-im-
bank/)//SQR
June 24, 2014 On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that four employees of the Export-Import Bank have been removed in recent months amid
allegations of kickbacks and other corruption. But the Journal article tells only part of the story. Based on a review of government documents, The
Heritage Foundation has determined that there have been at least 74 cases since April 2009 in which bank officials were forced to act on the basis of
integrity investigations by the Office of Inspector General. Dozens of other fraud cases involving Ex-Im beneficiaries have been referred to the
Department of Justice for prosecution. The revelations come at a particularly vulnerable time for the government agency, which is facing growing
opposition in Congress over reauthorization. Ex-Ims charter will expire on Sept. 30, and key House leaders oppose it, including newly elected Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Fraud and
corruption are among a long list of operational problems at the bank, which is a conduit for corporate
welfare and beset by mismanagement, inefficiency and risk. In a 2013 report to Congress, the Office of Inspector General
characterized Ex-Im as exhibiting weaknesses in governance and internal controls for business operations. An examination of Ex-Im
fraud cases reveals a disturbing pattern of carelessness in doling out taxpayer subsidies. According to the Journal,
four employees are under investigation for accepting kickbacks and gifts and improperly steering federal contracts to favored firms. Such
misconduct is an ever-present risk when government bureaucrats control billions of dollars in subsidies
that confer a competitive advantage to favored companies. The latest report to Congress noted the dismissal of two employees
and a letter of reprimand against another in a six-month period as a result of the IGs investigations.
PC not real ideology outweighs
Dickinson 9 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at
Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt,
5/26, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, Sotomayor, Obama and
Presidential Power, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-
and-presidential-power/)
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of
presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised
numerous means of measuring a presidents influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to
discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative box scores
designed to measure how many times a presidents preferred piece of legislation, or
nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how
many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How
often do members of Congress vote with the presidents preferences? How often is a
presidents policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a
misleading gauge of presidential power they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because
how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president
does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative endgame to gauge
presidential influence will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation
enacted? this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for
other factors a member of Congress ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her
constituency, whether shes up for reelection or not we can usually predict how she will vote
without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the
importance of a presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized
and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame,
then, most legislative outcomes dont depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to
say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what
Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is,
presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting not arm-twisting. And we see this in the
Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed
to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every
Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play
Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have
almost nothing to do with Obamas lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real
influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee
Winners win
Singer 9 Juris Doctorate candidate at Berkeley Law (Jonathon, By Expending Capital, Obama Grows
His Capital, 3/3/2009, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)
From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his
policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10
approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first
six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against
that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key
point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's
important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President
expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up
more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to
pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the
Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the
numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey.
Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent
favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26
percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush
administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame
Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama
seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result
of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda,

2ac at: noaa trade-off disad
NOAA will still be able to do weather forecasts even if there is a data gap
Kicza, 13 --- Assistant Administrator National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service at
NOAA (9/19/2013, Mary E., HEARING TITLED DYSFUNCTION IN MANAGEMENT OF WEATHER
AND CLIMATE SATELLITES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENVIRONMENT AND
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-
MKicza-20130919.pdf, JMP)
With funds provided by the Public Law 113-2, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, NOAA is
implementing a number of strategic actions designed to make its weather forecasting enterprise
more robust in the face of the possibility of a gap in polar-orbiting weather data. These
activities seek to make better use of existing data, take advantage of new data sources planned in the
future, improve operational high performance computing capacity, and improve the assimilation of data
into weather prediction models, including hurricane models. The goal is to minimize the impact of a gap
in coverage should it become a reality. While none of these activities, individually or collectively, can
totally replace a lack of JPSS data, they represent the positive actions NOAA can take to mitigate the
loss of these data. Should a data gap not occur, these investments will nonetheless improve NOAAs
ability to use existing data, thus improving weather forecasts. These actions are being taken in addition to
the steps NOAA is taking to ensure that JPSS and GOES-R Series satellite development continue as
planned.
Need for every additional satellite is overhyped
Tracton, 12 (3/29/2012, Steve, National Weather Service budget cuts misguided, misplaced,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/national-weather-service-budget-
cuts-misguided-misplaced/2012/03/29/gIQAmm6qiS_blog.html, JMP)
One striking way to look at this is to note that $2 billion for weather satellites is more than twice that of
the entire NWS ($972 million)! Moreover, the casualties of the 2013 budget cuts are just the tip of the
iceberg of implicit budget constraints (not actual cuts) imposed for years by satellite programs on other
promising and much less costly programs within the NWS. This does not mean weather satellites are not
crucial for weather analysis and prediction. They most definitely are. The issue is whether the value of
each and every current and prospective satellite (and each individual sensor housed therein) - given the
extant large menagerie of U.S (and international) polar and geostationary satellites - has
reached the point of diminishing returns. The answer is yes and no depending upon whether their
intended contribution to specific operational forecasting needs and requirements are justifiable. This
includes consideration of mission redundancy (with other satellite systems) and the capability to provide
additional information otherwise unobtainable which demonstrably contributes to improving weather
predictions and their value to mission specific objectives (e.g., increased lead time and confidence in
winter storm forecasts, conditions conducive for outbreaks of thunderstorm complexes and tornadoes).
The reality is there is considerable reason to believe that the uncompromisingly high priority given to
some high price-tag satellite programs is not justifiable. Claims to their criticality to forecasting
have been excessively hyped and not sufficiently substantiated. Ill discuss this in additional
detail in a follow-up blog post, Part II.
Uniqueness outweighs --- strong bipartisan support for weather satellite funding
Leone, 14 (4/28/2014, Dan, Profile | Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information
Services, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-
satellite-and-information, JMP)
Despite almost constant partisan strife in the U.S. Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
agree on this much: Its worth knowing when to pack an umbrella. If they had any inclination to waver
on this shared principle, it evaporated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Weather satellite data were
instrumental in predicting the highly destructive storms track along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard in October
2012, giving those in its path crucial time to prepare. Thus NOAAs two main weather satellite
development programs the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint
Polar Satellite System (JPSS) were fully funded in the omnibus spending bill that passed in December
and covers federal activities for the remainder of 2014. Whats more, Congress tried to shield these
efforts from sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts that affected virtually all other federal
activities beginning in March 2013.
JPSS program is plagued with runaway costs and mismanagement and most recent NOAA
budget underfunds weather research
Representative Smith, 14 (4/30/2014, Rep. Smith, Lamar - (R-TX), Congressional Documents and
Publications. House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment Hearing - "An
Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Budget Request for FY2015," Factiva,
JMP)
Chairman Smith: Thank you Chairman Schweikert, and thank you Administrator Sullivan for being with
us here today. Let me congratulate you on being named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential
people of 2014. Our Committee oversees NOAA's more than five billion dollar budget. NOAA is
responsible for critical science activities related to oceans, weather and climate. Today we are here to
discuss the President's FY15 budget request for NOAA of $5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent increase over 2014
levels. While I support many of these areas of research and forecasting, other parts of the President's FY15
budget request are harder to justify. For example, the Administration's request substantially increases
funding for climate research and for some non-critical climate satellite activities. In comparison, funding
for the National Weather Service and weather forecasting research is essentially flat.
Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more than twice the amount dedicated to weather
research. There are 13 other agencies that are involved in climate change research, and according to the
Congressional Research Service, they have spent $77 billion between 2008 and 2013. For example, in
addition to NOAA, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation also carry out
climate change modeling. Unfortunately, NOAA's models do not match up with observed changes and
have not predicted regional climate changes. And NOAA's website, Climate.Gov, includes non-peer
reviewed materials promoting climate alarmism for children. These misguided priorities are troubling.
Instead of hyping climate alarmism, NOAA should focus its efforts on other areas such as improving
weather forecasting. America's leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting. European weather
models routinely predict America's weather better than we can. I am also concerned that NOAA's satellite
division now comprises over 40 percent of the total budget request for the agency, at over $2 billion. In
2008, the satellite budget came in under a billion dollars and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA's overall
spending. The budget for this office has ballooned dramatically over the last decade. For instance, the
Joint Polar Satellite System program has been plagued with runaway costs and mismanagement,
which raises questions about future funding for the project and its expected launch dates. Even NOAA's
own optimistic schedule would still leave us with a gap for critical weather data in the
middle part of this decade. Meanwhile the chronic cost over-runs of NOAA's satellites have forced
significant reductions in funding for important activities in areas such as oceans, fisheries, and weather.
NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee supports these core priorities. We face fiscal
constraints that force us to make difficult choices about our science and technology resources. Rather
than devoting limited dollars to duplicative and alarmist climate change activities, NOAA should focus on
research and forecasting capabilities that protect lives and property.



2ac at: climate change impact
The impact of climate change is hype
IBD, 14 (5/13/2014, Investors Business Daily, Obama Climate Report: Apocalypse Not, Factiva, JMP)
Climate: Not since Jimmy Carter falsely spooked Americans about overpopulation, the world running out
of food, water and energy, and worsening pollution, has a president been so filled with doom and gloom as
this one.
Last week's White House report on climate change was a primal scream to alarm Americans into action to
save the earth from a literal meltdown. Maybe we should call President Obama the Fearmonger in Chief.
While scientists can argue until the cows come home about what will happen in the future with the
planet's climate, we do have scientific records on what's already happened. Obama moans that the
devastation from climate change is already here as more severe weather events threaten to imperil our
very survival.
But, according to the government's own records which presumably the White House can get severe
weather events are no more likely now than they were 50 or 100 years ago and the losses of
lives and property are much less devastating.
Here is what government data reports and top scientists tell us about extreme climate conditions:
Hurricanes: The century-long trend in Hurricanes is slightly down, not up. According to the National
Hurricane Center, in 2013, "There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time
since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982."
According to Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, "We are currently in the longest period since the
Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)"
Tornadoes: Don't worry, Kansas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there has
been no change in severe tornado activity. "There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger
tornadoes over the past 55 years."
Extreme heat and cold temperatures: NOAA's U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold
temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five
above the mean.
Severe drought/extreme moisture: While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to
extreme drought/moisture in the last few years, the 1930's, 40's and 50's were more extreme in this
regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average.
Cyclones: Maue reports: "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low."
Floods: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., past chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on
Weather Forecasting and Analysis, reports, "floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity
since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940."
Warming: Even NOAA admits a "lack of significant warming at the Earth's surface in the past decade"
and a pause "in global warming observed since 2000." Specifically, NOAA last year stated, "since the turn
of the century, however, the change in Earth's global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
Pielke sums up: "There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. ... It is
misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods
or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the U.S. or globally."
One big change between today and 100 years ago is that humans are much more capable of dealing with
hurricanes and earthquakes and other acts of God.
Homes and buildings are better built to withstand severe storms and alert systems are much more
accurate to warn people of the coming storms. As a result, globally, weather-related losses have actually
decreased by about 25% as a proportion of GDP since 1990.
The liberal hubris is that government can do anything to change the earth's climate or prevent the next big
hurricane, earthquake or monsoon. These are the people in Washington who can't run a website, can't
deliver the mail and can't balance a budget. But they are going to prevent droughts and forest fires.
The President's doomsday claims last week served mostly to undermine the alarmists' case for radical
action on climate change. Truth always seems to be the first casualty in this debate.
This is the tactic of tyrants. Americans are wise to be wary about giving up our basic freedoms and
lowering our standard of living to combat an exaggerated crisis.


2ac at: climate satellites/research
NOAA climate research and models empirically fail --- too much is spent on unreliable
satellites
Representative Smith, 14 (4/30/2014, Rep. Smith, Lamar - (R-TX), Congressional Documents and
Publications. House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment Hearing - "An
Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Budget Request for FY2015," Factiva,
JMP)
Chairman Smith: Thank you Chairman Schweikert, and thank you Administrator Sullivan for being with
us here today. Let me congratulate you on being named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential
people of 2014.
Our Committee oversees NOAA's more than five billion dollar budget. NOAA is responsible for critical
science activities related to oceans, weather and climate.
Today we are here to discuss the President's FY15 budget request for NOAA of $5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent
increase over 2014 levels. While I support many of these areas of research and forecasting, other parts of
the President's FY15 budget request are harder to justify.
For example, the Administration's request substantially increases funding for climate research and for
some non-critical climate satellite activities. In comparison, funding for the National Weather Service and
weather forecasting research is essentially flat.
Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more than twice the amount dedicated to weather
research. There are 13 other agencies that are involved in climate change research, and according to the
Congressional Research Service, they have spent $77 billion between 2008 and 2013.
For example, in addition to NOAA, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science
Foundation also carry out climate change modeling.
Unfortunately, NOAA's models do not match up with observed changes and have not
predicted regional climate changes. And NOAA's website, Climate.Gov, includes non-peer reviewed
materials promoting climate alarmism for children.
These misguided priorities are troubling. Instead of hyping climate alarmism, NOAA should focus its
efforts on other areas such as improving weather forecasting.
America's leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting. European weather models routinely
predict America's weather better than we can.
I am also concerned that NOAA's satellite division now comprises over 40 percent of the total
budget request for the agency, at over $2 billion. In 2008, the satellite budget came in under a billion
dollars and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA's overall spending. The budget for this office has ballooned
dramatically over the last decade.
For instance, the Joint Polar Satellite System program has been plagued with runaway costs and
mismanagement, which raises questions about future funding for the project and its expected launch
dates.
Even NOAA's own optimistic schedule would still leave us with a gap for critical weather data in the
middle part of this decade.
Meanwhile the chronic cost over-runs of NOAA's satellites have forced significant reductions in
funding for important activities in areas such as oceans, fisheries, and weather.
NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee supports these core priorities. We face fiscal
constraints that force us to make difficult choices about our science and technology resources.
Rather than devoting limited dollars to duplicative and alarmist climate change activities, NOAA should
focus on research and forecasting capabilities that protect lives and property.
NASA budget will cover costs of climate research gathered by JPSS satellites
Leone, 14 (4/28/2014, Dan, JPSS Satellites Will Gather Climate Measurements After All,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40365jpss-satellites-will-gather-climate-measurements-
after-all, JMP)
WASHINGTON Climate measurements stripped out of the budget for the Joint Polar Satellite System
(JPSS) program in 2014 will be gathered by JPSS satellites after all, according to the plan put together by
NASA, the new bill-payer for climate research formerly funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
JPSS-1 is set to launch in 2017. It will carry five instruments, including two that will make the sort of
climate measurements that Congress, at the White Houses request, gave NASA responsibility for as part
of the $1.1 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2014 (H.R. 3547), signed in January to fund
federal spending through September. NOAA operates U.S. civilian weather satellites, but pays NASA to
oversee spacecraft design and development.
After JPSS-1, the climate measurements gathered by that satellite via its Ozone Mapping and Profiler
Suite and the Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System become NASAs financial responsibility.
NASA plans to fulfill this responsibility by flying three instruments, including two notionally manifested
for launch with JPSS-2 in 2021, and one that would be delivered to a commercial satellite company in
2019 to fly as a hosted payload in geostationary orbit.
The three instruments are the Radiation Budget Instrument, to be adapted from the design for the Clouds
and the Earths Radiant Energy System; the Limb Profiler, one of three instruments that make up the
Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite; and the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor. The first two are bound for
JPSS-2, the third for a commercial host, under NASAs plan. NASA manages development of these three
instruments under an Earth Science budget line called Radiation Ozone Atmospheric Measurements, or
ROAM, for which the agency is seeking $240 million from Congress during the next five years.
These instruments, or instruments like them, were originally part of the joint civil-military National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System that was canceled in 2010 and sparked the
creation of the JPSS program. NOAA planned to launch the orphaned instruments in 2016 aboard a
satellite called Polar Free Flyer, but that plan was effectively canceled by the 2014 spending bill that
transferred responsibility for polar-orbiting climate measurements to NASA.
Before spending a cent on instrument development, however, NASA has to provide lawmakers with a
notional budget and schedule profile covering the budget runout period as well as a description of the
effect this funding will have on the achievement of existing NASA priorities as recommended in the 2007
Earth Science decadal survey, according to a report that accompanied the 2014 omnibus spending bill.
NASA spokesman Stephen Cole said April 25 that NASA delivered the report to Congress in early April
but that there has been no decision yet from the Hill.
NASAs plan to slap a pair of climate instruments on JPSS-2, coupled with NOAAs March 28
announcement that it will bulk-order copies of JPSS instruments for the third and fourth satellites in the
constellation, means the instrument manifest for the JPSS constellation is beginning to gel.
JPSS-1 and JPSS-2 would be virtual copies of the Suomi NPP testbed that launched in October 2011 and
was pressed into an operational role as the first satellite in the JPSS constellation.
JPSS-3 and JPSS-4 would have similar instruments. NOAAs March 28 procurement note shows the
agency plans to equip each satellite, as expected, with an Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder from
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems; a Cross-Track Infrared Sounder from Exelis Geospatial Systems;
a Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite instrument from Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems; and
an Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite instrument from Ball Aerospace & Technologies.
NOAA will also order extra copies of the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder and the Cross-Track
Infrared Sounder. The extras keep NOAAs bases covered if one of the JPSS satellites should fail sooner
than expected, or if the agency decides to build the two-instrument, mini-polar-orbiter endorsed in 2013
by an independent review panel led by former Lockheed Martin executive A. Thomas Young.
The Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder and the Cross-Track Infrared Sounder feed the day-to-day
weather forecasting models the White House and Congress aimed to protect when they relieved NOAA of
financial responsibility for polar-orbiting climate measurements in the JPSS program.
Asked via email whether the weather agency planned to save the two instruments for a smaller polar
orbiter, Mary Kicza, outgoing NOAA assistant administrator for satellite and information services, said
only that our plan is to be prepared for the possibility.

2ac at: disease response impact

Empirically disaster relief has failed even with advanced warning
Mener 7 (Andrew S., senior Political Science major, PhD candidate for polysci DISASTER RESPONSE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: An Analysis of the
Bureaucratic and Political History of a Failing System CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal UPENN,
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=curej, CMR)

Despite having responded to thousands of natural disasters and numerous terrorist attacks, at present the
United States government at the federal, state, and local levels is exceedingly unprepared to handle the
immediate aftereffects of disasters. The federal government has created numerous large bureaucracies and congressional
panels as well as generated hundreds of official reports each of which purports to detail appropriate disaster response guidelines.
Nonetheless, the improvements since the first disaster response plan was implemented during World War I are not palpable.
During the most recent major Hurricanes Katrina and Rita despite having significant advanced
notice of the impending natural disaster as well as years of investigative reports warning about the fragility
of the New Orleans levy system, the disaster response system failed the citizens of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. That
the system requires repair is not debatable. The questions which remain are how the current system came to be, what our
expectations of the system should be, and how we ought to shock the political bureaucracy into action to repair the obviously ailing
system.

2ac at: military readiness impact

Deterrence fails
Kober, Ph.D., 10Research Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Cato, PhD, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts. (Stanley, The Deterrence Illusion, 13 June
2010, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11898, AMiles)

And just like the situation at the beginning of the last century, deterrence is not working. Much is made, for example, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO) invoking Article V the famous "three musketeers" pledge that an attack on one member is to be considered as an attack on all following the terrorist attacks of
September 11. But the United States is the most powerful member of NATO by far. Indeed, in 2001, it was widely considered to be a hegemon, a hyperpower. Other countries
wanted to be in NATO because they felt an American guarantee would provide security. And yet it was the US that was attacked. This failure of deterrence has not received the
attention it deserves. It is, after all, not unique. The North Vietnamese were not deterred by the American guarantee to South
Vietnam. Similarly, Hezbollah was not deterred in Lebanon in the 1980s, and American forces were
assaulted in Somalia. What has been going wrong? The successful deterrence of the superpowers during the cold war led to the belief that if
such powerful countries could be deterred, then lesser powers should fall into line when confronted with
an overwhelmingly powerful adversary. It is plausible, but it may be too rational. For all their ideological differences, the US and the Soviet Union
observed red lines during the cold war. There were crises Berlin, Cuba, to name a couple but these did not touch on emotional issues or vital interests, so that compromise
and retreat were possible. Indeed, what we may have missed in the west is the importance of retreat in Soviet ideology. "Victory is impossible unless [the revolutionary parties]
have learned both how to attack and how to retreat properly," Lenin wrote in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. When the Soviets retreated,
the US took the credit. Deterrence worked. But what if retreat was part of the plan all along? What if, in
other words, the Soviet Union was the exception rather than the rule? That question is more urgent
because, in the post-cold war world, the US has expanded its security guarantees, even as its enemies show they are not
impressed. The Iraqi insurgents were not intimidated by President Bush's challenge to "bring 'em on". The Taliban have made an
extraordinary comeback from oblivion and show no respect for American power. North Korea is demonstrating increasing belligerence.
And yet the US keeps emphasising security through alliances. "We believe that there are certain commitments, as we saw in a bipartisan
basis to NATO, that need to be embedded in the DNA of American foreign policy," secretary of state Hillary Clinton affirmed in introducing the new National Security Strategy.
But that was the reason the US was in Vietnam. It had a bipartisan commitment to South Vietnam under the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation, reaffirmed through the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution, which passed Congress with only two dissenting votes. It didn't work, and found its commitments were not embedded in its DNA. Americans turned against the
war, Secretary Clinton among them. The great powers could not guarantee peace in Europe a century ago, and the US
could not guarantee it in Asia a half-century ago.

1ar xt: delays/gaps in coverage

Cost overruns and delays now and even if satellites are launched on schedule there will be
a months of limited coverage
WMTW, 14 (4/30/2014, WMTW-TV 8, Satellites key in predicting killer storms; Inside look at NOAA's
Satellite Operations Center, http://www.wmtw.com/news/satellites-key-in-predicting-killer-
storms/25701780#!0z6st, JMP)

NOAA is working to launch the next generation of weather satellites, but for now the program remains
on a federal high-risk list.
The Government Accountability Office cites the potential for a gap in satellite data if older satellites fail
before new ones can be put in place.
NOAA said a satellite data gap could result in less accurate forecasts. The Commerce Department's
inspector general said cost overruns and delays are to blame.
NOAA said the next wave of polar orbiting satellites will begin launching in 2017.
A new geostationary satellite is scheduled to launch in early 2016.
Even if those schedules are met, the inspector general said we could see 10 to 16 months of limited
satellite coverage.

Data gap still likely despite full funding now
Leone, 14 (4/28/2014, Dan, Profile | Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information
Services, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-
satellite-and-information, JMP)

Thus NOAAs two main weather satellite development programs the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) were fully funded in the
omnibus spending bill that passed in December and covers federal activities for the remainder of 2014.
Whats more, Congress tried to shield these efforts from sequestration, the across-the-board spending
cuts that affected virtually all other federal activities beginning in March 2013.
Nonetheless, the possibility of a gap in NOAAs data-collection capabilities still looms, thanks
largely to the 2010 cancellation of a troubled polar-orbiting weather satellite program that was intended
to replace separate legacy systems operated by NOAA and the U.S. Air Force, and delays to JPSS, the
civilian program that emerged in its stead.
Also facing uncertainty are certain climate change sensors that are now NOAAs responsibility but cannot
fit on the first JPSS platform. NOAA had planned to fly these sensors on a dedicated satellite dubbed
Polar Free Flyer, but Congress chose not to fund that program in 2014 and the agency is now looking at
alternatives.

Weather satellite failures now --- there will be a long gap in coverage
Hotz, 13 (6/21/2013, Robert Lee, For Weather Satellites, Forecast Is Cloudy; Failures of Aging Devices
Threaten to Leave Gap in Key Data,
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578543331078279910?mobile=y, JMP)

The main U.S. weather satellite watching the eastern seaboard malfunctioned last month for the second
time in a year, underscoring the hazards of aging satellites that monitor the planet as a threatening
hurricane season gets under way.
Engineers got it running again. But the difficulties with the seven-year-old weather satellite, called GOES-
13, are a symptom of a broader problem, federal, congressional and university analysts say. Scientists are
losing one by one their orbital eyes on Earth, at a time when space-based sensors have become
indispensable for monitoring weather, natural disasters and the atmosphere.
Weather forecasters soon will lose key satellite images and atmospheric measurements for a year or
substantially more, because GOES-13 and another spacecraft are expected to fail before
replacements can be launched, federal and congressional auditors said. About 500 federal projects
and private contractorsincluding commercial firms that use the images for TV weather forecastsrely
on data from the satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"NOAA is having a real crisis with regard to the weather satellites," said atmospheric scientist
Dennis Hartmann at the University of Washington in Seattle, who heads a National Research Council
committee that monitors Earth-observation satellite programs.

Major gaps in coverage likely --- programs are mismanaged and behind schedule
Hotz, 13 (6/21/2013, Robert Lee, For Weather Satellites, Forecast Is Cloudy; Failures of Aging Devices
Threaten to Leave Gap in Key Data,
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578543331078279910?mobile=y, JMP)

All told, 14 of the 23 active satellites monitored by NASA's Earth Observing System Project Science Office
at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have exceeded their engineering design life, with
few replacements in view. The number of Earth-monitoring sensors in orbit aboard such spacecraft is
expected to drop to fewer than 30 by the end of the decade from 110 last year, as aging satellites fail, costs
soar and space missions go awry, according to the National Research Council.
NOAA normally relies on two types of weather satellites: One set, including GOES-13, in
"geosynchronous" orbit 22,300 miles above the same fixed spot over the U.S., and a second set of
satellites that travels in a lower polar orbit and scans the entire Earth every day. One polar orbiteritself
already a temporary replacementis nearing the end of its estimated life span.
NOAA, NASA and the Defense Department have tried since 1994 to develop new polar-orbiting weather
satellites, but their joint effort was racked by mismanagement, billions in cost overruns and technical
challenges, said information-technology expert David Powner at the U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
NOAA's current $12.9 billion effort to replace the polar spacecraft is so far behind schedule that the
next satellite won't be launched until 2017 at the earliest, which is past the design lifetime of the youngest
polar-orbiting satellite currently in orbit, according to GAO auditors and the Commerce Department's
Inspector General.
As a result, experts expect to start losing some weather-satellite data as soon as next year, with a gap in
satellite coverage lasting from 17 to 53 months.
At the same time, NOAA's $10.9 billion program to build new geosynchronous weather satellites is
struggling.
A replacement for GOES-13 is scheduled to launch in 2015. Federal and congressional auditors, though,
warn it may be a year late. Even then, some of its advanced sensors won't be ready. Budget cuts related to
the so-called sequester may delay the launch an additional two to three years.
Senior NOAA officials this month didn't want to be questioned about their effort to replace the weather
satellites, turning down requests for interviews. In a statement, they said NOAA "continues to develop
mitigation plans for any potential gap in satellite coverage. These plans will be reassessed on a biannual
basis to account for new developments as they occur."
So far, GOES-13 has survived the hard knocks of space.
The Boeing Co.-built spacecraft normally tracks weather along the Atlantic coast, but on May 22 it
stopped transmitting images. By June 10, NOAA satellite engineers concluded it had been knocked off
balance when a tiny space rock smashed into its solar panels. As a stopgap, NOAA engineers activated
their sole backup weather satellite while they scrambled to repair the errant spacecraft.
"We were essentially riding on our spare tire," said atmospheric scientist Marshall Shepherd at the
University of Georgia, who is president of the American Meteorological Society. "And that spare is in the
twilight of its career."


1ar xt: noaa budget cuts weather research
Most recent NOAA budget cuts weather research
Gustin, 14 (4/30/2014, Georgina, CQ Executive Briefings, NOAA Defends Focus on Climate Change
Impacts, Factiva, JMP)

The full committee chairman, Lamar Smith, R-Texas, challenged NOAA's emphasis on climate research in
general. "Instead of hyping climate alarmism," he said, "NOAA should focus its efforts on other areas such
as improving weather forecasting."
In the wake of major tornadoes across the south in the past two days that killed at least 34 people,
Sullivan was also challenged by subcommittee member Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., on the agency's cuts to
weather research under the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. "The priority of NOAA is to
save lives and property," Bridenstine said, adding "yet all the research elements are going to climate
change."
Sullivan told the panel that the agency's potentially life-saving, predictive capability "doesn't come from
understanding weather, it comes from understanding oceans and the atmosphere."
Dedevelopment
2ac generic block
***look for the double-turn if they say you collapse the economy, concede it!
This turn is terminally non-unique for every economic collapse there is a recovery.

Growth is inevitable 200 years of empirics
Kaletsky 10
(Anatole, Masters in Economics from Harvard, Honour-Degree Graduate at Kings College and
Cambrdige, editor-at-large of The Times of London, founding partner and chief economist of GaveKal
Capital, He is on the governing board of the New York based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET),
a nonprofit created after the 2007 2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economics
outside the orthodoxy of efficient markets. From 1976 to 1990, Kaletsky was New York bureau chief and
Washington correspondent of the Financial Times and a business writer on The Economist,
The world did not end. Despite all the forebodings of disaster in the 2007 09 financial crisis, the first decade of the
twenty-first century passed rather uneventfully into the second. The riots, soup kitchens, and bankruptcies predicted by
many of the worlds most respected economists did not materialize and no one any longer expects the global
capitalist system to collapse, whatever that emotive word might mean. Yet the capitalist systems survival does not mean that the precrisis
faith in the wisdom of financial markets and the efficiency of free enterprise will ever again be what it was before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers
on September 15, 2008. A return to decent economic growth and normal financial conditions is likely by the middle of 2010, but will this imply a return
to business as usual for politicians, economists, and financiers? Although globalization will continue and many parts of the
world will gradually regain their prosperity of the precrisis period, the traumatic effects of 2007 09 will not be quickly
forgotten. And the economic costs will linger for decades in the debts squeezing taxpayers and government budgets, the disrupted lives of the
jobless, and the vanished dreams of homeowners and investors around the world. For what collapsed on September 15, 2008, was not just a bank or a
financial system. What fell apart that day was an entire political philosophy and economic system, a way of thinking about and living in the world. The
question now is what will replace the global capitalism that crumbled in the autumn of 2008. The central argument of this book is that global
capitalism will be replaced by nothing other than global capitalism. The traumatic events of 2007
09 will neither destroy nor diminish the fundamental human urges that have always powered the
capitalist system ambition, initiative, individualism, the competitive spirit. These natural human qualities will instead be
redirected and reenergized to create a new version of capitalism that will ultimately be even
more successful and productive than the system it replaced. To explain this process of renewal, and identify
some of the most important features of the reinvigorated capitalist system, is the ambition of this book. This transformation will take
many years to complete, but some of its consequences can already be discerned. With the benefit of even a years hindsight,
it is clear that these consequences will be different from the nihilistic predictions from both ends of the political spectrum at the height of the crisis. On
the Left, anticapitalist ideologues seemed honestly to believe that a few weeks of financial chaos could bring
about the disintegration of a politico-economic system that had survived two hundred years of
revolutions, depressions, and world wars. On the Right, free-market zealots insisted that private enterprise would be destroyed by government
interventions that were clearly necessary to save the system and many continue to believe that the crisis could have been resolved much better if
governments had simply allowed financial institutions to collapse. A balanced reassessment of the crisis must challenge both
left-wing hysteria and right-wing hubris. Rather than blaming the meltdown of the global financial system on greedy bankers,
incompetent regulators, gullible homeowners, or foolish Chinese bureaucrats, this book puts what happened into historical and ideological perspective.
It reinterprets the crisis in the context of the economic reforms and geopolitical upheavals that have repeatedly transformed the nature of capitalism
since the late eighteenth century, most recently in the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of 1979 89. The central argument is that capitalism has
never been a static system that follows a fixed set of rules, characterized by a permanent division of responsibilities between private
enterprise and governments. Contrary to the teachings of modern economic theory, no immutable laws govern the behavior of a capitalist economy.
Instead, capitalism is an adaptive social system that mutates and evolves in response to a changing
environment. When capitalism is seriously threatened by a systemic crisis, a new version
emerges that is better suited to the changing environment and replaces the previously
dominant form. Once we recognize that capitalism is not a static set of institutions, but an evolutionary system that reinvents and
reinvigorates itself through crises, we can see the events of 2007 09 in another light: as the catalyst for the fourth systemic transformation of
capitalism, comparable to the transformations triggered by the crises of the 1970s, the crises of the 1930s, and the Napoleonic Wars of 1803 15. Hence
the title of this book.

Renewable technology makes infinite growth possible
Worstall 12 (Tim, Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, and one of the global experts on
the metal scandium, "Infinite growth on a finite planet? Easy-peasy!", May 18 2012,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100017248/infinite-growth-on-a-finite-planet-easy-
peasy/)

You'll have heard this before, no doubt: infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. It's something of a mantra for
environmentalists and is used as absolute proof that we're just going to have to do without that pesky economic growth thing. The
problem here is that the conclusion isn't justified by the premise: it's driven by ignorance of what
economic growth actually is. The basic idiocy starts with the observation that there isn't an infinite amount of stuff out of
which we can make stuff. This is obviously true and no one asserts differently. However, it's entirely possible to have a
system which is finite in one dimension, and this will not limit growth within that system in another,
entirely different, direction. Using good old neoclassical economics, we define economic growth as an increase in GDP (not
quite, but that's close enough for us). GDP is the value at market prices of all final goods and services. This is, by
definition, equal to the value produced in that economy, the value as perceived by those doing the buying
of all those things. GDP is by no means perfect. Simon Kuznets, who invented it, pointed out much the same things that Ms
Lucas and all the rest point out now. It doesn't measure distribution, doesn't measure exhaustion of natural
resources and so on. But it is what it is, and it is what we normally mean by economic growth. So, using GDP, can we have
infinite economic growth on a finite planet by just making ever more things? No, clearly, we cannot: there is a
limit to the number of atoms available to us. But that's not actually what we're measuring in GDP: we're not
measuring the amount, tonnage (it was the Soviets who measured that), volume or even number of things that are made. We
are measuring the value. So, is there a limit to the amount of value that we can add? A useful way of thinking
about technological advance is that it offers us either better ways of doing old things or the opportunity to do
entirely new things. Either of which can also be described as the ability to add more value. Which leads us to
the conclusion that as long as technology keeps advancing then we can continue to add more value and thus
we can continue to have more economic growth. Strange as it may seem, this explanation built purely on standard
neoclassical economics is exactly the same as the diagnosis that Herman Daly gives us in ecological economics. He tells us that we
face real and imminent resource constraints (I don't agree, but let's go with his argumenent) and that thus we can have no more
quantitative growth. This "quantitative" is the same as the above "more stuff". Daly also talks about qualitative growth. The
"qualitative" is equal to the "add more value" and I suspect the only reason Daly doesn't say so is that he wants to be able to define
what is valuable for people: you know the sort of thing, more walking in forests, more digging our own veg patches, rousing choruses
of Kumbaya, as opposed to the neoclassical method of measuring value, which is what you, each and individually, value. Walks in the
woods are just fine but so are steaks, excessive booze and even Simon Cowell. Whatever floats your boat. As an example, let's have a
glimspe of an extreme form of Daly's "steady-state economy". This is one where resources from the environment are taken only at
the rate that that environment can support. Renewables are used only at the rate at which they can be renewed.
We're not chewing up mounntains to make copper: we're only recycling that copper we've already got. Is
economic growth possible here? Yes, obviously it is. For while we've got limited resources to play with, it is still always
open to us to find new ways to add value to them. To be silly about it, we've got 1 million tonnes of copper and that's it.
We use that copper to make paperweights. Then we learn how to make copper into computer
motherboards and we recycle all paperweights into computers. We value the computers more than the
paperweights: we've just had GDP growth, we've just had economic growth, with no increase in the
consumption of resources. Even in this steady-state economy therefore, even one in which everything is
recycled, we can still have economic growth through advancing technology. This advancing technology is known
as an increase in total factor productivity (TFP). What we'd like to know next is how much limiting ourselves to only this type of
growth is going to limit total growth. Bob Solow once worked out that 80 per cent of the economic growth in 20th-century market
economies came from TFP growth. Only 20 per cent came from more resource use: in the socialist economies there was no TFP
growth, and all growth came from greater resource use. So we can indeed have quite a lot of economic growth even in
the greenest of economies, can we not?

No alternatives
Mead 09 Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and the
author of God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World. Lauren Gottlieb provided research assistance for
this article. February 04, 2009 http://www.tnr.com/article/only-makes-you-stronger Only Makes You Stronger: Why the
recession bolstered America

But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the
Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on
both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--
whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so
signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former
Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in
much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather
than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are
quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives.
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the
societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the
front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of
the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and
professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the
hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are
determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies
and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the
consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies.
As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and
shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as,
inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than
challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help
capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been
a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so
has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the
Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises.

Growth solves the environment [research, the California effect, the EKC, and better tech]
Norberg, 03 Fellow at Timbro and CATO [Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pg 225-237]
All over the world, economic progress and growth are moving hand in hand with intensified
environmental protection. Four researchers who studied these connections found a very strong,
positive association between our [environmental] indicators and the level of economic development. A
country that is very poor is too preoccupied with lifting itself out of poverty to bother about the environment at all. Countries
usually begin protecting their natural resources when they can afford to do so. When they grow richer, they start to
regulate effluent emissions, and when they have still more resources they also begin regulating air
quality. 19 A number of factors cause environment protection to increase with wealth and development. Environmental quality
is unlikely to be a top priority for people who barely know where their next meal is coming from. Abating misery and subduing
the pangs of hunger takes precedence over conservation. When our standard of living rises we start attaching
importance to the environment and obtaining resources to improve it. Such was the case earlier in
western Europe, and so it is in the developing countries today. Progress of this kind, however, requires that people
live in democracies where they are able and allowed to mobilize opinion; otherwise, their preferences will have no impact.
Environmental destruction is worst in dictatorships. But it is the fact of prosperity no less than a sense of
responsibility that makes environmental protection easier in a wealthy society. A wealthier country can afford to tackle
environmental problems; it can develop environmentally friendly technologieswastewater and exhaust
emission control, for exampleand begin to rectify past mistakes. Global environmental development resembles not
so much a race for the bottom as a race to the top, what we might call a California effect. The state of
California's Clean Air Acts, first introduced in the 1970s and tightened since, were stringent emissions
regulations that made rigorous demands on car manufacturers. Many prophets of doom predicted that
firms and factories would move to other states, and California would soon be obliged to repeal its
regulations. But instead the opposite happened: other states gradually tightened up their
environmental stipulations. Because car companies needed the wealthy California market, manufacturers all over the
United States were forced to develop new techniques for reducing emissions. Having done so, they could more easily comply
with the exacting requirements of other states, whereupon those states again ratcheted up their requirements. Anti-globalists
usually claim that the profit motive and free trade together cause businesses to entrap politicians in a
race for the bottom. The California effect implies the opposite: free trade enables politicians to pull
profit-hungry corporations along with them in a race to the top. This phenomenon occurs because compliance
with environmental rules accounts for a very small proportion of most companies' expenditures. What
firms are primarily after is a good business environmenta liberal economy and a skilled workforce not a bad natural
environment. A review of research in this field shows that there are no clear indications of national
environmental rules leading to a diminution of exports or to fewer companies locating in the countries
that pass the rules. 20 This finding undermines both the arguments put forward by companies against
environmental regulations and those advanced by environmentalists maintaining that globalization
has to be restrained for environmental reasons. Incipient signs of the California effect's race to the top
are present all over the world, because globalization has caused different countries to absorb new
techniques more rapidly, and the new techniques are generally far gentler on the environment. Researchers have
investigated steel manufacturing in 50 different countries and concluded that countries with more
open economies took the lead in introducing cleaner technology. Production in those countries
generated almost 20 percent less emissions than the same production in closed countries. This process is
being driven by multinational corporations because they have a lot to gain from uniform production with uniform technology.
Because they are restructured more rapidly, they have more modern machinery. And they prefer assimilating the latest, most
environmentally friendly technology immediately to retrofitting it, at great expense, when environmental regulations are
tightened up. Brazil, Mexico, and Chinathe three biggest recipients of foreign investmenthave
followed a very clear pattern: the more investments they get, the better control they gain over air
pollution. The worst forms of air pollution have diminished in their cities during the period of globalization. When Western
companies start up in developing countries, their production is considerably more environment-friendly than the native
production, and they are more willing to comply with environmental legislation, not least because they have brand images and
reputations to protect. Only 30 percent of Indonesian companies comply with the country's environmental regulations, whereas
no fewer than 80 percent of the multinationals do so. One out of every 10 foreign companies maintained a standard clearly
superior to that of the regulations. This development would go faster if economies were more open and, in particular, if the
governments of the world were to phase out the incomprehensible tariffs on environmentally friendly technology. 21 Sometimes
one hears it said that, for environmental reasons, the poor countries of the South must not be allowed to grow as affluent as our
countries in the North. For example, in a compilation of essays on Environmentally Significant Consumption published by the
National Academy of Sciences, we find anthropologist Richard Wilk fretting that: If everyone develops a
desire for the Western high-consumption lifestyle, the relentless growth in consumption, energy use,
waste, and emissions may be disastrous. 22 But studies show this to be colossal misapprehension. On
the contrary, it is in the developing countries that we find the gravest, most harmful environmental problems. In our affluent
part of the world, more and more people are mindful of environmental problems such as endangered green areas. Every day in
the developing countries, more than 6,9000 people die from air pollution when using wood, dung, and agricultural waste in
their homes as heating and cooking fuel. UNDP estimates that no fewer than 2.2 million people die every year from polluted
indoor air. This result is already disastrous and far more destructive than atmospheric pollution and industrial emissions.
Tying people down to that level of development means condemning millions to premature death every year. It is not true
that pollution in the modern sense increases with growth. Instead, pollution follows an inverted U-
curve. When growth in a very poor country gathers speed and the chimneys begin belching smoke, the
environment suffers. But when prosperity has risen high enough, the environmental indicators show an
improvement instead: emissions are reduced, and air and water show progressively lower concentrations of pollutants.
The cities with the worst problems are not Stockholm, New York, and Zrich, but rather Beijing, Mexico City, and New Delhi. In
addition to the factors already mentioned, this is also due to the economic structure changing from raw-material-intensive to
knowledge-intensive production. In a modern economy, heavy, dirty industry is to a great extent superseded by service
enterprises. Banks, consulting firms, and information technology corporations do not have the same environmental impact as
old factories. According to one survey of available environmental data, the turning point generally comes before a country's per
capita GDP has reached $8,000. At $10,000, the researchers found a positive connection between increased growth and better
air and water quality. 23 That is roughly the level of prosperity of Argentina, South Korea, or Slovenia. In the United States, per
capita GDP is about $36,300. Here as well, the environment has consistently improved since the 1970s, quite contrary to the
picture one gets from the media. In the 1970s there was constant reference to smog in American cities, and rightly so: the air was
judged to be unhealthy for 100300 days a year. Today it is unhealthy for fewer than 10 days a year, with the exception of Los
Angeles. There, the figure is roughly 80 days, but even that represents a 50 percent reduction in 10 years. 24 The same trend is
noticeable in the rest of the affluent worldfor example, in Tokyo, where, a few decades ago, doomsayers believed that oxygen
masks would in the future have to be worn all around the city because of the bad air. Apart from its other positive effects on the
developing countries, such as ameliorating hunger and sparing people the horror of watching their children die, prosperity
beyond a certain critical point can improve the environment. What is more, this turning point is now occurring
progressively earlier in the developing countries, because they can learn from more affluent countries' mistakes
and use their superior technology. For example, air quality in the enormous cities of China, which are the most heavily
polluted in the world, has steadied since the mid-1980s and in several cases has slowly improved. This improvement has
coincided with uniquely rapid growth. Some years ago, the Danish statistician and Greenpeace member Bjrn Lomborg, with
about 10 of his students, compiled statistics and facts about the world's environmental problems. To his astonishment, he found
that what he himself had regarded as self-evident, the steady deterioration of the global environment, did not agree at all with
official empirical data. He found instead that air pollution is diminishing, refuse problems are diminishing, resources are not
running out, more people are eating their fill, and people are living longer. Lomborg gathered publicly available data from as
many fields as he could find and published them in the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
World. The picture that emerges there is an important corrective to the general prophesies of doom that can so easily be imbibed
from newspaper headlines. Lomborg shows that air pollution and emissions have been declining in the developed world during
recent decades. Heavy metal emissions have been heavily reduced; nitrogen oxides have diminished by almost 30 percent and
sulfur emissions by about 80 percent. Pollution and emission problems are still growing in the poor developing countries, but at
every level of growth annual particle density has diminished by 2 percent in only 14 years. In the developed world, phosphorus
emissions into the seas have declined drastically, and E. coli bacteria concentrations in coastal waters have plummeted, enabling
closed swimming areas to reopen. Lomborg shows that, instead of large-scale deforestation, the world's forest acreage increased
from 40.24 million to 43.04 million square kilometers between 1950 and 1994. He finds that there has never been any large-
scale tree death caused by acid rain. The oft-quoted, but erroneous statement about 40,000 species going extinct every year is
traced by Lomborg to its sourcea 20-year-old estimate that has been circulating in environmentalist circles ever since.
Lomborg thinks it is closer to 1,500 species a year, and possibly a bit more than that. The documented cases of extinction during
the past 400 years total just over a thousand species, of which about 95 percent are insects, bacteria, and viruses. As for the
problem of garbage, the next hundred years worth of Danish refuse could be accommodated in a 33-meter-deep pit with an area
of three square kilometers, even without recycling. In addition, Lomborg illustrates how increased prosperity and improved
technology can solve the problems that lie ahead of us. All the fresh water consumed in the world today could be produced by a
single desalination plant, powered by solar cells and occupying 0.4 percent of the Sahara Desert. It is a mistake, then, to believe
that growth automatically ruins the environment. And claims that we would need this or that number of planets for the whole
world to attain a Western standard of consumptionthose ecological footprint calculationsare equally untruthful. Such a
claim is usually made by environmentalists, and it is concerned, not so much with emissions and pollution, as with resources
running out if everyone were to live as we do in the affluent world. Clearly, certain of the raw materials we use today, in
presentday quantities, would not suffice for the whole world if everyone consumed the same things. But that information is just
about as interesting as if a prosperous Stone Age man were to say that, if everyone attained his level of consumption, there
would not be enough stone, salt, and furs to go around. Raw material consumption is not static. With more and more
people achieving a high level of prosperity, we start looking for ways of using other raw materials. Humanity is constantly
improving technology so as to get at raw materials that were previously inaccessible, and we are attaining a
level of prosperity that makes this possible. New innovations make it possible for old raw materials to be
put to better use and for garbage to be turned into new raw materials. A century and a half ago, oil was just something black
and sticky that people preferred not to step in and definitely did not want to find beneath their land. But our interest in finding
better energy sources led to methods being devised for using oil, and today it is one of our prime resources. Sand has never been
all that exciting or precious, but today it is a vital raw material in the most powerful technology of our age, the computer. In the
form of siliconwhich makes up a quarter of the earth's crust it is a key component in computer chips. There is a
simple market mechanism that averts shortages. If a certain raw material comes to be in short supply,
its price goes up. This makes everyone more interested in economizing on that resource, in finding more
of it, in reusing it, and in trying to find substitutes for it. The trend over the last few decades of falling raw material prices
is clear. Metals have never been as cheap as they are today. Prices are falling, which suggests that demand does not exceed
supply. In relation to wages, that is, in terms of how long we must work to earn the price of a raw material, natural resources
today are half as expensive as they were 50 years ago and one-fifth as expensive as they were a hundred years ago. In 1900 the
price of electricity was eight times higher, the price of coal seven times higher, and the price of oil five times higher than today.
25 The risk of shortage is declining all the time, because new finds and more efficient use keep augmenting the available
reserves. In a world where technology never stops developing, static calculations are uninteresting, and wrong. By simple
mathematics, Lomborg establishes that if we have a raw material with a hundred years' use remaining, a 1 percent annual
increase in demand, and a 2 percent increase in recycling and/or efficiency, that resource will never be exhausted. If shortages
do occur, then with the right technology most substances can be recycled. One-third of the world's steel production, for example,
is being reused already. Technological advance can outstrip the depletion of resources. Not many years ago,
everyone was convinced of the impossibility of the whole Chinese population having telephones, because that would require
several hundred million telephone operators. But the supply of manpower did not run out; technology developed instead. Then
it was declared that nationwide telephony for China was physically impossible because all the world's copper wouldn't suffice for
installing heavy gauge telephone lines all over the country. Before that had time to become a problem, fiber optics and satellites
began to supersede copper wire. The price of copper, a commodity that people believed would run out, has fallen continuously
and is now only about a tenth of what it was 200 years ago. People in most ages have worried about important raw materials
becoming exhausted. But on the few occasions when this has happened, it has generally affected isolated, poor places, not open,
affluent ones. To claim that people in Africa, who are dying by the thousand every day from supremely real shortages, must not
be allowed to become as prosperous as we in the West because we can find theoretical risks of shortages occurring is both stupid
and unjust.

Tech innovation is the only way to solve sustainability
Robertson 07 [Ross, Senior Editor at EnlightenNext, former NRDC member, A Brighter Shade of
Green, What is Enlightenment, Oct-Dec, http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j38/bright-
green.asp?page=1]
This brings me to Worldchanging, the book that arrived last spring bearing news of an environ-mental paradigm so shamelessly up
to the minute, it almost blew out all my green circuits before I could even get it out of its stylish slipcover. Worldchanging: A Users
Guide for the 21st Century. Its also the name of the group blog, found at Worldchanging.com, where the material in the book
originally came from. Run by a future-savvy environmental journalist named Alex Steffen, Worldchanging is one of the central hubs
in a fast-growing network of thinkers defining an ultramodern green agenda that closes the gap between nature and societybig
time. After a good solid century of well-meaning efforts to restrain, reduce, and otherwise mitigate our presence here on planet
Earth, theyre saying its time for environmentalism to do a one-eighty. Theyre ditching the long-held tenets of
classical greenitude and harnessing the engines of capitalism, high technology, and human ingenuity to
jump-start the manufacture of a dramatically sustainable future. They call themselves bright green, and if youre at
all steeped in the old-school dark green worldview (their term), theyre guaranteed to make you squirm. The good news is, they just
might free you to think completely differently as well. Worldchanging takes its inspiration from a series of speeches given by sci-fi
author, futurist, and cyberguru Bruce Sterling in the years leading up to the turn of the millenniumand from the so-called Viridian
design movement he gave birth to. Known more in those days as one of the fathers of cyberpunk than as the prophet of a new
twenty-first-century environmentalism, Ster-ling nevertheless began issuing a self-styled prophecy to the design world announcing
the launch of a cutting-edge green design program that would embrace consumerism rather than reject it. Its mission: to take on
climate change as the planets most burning aesthetic challenge. Why is this an aesthetic issue? he asked his first audience in 1998
at San Franciscos Yerba Buena Center for the Arts near my old office at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Well, because its a
severe breach of taste to bake and sweat half to death in your own trash, thats why. To boil and roast the entire physical world, just
so you can pursue your cheap addiction to carbon dioxide. Explaining the logic of the bright green platform, Sterling writes: Its a
question of tactics. Civil society does not respond at all well to moralistic scolding. There are small minority groups
here and there who are perfectly aware that it is immoral to harm the lives of coming generations by massive consumption now:
deep Greens, Amish, people practicing voluntary simplicity, Gandhian ashrams and so forth. These public-spirited voluntarists are
not the problem. But theyre not the solution either, because most human beings wont volunteer to live like they do. . .
. However, contemporary civil society can be led anywhere that looks attractive, glamorous and seductive.
The task at hand is therefore basically an act of social engineering. Society must become Green, and it
must be a variety of Green that society will eagerly consume. What is required is not a natural Green, or a
spiritual Green, or a primitivist Green, or a blood-and-soil romantic Green. These flavors of Green have
been tried and have proven to have insufficient appeal. . . . The world needs a new, unnatural, seductive,
mediated, glamorous Green. A Viridian Green, if you will. Sterling elaborates in a speech given to the Industrial Designers
Society of America in Chicago in 1999: This cant be one of these diffuse, anything-goes, eclectic, postmodern
things. Forget about that, thats over, thats yesterday. Its got to be a narrow, doctrinaire, high-velocity movement.
Inventive, not eclectic. New, not cut-and-pasted from the debris of past trends. Forward-looking and high-tech, not
William Morris medieval arts-and-craftsy. About abundance of clean power and clean goods and clean products, not
conservative of dirty power and dirty goods and dirty products. Explosive, not thrifty. Expansive, not niggling. Mainstream, not
underground. Creative of a new order, not subversive of an old order. Making a new cultural narrative, not
calling the old narrative into question. . . . Twentieth-century design is over now. Anything can look like anything now.
You can put a pixel of any color anywhere you like on a screen, you can put a precise dot of ink anywhere on any paper, you can stuff
any amount of functionality into chips. The limits arent to be found in the technology anymore. The limits are
behind your own eyes, people. They are limits of habit, things youve accepted, things youve been told, realities youre ignoring.
Stop being afraid. Wake up. Its yours if you want it. Its yours if youre bold enough. It was a philosophy that completely reversed
the fulcrum of environmental thinking, shifting its focus from the flaws inherent in the human soul to the failures inherent in the
world weve designeddesigned, Sterling emphasized. Things are the way they are today, he seemed to be saying, for no
greater or lesser reason than that we made them that wayand theres no good reason for them to stay the
same. His suggestion that its time to hang up our hats as caretakers of the earth and embrace our role as its
masters is profoundly unnerving to the dark green environmentalist in me. But at this point in history, is it any more than a
question of semantics? With PCBs in the flesh of Antarctic penguins, there isnt a square inch of the planets surface
that is unmanaged anymore; there is no more untouched natural state. We hold the strings of global
destiny in our fingertips, and the easy luxury of cynicism regarding our creative potential to re-solve
things is starting to look catastrophically expensive. Our less-than-admirable track record gives us every
reason to be cautious and every excuse to be pessimists. But is the risk of being optimistic anyway a risk
that, in good conscience, we can really afford not to take? Sterlings belief in the fundamental promise of human
creativity is reminiscent of earlier de-sign visionaries such as Buckminster Fuller. I am convinced that creativity is a priori to the
integrity of the universe and that life is regenerative and conformity meaningless, Fuller wrote in I Seem to Be a Verb in 1970, the
same year we had our first Earth Day. I seek, he declared simply, to reform the environment instead of trying to reform man.
Fullers ideas influenced many of the twentieth centurys brightest environmental lights, including Stewart Brand, founder of the
Whole Earth Catalog and the online community The WELL, an early precursor of the internet. Brand took Fullers approach and ran
with it in the sixties and seventies, helping to spearhead a tech-friendly green counterculture that worked to pull environmentalism
out of the wilderness and into the realms of sustainable technology and social justice. We are as gods, and might as well
get good at it, he wrote in the original 1968 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog, and hes managed to keep himself on the
evolving edge of progressive thought ever since. Brand went on to found the Point Foundation, CoEvolution Quarterly (which
became Whole Earth Review), the Hackers Conference, the Global Business Network, and the Long Now Foundation. As he gets
older, he recently told the New York Times, he continues to become more rational and less romantic. . . . I keep seeing the harm
done by religious romanticism, the terrible conservatism of romanticism, the ingrained pessimism of romanticism. It builds in a
certain immunity to the scientific frame of mind. Bright Green Many remember the Whole Earth Catalog with a fondness reserved
for only the closest of personal guiding lights. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, thirty-five years before Google came
along, recalls Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. It was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions. For Alex Steffen,
its the place where a whole generation of young commune-kid geeks like myself learned to dream weird. And at Worldchanging,
those unorthodox green dreams have grown into a high-speed Whole Earth Catalog for the internet generation, every bit as
inventive, idealistic, and brazenly ambitious as its predecessor: We need, in the next twenty-five years or so, to do something never
before done, Steffen writes in his introduction to Worldchanging. We need to consciously redesign the entire material
basis of our civilization. The model we replace it with must be dramatically more ecologically sustainable,
offer large increases in prosperity for everyone on the planet, and not only function in areas of chaos and
corruption, but also help transform them. That alone is a task of heroic magnitude, but theres an additional complication:
we only get one shot. Change takes time, and time is what we dont have. . . . Fail to act boldly enough and we may fail completely.
Another world is possible, goes the popular slogan of the World Social Forum, a yearly gathering of antiglobalization activists from
around the world. No, counters Worldchanging in a conscious riff on that motto: Another world is here. Indeed, bright green
environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the tools,
models, and ideas that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent
for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions. As Sterling said in his first Viridian design speech, paying
homage to William Gibson: The future is already here, its just not well distributed yet. Of course, nobody
knows exactly what a bright green future will look like; its only going to become visible in the process of
building it. Worldchanging: A Users Guide is six hundred pages long, and no sin-gle recipe in the whole cornucopia takes up
more than a few of them. Its an inspired wealth of information I cant even begin to do justice to here, but it also presents a
surprisingly integrated platform for immediate creative action, a sort of bright green rule set based on the
best of todays knowledge and innovationand perpetually open to improvement.

Mindset shift fails cant overcome barriers
Gpel 4/28 - Maja Gpel heads the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Her research
focuses on system transformations and new prosperity models. Preceding this post she helped start up the World Future Council and
later directed its Future Justice program with a focus on the representation of future generations and long-termism in current
governance structures. Maja has a PhD in political economy and diploma in media/communications, she lectures at universities and
enjoys working in international networks. (2014, Maja, Postwachstum, Getting to Postgrowth: The Transformative Power of Mind-
and Paradigm Shifts, http://blog.postwachstum.de/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-
shifts-20140428 // SM)
The socio-economic concept of path dependencies sheds some light on the underlying reasons: if the status quo is challenged, it
translates into a deviation from the normal way of doing things which creates higher transaction costs,
(presumably) higher risks and a fear of losing roles, identities and privileges. On top of this, standardized
procedures, legal institutionalization and the creation of material-economic infrastructures leads to
further lock-ins that take a lot of political will to change. This plethora of self-stabilizing path
dependencies in our minds and institutions is what Antonio Gramsci captured in his concept of hegemony.
Next to the more visible exertion of power in form of money, jurisdiction or other types of coercion, it is the widely
established convictions and canonized knowledge, cultural narratives, belief-systems and the derived needs in a given society that play out in favor of
those benefiting from the status quo.[1] These allow for leadership with least resistance, if supported by a
programmatic social myth which provides the imagination and justifications as to why this particular set
of values, norms, practices, institutions and regulations is of general interest. The idea of endless
economic growth benefiting all may have been the most powerful example for such a social myth. Its
perseverance has been the biggest roadblock for getting the sustainable development agenda on track. The
Rio Declaration of the United Nations made sustainable development the overarching policy principle of
international cooperation. According to its official definition it means development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs while giving priority to the needs of the poor and acknowledging the
limitations that social and technological activities impose on natures ability to replenish means. [2] Economic, social and environmental concerns were
to be integrated. What happened instead was that environmental and social aspects were fitted into the
economic growth story and its underlying paradigm- which tells us nothing meaningful about human
needs and keeps us blind to natural reproduction cycles. Needs are reduced to the general concept of utility
maximization and, based on the ontological assumption that humans are selfish, insatiable and rational,
it is concluded that this goal is best serviced by ever increasing consumption. Equipped with so-defined
representative actors, markets in which everything of value will find a price and is subject to supply and
demand, are considered the most efficient and just institutions for progress. Consequently, it is assumed
that wealth accumulation on the top will trickle down to the poor as long as they offer anything valuable.
According to this rationale of universal monetarization, the need to assess natures ability to replenish
resources became unnecessary. The concept of capital substitutability crept into our development story which means
that loss of nature can be compensated by other capital or input factors created by humans. As a consequence, the
myth of economic growth became shielded against the attack of limits to growth reports
and co-opted into the hegemonic regime, as Antonio Gramsci would say.


at: collapse inev

Infinite growth is possible - energy growth is distinct from economic growth
Harford 1/24 (Tim, senior columnist for the Financial Times, won the Bastiat Prize for economic
journalism in 2006, runner up in 2010, member of the Royal Economic Society council and a visiting
fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, "Can Economic Growth Continue Forever? Of Course!", January 24
2014, http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course/)

Can economic growth continue forever? The internet seems to be full of physicists explaining that economists are clueless on this
topic. Theres the late Albert Bartletts hugely popular videos or Tom Murphys article Exponential Economist Meets Finite
Physicist. The key issue is that exponential growth will eventually take you to impossible places. And by
eventually, the physicists mean sooner than we expect. Exponential growth is any kind of growth that compounds
like interest payments. The classic example is the rice on the chessboard. According to an old story, the inventor of the game of
chess was offered a reward by a delighted king. He requested a modest-sounding payment: one grain of rice on the first square of the
chessboard, two on the second, four on the third, doubling each time. Yet this is actually a colossal amountmany times the annual
rice production of the entire planet. The chessboard prize was 100 percent growth per square; but 10 percent, 1 percent or even
0.0001 percentits all exponential growth. And it all becomes trouble eventually, because each little bit of growth
will itself be multiplied by growth in the future. As Albert Einstein, yet another physicist, is famously said to have
declared (but probably did not), the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. The implication
for economic growth seems obvious. Our economy grows at a few percent a year. That hasnt presented many
insuperable problems so far. But growth of a few per cent a year is nevertheless exponential growth, and eventuallythe physicists
worrywell reach a square on the economic chessboard that we just cant fill. Economists understand this point
perfectly well. One of the very first people to be called an economist was the Reverend Thomas Malthus, who died almost two
hundred years ago. Malthus was worried about exponential population growth, and his math was incontrovertible. Fortunately, in
the short term technological progress was faster than population growth. More recently population growth
has been slowing down dramatically. Theres every reason to believe that the population of the planet is
going to stabilize. I dont think anybody believes zero population growth is unsustainable. You might well
respond that even if population growth stops, growth in the economy in GDP will continue, and fall foul of the rice-on-the-
chessboard problem. But I think that here we find a serious gap in the logic of the exponential doomsayers. Theyre
looking at exponential growth in physical processesthings like heating, cooling, lighting, movement. This
is understandable, because they are, after all, physicists. Tom Murphys blog post is particularly startling on this point. He points out
that if our energy consumption grows at 2.3 percent a yearless than historical rates but enough to increase energy
consumption tenfold each centurythen the entire planet will reach boiling point in just four centuries. Its not the
greenhouse effect at work; its irrelevant to Professor Murphys point whether the energy comes from fossil fuels, solar power or fairy
dust. This is simply about the waste heat given off, inevitably, when we use energy to do useful work. And its
pretty hard to argue with the laws of thermodynamics. The calculation sounds shocking, but its just the rice on the chessboard all
over again. Heres the logic lapse: energy growth is not the same as economic growth. GDP merely measures
what people are willing to pay for, which is not necessarily connected to the use of energy, or any other
physical resource. True, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the two have tended to go hand in
hand, but theres no logical reason why that tendency needs to continue. Indeed, it appears to have stopped
already. Would you like to take a guess at energy growth per person in the United States over the last quarter of a
century? Its not just less than 2.3 percent. Its less than zero. The same is true for other developed economies such
as Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. Now this is partly due to offshoring to China but the offshoring effect just
doesnt seem big enough to explain what is going on. Its also about the changing nature of what is bought and sold in a modern
economy. Think of New York City. Its a high-income place, and has for more than a century been a creative powerhouse: publishing,
music, fashion, art, finance, software, you name it. But energy consumption per person in New York City is lower
than in the United States as a wholein fact, its lower than the average in any American state. Ultimately,
we can do a lot of the things we valueincluding value in the grubby pecuniary sense of are willing to pay lots of cash
forwithout expending vast amounts of energy. Its easy to grasp why exponential economic growth is not the
same as exponential energy growth. If Im worried about money, I may turn off my heating and wear a coat and hat indoors;
a bit of extra money will mean I take off the hat and coat and use more energy. But that doesnt mean that if I win the lottery I will
celebrate by boiling myself alive. I fully agree with the environmentalists who worry that we cannot continue consuming more and
more water, spewing out more and more carbon dioxide and burning more and more coal. The problem comes if we then
leap to the conclusion that the economy itself cannot keep growing. Thankfully, that just doesnt follow.

Learning and adaptability solves collapse capitalism is self-correcting
Goldberg 6/30 Goldberg is a bestselling author and columnist. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer
for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the
prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. His first book, Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008), quickly became a New York Times bestseller.
(2014, Jonah, AEIdeas, Capitalisms Capacity for Self-correction Example Is the School of Mankind, http://www.aei-
ideas.org/2010/04/capitalisms-capacity-for-self-correction-%E2%80%94-example-is-the-school-of-mankind/ // SM)
Example is the school of mankind, observed Edmund Burke, and they will learn at no other. This is the
fundamental insight of both conservatism and libertarianism. People learn from their mistakes. To use Dodds logic, I am
just as vulnerable as ever to riding my bike without holding the handlebars. But I dont do that anymore, even though the federal
government has done nothing to make it harder for me to do it again. Why? Because I learned from my mistakes. Even the
federal government has been known to learn from its errors. As Christopher DeMuth noted at the 2008 AEI
chairmans dinner: One of the reasons to doubt that the financial crisis will produce not just a hard recession but a
1930s-style depression is that we have a truer knowledge of monetary policy. Back then the conventional wisdom
was that because supply and demand were falling, therefore less money was needed for exchange, therefore the money supply should
be contracted. Essentially no one thinks that way today. That the goal of monetary policy should be price stability is
knowledge that was acquired at great cost through decades of study and contentious debate. In facing our
current crisis, it is an asset as valuable as the Federal Reserves balance sheet. This is not to say that the financial crisis doesnt justify
any reforms. But lets not forget that inherent to capitalism is the capacity for self-correction. Surely the
disappearance of Lehman Brothers and the dismantling of AIG is an example that many can learn from.
The real danger seems to me that people like Dodd havent learned the lesson that government is not the onlyor bestcorrective to
the excesses of capitalism.

Sustainable and infinite growth is possible - mathematically proven
Leach 1/31 (Andrew, Ph.D. from Queens University in Economics, and a B.Sc (Environmental Sciences)
and M.A. (Economics) from the University of Guelph, previous Assistant Professor at HEC Montreal,
currently the Associate Professor in the Alberta School of Business and I hold the Enbridge Professorship
in Energy Policy, "Finite Resources and Infinite Growth", January 31 2014,
http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/finite-resources-and-infinite-growth/)

If you want to get to increasing economic growth with a finite resource, you need an increase in productivity.
Suppose that you still have the same finite resource stock, but that you become 3% more productive each year in your use of
resources you generate 3% more total product from each unit of resource extraction. The growth in productivity allows
you to use fewer resources each year, while still increasing production. Resource stocks still decline, and approach
zero asymptotically, but its like going half the distance to the goal line in football youll get closer every time but youll
never score. Resource extraction with increasing So, how do you increase productivity? Energy is used in our
economy as a complement to labour and capital, so if you want to increase the productivity of your finite
resource then increase energy efficiency, decrease the resource-intensity of energy, increase labour
productivity, or increase the quality of your human and physical capital. This is what Queens University economist
John Hartwick had in mind when he wrote down the Hartwick rule the mathematical proof of what Ive just tried to do in words:
as long as you invest sufficiently in improvements in productivity, and manage resources optimally, its
possible to sustain infinite growth from a finite resource. Of course, the Hartwick rule is not a law it doesnt
guarantee that this will always be achieved, and it certainly doesnt say that it can be accomplished with any level of investment it
just tells you that its mathematically possible. Saying that its impossible to achieve exponential growth
infinitely with finite resources does nothing to advance our discussions of resource management and
ignores plenty of evidence to the contrary in the economics literature. What we should be discussing instead is how to
make sure we follow Hartwicks rule, but thats another story for another day.

Human ingenuity solves resource constraints.
Lomborg 12 is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director
of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. (Bjorn, 2012, 6-21
Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137681/bjorn-lomborg/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now)

Forty years on, how do the predictions stack up? Defenders like to point out that The Limits to Growth
carefully hedged its bets, with its authors claiming that they were not presenting "exact predictions" and that they were
"deliberately . . . somewhat vague" on time frames because they wanted to focus on the general behavior of the system. But this is
sophistry. It was obvious from the way the book was both presented and understood that it made a number of clear predictions, including that the
world would soon run out many nonrenewable resources. Assuming exponentially increasing demand, The Limits to Growth calculated
how soon after 1970 various resources would be exhausted. Their conclusion was that before 2012, the
world would run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin,
tungsten, and zinc -- 12 of the 19 substances they looked at. They were simply and spectacularly wrong.
They singled out mercury, claiming that its known global reserves in 1970 would last for only 13 years of
exponential growth in demand, or 41 years if the reserves magically quintupled. They noted that "the prices of those resources with the shortest static
reserve indices have already begun to increase. The price of mercury, for example, has gone up 500 percent in the last 20 years." Since then,
however, technological innovations have led to the replacement of mercury in batteries, dental fillings,
and thermometers. Mercury consumption has collapsed by 98 percent, and by 2000, the price had
dropped by 90 percent. They predicted that gold might run out as early as 1979 and would certainly do so by 1999, based on
estimations of 10,980 tons of known reserves in 1970. In the subsequent 40 years, however, 81,410 tons of gold have been mined, and gold
reserves are now estimated to be 51,000 tons.
Known reserves of copper in 1970 came to 280 million tons. Since then, about 400 million tons have been produced globally, and world copper
reserves are now estimated at almost 700 million tons. Since 1946, new copper reserves have been discovered
faster than existing copper reserves have been depleted. And the same goes for the other three most economically important
metals: aluminum, iron, and zinc. Despite a 16-fold increase in aluminum consumption since 1950, and despite the fact that the world
has consumed four times the 1950 known reserves in the years since, aluminum reserves now could
support 177 years of the present level of consumption. The Limits to Growth also worried about running out of oil (in 1990) and natural
gas (in 1992). Not only have those not run out, but their reserves, measured in terms of years of current consumption, are larger today than
they have ever been since 1970, even though consumption has increased dramatically.
WHAT THEY MISSED
The basic point of The Limits to Growth seemed intuitive, even obvious: if ever-more people use ever-more stuff, eventually they will bump
into the planet's physical limits. So why did the authors get it wrong? Because they overlooked human ingenuity.
The authors of The Limits to Growth named five drivers of the world system, but they left out the most important one of all: people, and their
ability to discover and innovate. If you think there are only 280 million tons of copper in the ground, you'll think you'll be out of luck once
you have dug it out. But talking about "known reserves" ignores the many ways available resources can be increased.
Prospecting has improved, for example. As recently as 2007, Brazil found the Sugar Loaf oil field off the coast of So Paulo, which could hold 40 billion
barrels of oil. Extraction techniques have also been improving. The oil industry now drills deeper into the ground,
farther out into the oceans, and higher up in the Arctic. It drills horizontally and uses water and steam to squeeze out more from existing fields.
And shale gas can now be liberated with new fracking technology, which has helped double U.S. potential gas resources
within the past six years. This is similar to the technological breakthrough of chemical flotation for copper, which made it possible to mine ores that had
previously been thought worthless, and similiar to the Haber-Bosch process, which made nitrogen fixation possible, yielding fertilizers that now help
feed a third of humanity. Aluminum is one of the most common metallic elements on earth. But extracting it was so difficult and expensive that not so
long ago, it was more costly than gold or platinum. Napoleon III had bars of aluminum exhibited alongside the French crown jewels, and he gave his
honored guests aluminum forks and spoons while lesser visitors had to make do with gold utensils. Only with the invention of the Hall-Hroult process
in 1886 did aluminum suddenly drop in price and massively increase in availability. Most often, however, ingenuity manifests itself in much less
spectacular ways, generating incremental improvements in existing methods that cut costs and increase productivity.
None of this means that the earth and its resources are not finite. But it does suggest that the amount of
resources that can ultimately be generated with the help of human ingenuity is far beyond what human
consumption requires. This is true even of energy, which many think of as having peaked. Costs aside, for example, by itself, the Green River
Formation in the western United States is estimated to hold about 800 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, three times the proven oil reserves of
Saudi Arabia. And even with current technology, the amount of energy the entire world consumes today could be generated by solar panels covering
just 2.6 percent of the area of the Sahara.
Worries about resources are not new. In 1865, the economist William Stanley Jevons wrote a damning book on
the United Kingdom's coal use. He saw the Industrial Revolution relentlessly increasing the country's demand for
coal, inevitably exhausting its reserves and ending in collapse: "It will appear that there is no reasonable prospect
of any release from future want of the main agent of industry." And in 1908, it was Andrew Carnegie who fretted:
"I have for many years been impressed with the steady depletion of our iron ore supply. It is staggering to learn
that our once-supposed ample supply of rich ores can hardly outlast the generation now appearing, leaving only
the leaner ores for the later years of the century." Of course, his generation left behind better technology, so
today, exploiting harder-to-get-at, lower-grade ore is easier and cheaper.
Another way to look at the resource question is by examining the prices of various raw materials. The Limits
to Growth camp argues that as resource constraints get tighter, prices will rise. Mainstream economists, in contrast, are generally confident that
human ingenuity will win out and prices will drop. A famous bet between the two groups took place in 1980. The economist Julian Simon,
frustrated by incessant claims that the planet would run out of oil, food, and raw materials, offered to bet $10,000 that any given raw material picked
by his opponents would drop in price over time. Simon's gauntlet was taken up by the biologist Ehrlich and the physicists John Harte and John
Holdren (the latter is now U.S. President Barack Obama's science adviser), saying "the lure of easy money can be irresistible." The three staked their
bets on chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten, and they picked a time frame of ten years. When the decade was up, all five
commodities had dropped in price, and they had to concede defeat (although they continued to stand by their original argument). And this was
hardly a fluke: commodity prices have generally declined over the last century and a half (see Figure 2).

In short, the authors of The Limits to Growth got their most famous factor, resources, spectacularly wrong. Their graphs show resource levels starting
high and dropping, but the situation is precisely the opposite: they start low and rise. Reserves of zinc, copper, bauxite (the principal ore of
aluminum), oil, and iron have all been going spectacularly up (see Figure 3).


Infinite econ growth possibledepends on productivity
Leach 14 Marketing, Business Economics and Law (Andrew, rescuing the frog, Finite Resources and
Infinite Growth ,January 31, 2014, http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/finite-resources-and-infinite-
growth/ //SRSL)
Todays Globe and Mail featured a column by Gary Mason on a world without oil. If you believe that the economy is structured in such a
way that it needs to grow continually in order to survive, it states, then it will take an endless supply of
energy to feed it. The article then raises the question, How does an economy grow exponentially forever if the one
element it needs more than anything to flourish is contracting with time? This is a common refrain from environmentalists
such as David Suzuki (here, here, here and likely a thousand other places): its absurd to rely on economies based on constant growth on a finite planet. But, is it? Ill have more
on this at Macleans in a couple of days, but this will serve as a technical primer. Intuitively, it sounds simple if I use up a certain
amount of a finite quantity each year, it will eventually run out. But that tells you that you cant have
constant or increasing resource extraction from a finite resource, it doesnt tell you anything about
what you do with the resources you extract, how productive they are, or whether or not
they enable continued economic growth. Its certainly possible to sustain exponential
growth infinitely with finite resources, as long as productivity improves. Let me take you through an
example (this is a really basic model, but Ive fit it with some reasonable numbers so its intuitive). Suppose that gross world product (real, including all environmental costs) is
given by 1450*R*X, where R is resource productivity and X is extraction. If you use oil extraction as a proxy for resources, and we extract about 31.4 billion barrels of oil per year,
and let R equal 1, youll get a gross world product of $45,515 billion, about the same as the CIA World Factbook estimate of 2012 gross world product. Lets also suppose, for the
sake of this argument, that the 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in current global reserves represents the sum total of all the oil which will ever be extracted a finite resource. With
those numbers, the myopic approach to maintaining constant growth with no change in productivity would lead to all oil resources being exhausted in 55 years, and then instant
economic collapse. Of course, this would not actually happen, since prices would adjust even if there were no
productivity changes. To understand what would happen, go to the last period before the collapse a period in which the world extracts 35 billion barrels of oil out
of a remaining stock of about 40 billion barrels. Knowing what was going to happen if you stuck with that plan, youd likely
decide that it makes sense to carry some extra oil through to the following year, to stave off collapse
and/or to profit from absurdly high prices. In doing so, youd raise prices in that year. Of course, people would have seen this coming too, leading to
conservation of oil from previous years as well. This is a clumsy explanation of what Harold Hotelling wrote down almost 100 years ago that since oil is like a capital asset,
owners will act to maximize returns and this will smooth price and extraction decisions over time. If you imposed a Hotelling solution one which maximized the value of oil
over time, youd end up with something which looks something like this: However, Hotelling doesnt get you to economic growth with finite resources production is still
decreasing over time, and tends asymptotically to zero its just that there is no collapse and oil is distributed over time such that there are no gains in net present value to be
achieved by shifting production forward or back in time. (In the graph above, I approximated a 400 year solution I didnt solve the full optimal control problem). If you
want to get to increasing economic growth with a finite resource, you need an increase in productivity.
Suppose that you still have the same finite resource stock, but that you become 3% more productive each year in your use of resources you generate 3% more total product
from each unit of resource extraction. The growth in productivity allows you to use fewer resources each year, while still increasing production. Resource stocks still decline, and
approach zero asymptotically, but its like going half the distance to the goal line in football youll get closer every time but youll never score. So, how do you increase
productivity? Energy is used in our economy as a complement to labour and capital, so if you want to increase
the productivity of your finite resource then increase energy efficiency, decrease the resource-intensity of
energy, increase labour productivity, or increase the quality of your human and physical capital. This is what
Queens University economist John Hartwick had in mind when he wrote down the Hartwick rule the mathematical proof of what Ive just tried to do in words: as long as you
invest sufficiently in improvements in productivity, and manage resources optimally, its possible to sustain infinite growth from a finite resource. Of course, the Hartwick rule is
not a law it doesnt guarantee that this will always be achieved, and it certainly doesnt say that it can be accomplished with any level of investment it just tells you that its
mathematically possible. Saying that its impossible to achieve exponential growth infinitely with finite resources
does nothing to advance our discussions of resource management and ignores plenty of evidence to the
contrary in the economics literature. What we should be discussing instead is how to make sure we follow Hartwicks rule, but thats another story for
another day.


at: us econ collapse inev
US economic collapse is not inevitable - laundry list of reasons
Amadeo 5/4 (Kimberly, President of WorldMoneyWatch.com and has 20 years senior-level experience
in economic analysis and business strategy working for major international corporations, M.S., Sloan
School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College, "10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't
Collapse", May 4 2014, http://useconomy.about.com/b/2014/05/04/10-reasons-why-the-u-s-economy-
wont-collapse.htm)

Frequently, I receive emails from readers and friends asking if the U.S. economy or the U.S. dollar are going to
collapse. I don't know why they've suddenly become concerned. Not one of them sent me a similar email the week of
September 17, 2008 when the U.S. economy almost DID collapse. Things have gotten slower in 2014, but
last year the U.S. economy is poised had one of its best years since 2007. The stock market set new
records, housing prices were headed in the right direction, GDP was be in the healthy 2-3% growth zone.
Although this year is a little shakier, that's a far cry from a collapse. Maybe all the gloom-and-doomers who make
money by selling gold (which is dropping), guns and canned food -- not to mention their own books on how to survive -- are worried
because things ARE ACTUALLY OK. Anyway, here's 10 reasons why the U.S. economy, and the dollar, won't
collapse: The U.S. debt, though high, won't cause a collapse. Unlike Greece, the U.S. prints its own money.
The U.S. could possibly run a much higher debt to GDP ratio than it does now and still not face economic
collapse. Obama Added to the Debt to get us out of recession, not send us toward collapse. The U.S. won't
Default on Its Debt. China Isn't Selling Its Dollar Holdings. China and Japan won't cause a Dollar
Collapse. The Dollar Is Slowly Declining, not collapsing. The dollar won't be replaced as the World's Global
Currency. The Fed's Quantitative Easing program can't cause Hyperinflation. There are too many failsafe
measures that will prevent a U.S. Economic Collapse.
Evidence that growth is inevitable is statistical not mechanistically deterministic
Korowicz, 14 - David Korowicz is a physicist who studies the interactions between economics, energy,
climate change, food security, supply chains, and complexity. David is an independent consultant. He was
a ministerial appointment to the council of Comhar, Irelands sustainable development commission. He
was head of research at The Ecology Foundation, and is on the executive committee of Feasta, The
Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability: a Think Tank, (David, How to be Trapped: An Interview
with David Korowicz, Resilience, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-19/how-to-be-trapped-an-
interview-with-david-korowicz)//Roetlin
People can be uncomfortable with such evolutionary explanations. However, theyre not
mechanistically deterministic, but statistical , people and small groups will always surprise more
than very large human groups. After all coming across a convent of celibates is not a sign that human sex
is dead! Nor do such arguments rigidly define behavior. For example, Stephen Pinker marshals
diverse evidence (in The Better Angels of Our Nature) to show that theres been a remarkable fall in the
risk of personal violence that he has associated with rising wealth, globalisation, states and independent
legal systems, changing cultures and the expansion of empathy. Of course we remain highly sensitive to
the risk of violence, and theres no reason the situation cannot reverse, but he demonstrates weve become
much nicer to each-other in all sorts of ways!
at: water wars

No water wars
Lawfield 10 (Thomas, MA candidate at the University for Peace, "Water Security: War or Peace?
Thomas Lawfield", May 03 2010, http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=715)

In reality, water does not cause war. The arguments presented above, although correct in principle, have little purchase in empirical
evidence. Indeed, as one author notes, there is only one case of a war where the formal declaration of war was over
water.[20] This was an incident between two Mesopotamian city states, Lagash and Umma, over 2,500 years BC, in modern day southern
Iraq. Both the initial premises and arguments of water war theorists have been brought into question. Given this, a number of areas of contestation
have emerged: "Questioning both the supply and demand side of the water war argument [...] Questioning assumptions about the costs of water
resources [...and] Demonstrating the cooperative potential of the water resource."[21] Why then is water not a cause of war? The
answer lies in two factors: first, the capacity for adaptation to water stresses and, second, the political
drawbacks to coupling water and conflict. First, there is no water crisis, or more correctly, there are a number of
adaptation strategies that reduce stress on water resources and so make conflict less likely. Unlike the water war
discourse, which perceives water as finite in the Malthusian sense, the capacity for adaptation to water stress has been greatly
underestimated. For instance, I will discuss in particular a trading adaptation known as virtual water, which refers to the water used to grow
imported food. This water can be subtracted from the total projected agricultural water needs of a state, and
hence allows water scarce states to operate on a lower in-country water requirement than would otherwise
be expected.[22] This means that regions of the world that are particularly rich in water produce water intense agricultural products more easily in
the global trade system, while other water scarce areas produce low intensity products.[23] The scale of this water is significant -
Allan famously pointed out that more embedded water flows into the Middle East in the form of grain
than flows in the Nile.[24] In addition, there are significant problems around the hegemonic doctrine of the
water crisis. Many authors point to relatively low water provision per capita by states, and suggest that this will increase the likelihood of a state
engaging in war with a neighbouring state, to obtain the water necessary for its population. This is normally a conceptual leap that produces the
incorrect corollary of conflict, but is also frequently a problem of data weaknesses around the per capita requirements. For instance, Stucki cites the
case of the Palestinians being under the worst water stress, with a per capita provision being in the region of 165m/year.[25] Unfortunately, such an
analysis is based on false actual provision data in this region. Based on the authors work on water provision in Lebanese Palestinian refugee camps, the
actual provision is over 90m/month. Such a figure is highly likely to be representative of other camps in the region.[26] If this example is
representative of trends to exaggerate water pressures in the region, then we should be sceptical about claims of increasing
water stress. Furthermore, given that many water systems have a pipe leakage rate of fifty per cent, combined
with a seventy per cent loss of agricultural water, significant efficiency enhancements could be made to
existing infrastructure. Combined with desalination options in many water shortage prone states, there is
an overall capacity for technological and market driven solutions to water scarcity.[27]

at: resource wars
No resource wars
Tetrais 12 (Bruno, Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique (FRS), Past
positions include: Director, Civilian Affairs Committee, NATO Assembly (1990-1993); European affairs
desk officer, Ministry of Defense (1993-1995); Visiting Fellow, the Rand Corporation (1995-1996); Special
Assistant to the Director of Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defense (1996-2001), "The Demise of Ares: The
End of War as We Know It?", Summer 2012, csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerTertrais.pdf)

The Unconvincing Case for New Wars Is the demise of war reversible? In recent years, the metaphor of a new Dark Age or
Middle Ages has flourished. 57 The rise of political Islam, Western policies in the Middle East, the fast development of
emerging countries, population growth, and climate change have led to fears of civilization, resource, and
environmental wars. We have heard the New Middle Age theme before. In 1973, Italian writer Roberto Vacca famously
suggested that mankind was about to enter an era of famine, nuclear war, and civilizational collapse. U.S.
economist Robert Heilbroner made the same suggestion one year later. And in 1977, the great Australian political scientist Hedley
Bull also heralded such an age. 58 But the case for new wars remains as flimsy as it was in the 1970s. Admittedly,
there is a stronger role of religion in civil conflicts. The proportion of internal wars with a religious dimension was about 25 percent
between 1940 and 1960, but 43 percent in the first years of the 21st century. 59 This may be an effect of the demise of traditional
territorial conflict, but as seen above, this has not increased the number or frequency of wars at the global level. Over the past
decade, neither Western governments nor Arab/Muslim countries have fallen into the trap of the clash of civilizations into which
Osama bin Laden wanted to plunge them. And ancestral hatreds are a reductionist and unsatisfactory approach to explaining
collective violence. Professor Yahya Sadowski concluded his analysis of post-Cold War crises and wars, The Myth of Global Chaos, by
stating, most of the conflicts around the world are not rooted in thousands of years of history they are new and
can be concluded as quickly as they started. 60 Future resource wars are unlikely. There are fewer and
fewer conquest wars. Between the Westphalia peace and the end of World War II, nearly half of conflicts were fought over
territory. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been less than 30 percent. 61 The invasion of Kuwait a nationwide bank robbery may
go down in history as being the last great resource war. The U.S.-led intervention of 1991 was partly driven by the need to maintain
the free flow of oil, but not by the temptation to capture it. (Nor was the 2003 war against Iraq motivated by oil.) As for the current
tensions between the two Sudans over oil, they are the remnants of a civil war and an offshoot of a botched secession process, not a
desire to control new resources. Chinas and Indias energy needs are sometimes seen with apprehension: in light of growing oil and
gas scarcity, is there not a risk of military clashes over the control of such resources? This seemingly consensual idea rests on
two fallacies. One is that there is such a thing as oil and gas scarcity, a notion challenged by many energy experts. 62
As prices rise, previously untapped reserves and non-conventional hydrocarbons become economically
attractive. The other is that spilling blood is a rational way to access resources. As shown by the work of historians and
political scientists such as Quincy Wright, the economic rationale for war has always been overstated. And because
of globalization, it has become cheaper to buy than to steal. We no longer live in the world of 1941, when fear of
lacking oil and raw materials was a key motivation for Japans decision to go to war. In an era of liberalizing trade, many
natural resources are fungible goods. (Here, Beijing behaves as any other actor: 90 percent of the oil its companies produce
outside of China goes to the global market, not to the domestic one.) 63 There may be clashes or conflicts in regions in maritime
resource-rich areas such as the South China and East China seas or the Mediterranean, but they will be driven by nationalist
passions, not the desperate hunger for hydrocarbons.



at: collapse solves warming



Econ collapse doesnt solve warming [try or die for growth]
Elliot 8, Larry, economics editor at the Guardian [Can a dose of recession solve climate change? August 24
th
,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/25/economicgrowth.globalrecession]
This may strike some as a strange way of looking at things. Sure, the global economy is slowing. But what's so bad about that? Is it,
in fact, bad news that the world economy will no longer grow at its recent rate of 5% a year? And if the answer to that question is
"no", wouldn't it be good news if this modest retrenchment was turned into a full-blown slump? Indeed, why
stop there? Shouldn't those who fear for the future of the planet pursue something akin to the Great Depression of the 1930s? It's an
interesting thought. Logically, if the obsession with growth at all costs has increased emissions to the point where
rising temperatures pose a threat to mankind's existence (as many experts believe) then a prolonged period of
slow or negative growth will limit the damage to the environment. At the very least, it would provide a breathing space
to come up with an international agreement on how to tackle the problem. There are many reasons why it is not quite as
simple as that. My rudimentary understanding of the science of climate change is that concentrations of greenhouse gases
have been building up over many decades, and you can't simply turn them off like a tap. Even a
three- or four-year 1930s-style global slump would have little or no impact, particularly if it was followed by a
period of vigorous catch-up growth. On a chart showing growth since the dawn of the industrial age 250 years ago, the
Great Depression is a blip. Similarly, Britain's trade deficit always comes down in recessions because imports go down, but
then widens again once the economy returns to its trend rate of growth. Politically, recessions are not helpful to the
cause of environmentalism. Climate change is replaced by concerns about unemployment and stimulating
growth. To be fair, politicians respond to what they hear from voters: Gordon Brown's survival as prime minister depends on how
well his package of economic measures is received, not on what he does or doesn't do to limit greenhouse gases. Looking back, it is
clear that every advance in the green movement has coincided with period of strong growth - the early
1970s, the late 1980s and the first half of the current decade. It was tough enough to get world leaders to make
tackling climate change a priority when the world economy was experiencing its longest period of
sustained growth: it will be mightily difficult to persuade them to take measures that might have a dampen
growth while the dole queues are lengthening. Those most likely to suffer are workers in the most marginal jobs
and pensioners who will have to pay perhaps 20% of their income on energy bills. Hence, recession does not
offer even a temporary solution to the problem of climate change and it is a fantasy to imagine that it
does. The real issue is whether it is possible to challenge the "growth-at-any-cost model" and come up with an alternative that is
environmentally benign, economically robust and politically feasible. Hitting all three buttons is mightily difficult but attempting
to do so is a heck of a lot more constructive than waiting for industrial capitalism to collapse under the weight of its
own contradictions.
Korowicz concludes aff Dedev will never be able to solve warming wed start
unsustainably using resources to survive
Korowicz, 14 - David Korowicz is a physicist who studies the interactions between economics, energy,
climate change, food security, supply chains, and complexity. David is an independent consultant. He was
a ministerial appointment to the council of Comhar, Irelands sustainable development commission. He
was head of research at The Ecology Foundation, and is on the executive committee of Feasta, The
Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability: a Think Tank, (David, How to be Trapped: An Interview
with David Korowicz, Resilience, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-19/how-to-be-trapped-an-
interview-with-david-korowicz)//Roetlin
You dont believe then in a kind of steady-state non growing economy? Steady-state from where we are
now is, according to many ecological indicators, way in overshoot. So if there were to be something like a
sustainable steady-state economy it would be in terms of resource consumption far below where we are
now. Far, far below. And how do we get there? For all sorts of reasons the possibility of a
controlled orchestrated de-growth to some viable steady-state position is probably
deluded in the extreme. Ill just point to one thing, such a view tends to embody the confusion that
because the globalised economy is human-made it is therefore designed, understandable and controllable
humans can do this in niches, but the emergent structure of multiple niches interacting on many scales
over time is not. This mirrors the sort of argument made famous by William Paley in his Natural Theology
who said that the existence of living organisms proved the existence of a divine creator/ designer by
analogy with how the finding of a watch would lead one to believe in the existence of an intelligent
watchmaker. Half a century later Darwin and then his followers showed that natural selection could do
emergent design without a controller- the blind watchmaker in Richard Dawkins words. But as believers
in Mans progress we seem to have taken on the role that Paley once ascribed to god- that is, as the
creators of the complex globalised economy it is therefore designable and controllable and potentially
perfectible if only the right people and ideas were in the cockpit. We find all sorts of confusion arising
from this when attempts are made to take linguistic dominion over the economy by confusing complex
interdependent emergence with intentional design (as in, the economy is capitalist/ neoliberal/ socialist,
or, we need to change the monetary architecture). So even without getting into details about
irreversibility in complex systems or the myriad practical problems with a controllable de-growth, the
power of the belief in its possibility seems, to me at least, to represent Titanic hubris. That said, a
disorderly de-growth/collapse would bring us to a new era where we would end up with a much reduced
capacity to access and use resources and dump waste. But wed still have to respond to problems and that
would generally require whatever energy and resources were at hand. For example, anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions would likely nose-dive, a good thing of course, although the effects of climate
changes would continue to get worse because of lags in the climate system while our adaptive capacity
compared to today would have been shattered. Thus the real cost of climate change would escalate beyond
our ability to pay quite suddenly and much faster than conventional climate-economic models would
suggest. The danger here is that in a state of poverty and forced localization our attempts to respond to
such emergent stress and crises mean we start undermining our local environments and their on-going
capacity to support us. So any form of steady-state economy in the foreseeable future is inherently
problematic.





at: k
Reject the theory of K waves -- no theoretical or empirical correlations.
North 9 [Gary North is economic analyst, PhD in History, Austrian School, Remnant Review, formerly served as
Research Assistant for Congressman Ron Paul, The Myth of the Kondratieff Wave, 6/27/09,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north725.html] JAKE LEE
Kondratieff had at most two and a half cycles in his two papers. That number was available for only four
data series. Of the 36 data series, he could find evidence of cycles in only 11 of them. The monetary
series and the real series correlated in only 11 of 21 series, all short. Pugsley then cited extensively from an
article by C. Van Ewijk of the University of Amsterdam (The Economist, Nov. 3, 1981). Van Ewijk noted that Kondratieff
followed no consistent methodology in choosing the types of trend curves that he selected for different
data sources. Kondratieff used various statistical techniques to smooth the curves to make them appear
as long waves. "In case after case, no wave could be identified." He used price data, but these did not
correlate with the actual economic output of the four economies that he studied. Then the waves that he
presented were further "idealized" by whoever created the chart that has circulated ever since. Pugsley noted: "The upward
movement of prices from 1933 to the present has already spanned fifty years, which is supposed to be
the average length of a complete cycle." So far, price inflation has extended for about 75 years. Yet the
deflationists are still predicting long-term, severe price deflation, and some of them invoke the
Kondratieff wave to prove their assertion. Pugsley concluded: In not one case does the evidence
corroborate the existence of the wave. Prices and output are not directly related if anything they are
inversely related. The forty-five to sixty-year period of the wave is only partially evident in the
nineteenth century, and then only in the price series. Price moves in the twentieth century do not
correspond to this periodicity, as claimed by long-wave proponents. There is absolutely no statistical
correlation between series of real variables such as production and consumption, and monetary series
such as prices and interest rates. Production and prices of the four countries studied do not statistically
correlate; thus there is no wave operating coincidentally in the industrialized countries. In other words,
Kondratieff's hypothesis is simply not supported by any evidence. The long wave exists only in the
minds of a few misguided analysts, but not in the real world. It is pure hokum.

2ac collapse causes war
economic decline causes nuclear conflict miscalculation and terrorism
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour 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 as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative
power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of
miscalculation (Feaver, 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 that 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 trade 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
conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, 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 economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997),
Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are
greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact 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 United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are
statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship
links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This
implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.

Declining U.S. economic primacy triggers arms races, miscalc and great power war
Khalilzad, 11 PhD, Former Ambassador and Professor, 11 Former Professor of Political Science
@ Columbia, Former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan
(Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during
the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from
1990 to 1992. "The Economy and National Security" Feb 8
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)//BB
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position as
global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies
of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American
primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great
powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is
likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S.
economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the
housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The
decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held
national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce
deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise
significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or
require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists
call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations,
precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II,
as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded
that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under
Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow
the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to
retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge
while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and
Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this
could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers
fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The
closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition
among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one
another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the
higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has
been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in
frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.
American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm
in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms
races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to
accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way,
hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

Economic decline causes global nuclear war
Tilford 8 Earl Tilford, military historian and fellow for the Middle East and terrorism with The
Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, served as a military officer and analyst for the Air Force
and Army for thirty-two years, served as Director of Research at the U.S. Armys Strategic Studies
Institute, former Professor of History at Grove City College, holds a Ph.D. in History from George
Washington University, 2008 (Critical Mass: Economic Leadership or Dictatorship, Published by The
Center for Vision & Values, October 6
th
, Available Online at
http://www.visionandvalues.org/2008/10/critical-mass-economic-leadership-or-dictatorship/, Accessed
08-23-2011)
Nevertheless, al-Qaeda failed to seriously destabilize the American economic and political systems. The current economic crisis, however,
could foster critical mass not only in the American and world economies but also put the world democracies in jeopardy. Some
experts maintain that a U.S. government economic relief package might lead to socialism. I am not an economist, so I will let that issue sit. However, as
a historian I know what happened when the European and American economies collapsed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The role of
government expanded exponentially in Europe and the United States. The Soviet system, already well entrenched in socialist
totalitarianism, saw Stalin tighten his grip with the doctrine of "socialism in one country," which allowed him to dispense with political
opposition real and imagined. German economic collapse contributed to the Nazi rise to power in 1933. The alternatives in the
Spanish civil war were between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship. Dictatorships also proliferated across Eastern
Europe. In the United States, the Franklin Roosevelt administration vastly expanded the role and power of government. In Asia, Japanese
militarists gained control of the political process and then fed Japan's burgeoning industrial age economy with imperialist lunges into China and Korea;
the first steps toward the greatest conflagration in the history of mankind ... so far ... World War II ultimately resulted. That's what
happened the last time the world came to a situation resembling critical mass. Scores upon scores of millions of people died. Could
it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the
very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs
necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will
this lead to "socialism" as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If the American
economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the American democratic era may
be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well
along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble. A global
economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict . As economic systems shut down, so will
the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations
perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did
in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations -- the world powers of North America,
Europe, and Asia -- need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy
collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world
affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.



2ac diversionary theory
Diversionary conflict theory proves
Friedberg 2009 - (Aaron Friedberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld, Professor of politics and international
relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, Visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute
in Princeton, Senior editor of Commentary, The Dangers of a Diminished America, Accessed Online at
the WSJ)
The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for
Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s,
when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and
aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their
divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear
toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly
rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock
market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven
down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign
investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even
sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good
news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external
adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with
decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces
similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.

Empirics ProveCold War
A. Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war
Kanat 11 [Kilic Bugra Kanat is "Leadership Style And Diversionary Theory Of Foreign Policy: The Use Of
Diversionary Strategies By Middle
Eastern Leaders During And In The Immediate Aftermath Of The Gulf War" (2011).Political Science -
Dissertations.Paper 104. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=psc_etd] JAKE LEE
In 1990, the Iraqi economy was undergoing a huge crisis, and the society was heading toward turmoil. The Iran
Iraq War, which lasted for eight years, had socially and economically devastated both countries. Saddam Husseins
attempt to repair the economy had failed, which led to the rise of social resentment against the regime in
Baghdad. Finally, the end of the Cold War and the fall of communist totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes in Central and Eastern Europe countries, which had been the natural allies of the Iraqi regime for decades, had brought
anxiety to the strong man of Baghdad. The Iran-Iraq War was the bloodiest and longest war of the twentieth century.42
Almost one million people died and the war did not bring any substantial gain for either party. It was also one of the costliest
conflicts of the twentieth century in terms of the impact that it had on the economies of the parties (Alnasrawi, 1986: 869). Cities
in both Iraq and Iran were destroyed and social services in both countries were disrupted. In Iraq, Basra
and in particular the oilfields around the city were destroyed. In addition, the industrial plants and
infrastructures of Khur al-Zubair and Fao were seriously damaged (Farouk-Sluglett and Sluglett, 1990: 21).
According to Alnasrawi, after the war, Iraq experienced one of the worst economic crises of its
history. Alnasrawi stated, Its oil exporting capacity from the southern fields was destroyed, its infrastructure was
seriously damaged, a major 42 The relationship between Iran and Iraq had never been stable. Saddam
Hussein had always considered Iran to be Iraqs most dangerous neighbor. In 1979, the revolution took place in
Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini became its leader. Saddam Hussein was already worried by the rise of Shia ideology and he tried to
prevent the spread of revolutionary ideologies among Iraqi Shia groups. He believed that with a sudden attack he could win a quick
victory which would garner him immense political capital within Iraq and the Arab world. 129 | P a g e segment of the its labor
force had been drafted into military service and a large number of foreign workers had to be imported, its development plans were
disorganized and lacking in investment funds, its foreign debt was high and its service was a major drain on a declining level of oil
income, progress along the path of industrialization and diversification was blunted, its reliance on food imports increased, and
inflation was rampant (Alnasrawi, 1992: 336). During the war and in its aftermath, Saddam Hussein
unsuccessfully tried to repair this devastated economy by implementing economic reforms, including
liberalization of the economic sector and privatization.43 One of the most acute problems in the Iraqi economy in the
early 1990s was the foreign debt. Before the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was debt-free with the accumulation of 35 billion dollars in foreign
reserves. However, most of these reserves were exhausted in the first years of the war (Sanford, 2003: 14). With the prolongation
of the war, Iraq began to borrow huge sums of money from Western and Arab countries, most of which were spent on purchasing
arms and military equipment. 44 After the eight-year war with Iran, Iraq had the third largest debt of any country in the world
(Musallam, 1996: 85). Iraqs estimated foreign debt in 1990 was 80 billion dollars and Western estimates put the cost of
reconstruction at 230 billion dollars (Freedman and Karsh, 1993: 39). According to estimates, even if all oil revenues
had been directed to the reconstruction effort, it would have taken almost twenty years to repair the
damage. Meanwhile, the interest on the debts was also mounting and foreign companies and
governments were reluctant to extend any more 43 For the economic consequences of the Iran- Iraq War, see
Alnasrawi 1986, Alnasrawi 1992, Gause, 2002, Lawson, 1992, Chaudhry, 1991. 44 Iraqs estimated arm purchases during the war
were between 52 and 102 billion dollars (Sanford, 2003: 14). The estimated overall cost of the war for Iraq was 452 billion dollars
(Alnasrawi, 1992; Mofid 1990: 53). According to Mofid, this number does not include inflationary costs, the
loss of services and earnings by the many hundred thousands of people killed, the depletion of natural
resources, the postponement of crucial development projects or the cost of the delayed training and
education of the young people. Finally, the figure does not include the cost of the welfare payments to the
hundreds of thousands injured in the war, who are not able to contribute fully to the creation of wealth for
the national economy (1990: 53). 130 | P a g e credit to Iraq (Karsh and Rautsi, 2002: 202). In addition, the reflection of the
deteriorating economic conditions in the GDP was staggering. The GDP per capita, which had been 4.083 dollars in
1980, plummeted to 1.537 dollars in 1988 (Alnasrawi 2002: 233 Cited in Sanford, 2003: 11) and inflation
reached a record high of 400% in 1989 (Sanford, 2003: 17). As stated above, in order to solve these
problems, Hussein adopted some market reforms, which included policies designed to encourage the
growth of private enterprise and market based relations of production in the countrys economic affairs
(Lawson, 1992: 157). After the first wave of privatization in 1985-86, the regime embarked on another series of economic reforms in
1987, which included selling state lands, farms and factories to the private sector, and encouraging private
enterprise and deregulating of the labor market (Alnasrawi, 1992: 338). However, despite the new measures in 1990,
the overall state of the economy was more worrisome to Saddam Hussein than it had been in 1988.
Contrary to the expectations of Saddam Husseins regime, the increasing privatization and market reforms brought high levels
of inflation, unemployment, and shortages in basic goods, growing and highly visible economic
inequality, and the emergence of a brisk black market in foreign currencies (Chaudhry, 1991: 17). In fact, the
social consequences of these reforms, such as increasing unemployment and declining living standards, which
were not well- calculated in advance, began to cause important social troubles for the regime. Among
the economic problems in Iraq in 1990, the most distressing was the increasing unemployment. The
privatization of the state-owned enterprises brought a huge wave of unemployment in Iraq. In the absence of any employment
regulation in privatization, the first act of the entrepreneurs who bought state-owned businesses was to restructure employment.
According to estimates, the owners of industries and agricultural businesses dismissed between 40 and 80 percent of their work
forces (ibid). In addition, the labor unions were dissolved during the privatization 131 | P a g e program and the minimum wage
was abolished (Chaudhry, 1994: 9). Most of the newly unemployed found themselves in an already competitive job market and
without any social guarantees. Another major source of unemployment was the demobilization of Iraqi
soldiers. Under the Baath government, the size of Iraqs army had increased by an incredible scale. It
increased from six divisions in the mid 1960s to forty-four divisions during the eight-year war with Iran
(al-Khafaji, 2000: 267). By 1988, the size of the armed forces in Iraq had reached 1 million, which constituted 22% of the labor
force in the country (Alnasrawi, 1992: 337). In order to compensate for the civilian workforces loss of Iraqis to the military, Iraq
admitted large numbers of workers from other countries, particularly Egypt. In addition, under the
laws of the Arab Cooperative Council, founded in 1988, Yemen, Egypt, and Jordan were permitted to
export labor freely to Iraq (Chaudhry, 1994: 9). After the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Husseins regime began to
demobilize its soldiers because of the high cost of feeding one million soldiers and the possible danger of
an armed insurrection by these free soldiers. Demobilized soldiers began to return to their hometowns in the first
months of 1989. As a first step to deal with the demobilization-related unemployment, the Iraqi government
squeezed 2 million migrant workers and slashed the remittances they were allowed to send home
(Freedman and Karsh, 1993: 39). However, this was not enough to secure jobs for the demobilized soldiers. The discharged men of
Iraq desperate for jobs began to participate in street fights against Egyptian workers, which spread to various big cities in Iraq
(Aburish, 2001: 261). The governments attempt to suppress these fights resulted in increasing reaction to
the security forces and attacks on public buildings.

B. Assad and Syria
Kanat 11 [Kilic Bugra Kanat is "Leadership Style And Diversionary Theory Of Foreign Policy: The Use Of
Diversionary Strategies By Middle
Eastern Leaders During And In The Immediate Aftermath Of The Gulf War" (2011).Political Science -
Dissertations.Paper 104. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=psc_etd] JAKE LEE
There were important domestic challenges to Assads rule in the last days of 1980s, including an ailing
economy and growing social instability (Huber, 1992: 55). Moreover, changes in the international system and its
repercussions for Syria were not helping the Assad regime either. The changes in Eastern and Central Europe and the
fall of the Soviet Union affected politics and the economy in Syria. With the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein
in 1990, Assad faced another major challenge. Throughout the 1980s, Assad had supported Iran in its war against Iraq and had
been the archenemy of Saddam Husseins regime. He had also been isolated from the Arab regional order because of this support.
After the international reaction to the invasion and the deployment of American soldiers to the Gulf region, Assad rushed to
bandwagon with the American-led international coalition despite the opposition of Arab and Syrian
masses. Although Assads regime was one of the most significant beneficiaries of the Gulf War in terms
of economic and financial aid, it also faced a great deal of adverse effects from pursuing this foreign policy. The most
important problem that the Assad regime was confronting in the first months of the 1990s related to the changes in the
international system. The fall of the authoritarian regimes of Central and Eastern Europe, which had been natural allies and trade
partners of Syria for decades, 226 | P a g e was a huge blow to the Assad regime. The wave of democratization and
political openness in these countries was a major source of concern for the authoritarian regimes of the
Middle East. Middle Eastern leaders were particularly worried about a possible domino effect that could
destroy their rule. The fall of the communist regime in Romania and the execution of the toppled president
Ceausescu and his wife particularly traumatized Hafiz Assad. The rise of similar mass movements could overthrow the regime
in Syria and endanger his life and his family. Despite the high level of censorship and surveillance, the
walls of Damascus began to be filled with graffitis that said Assadcescu or every Ceausescu has his day (Zisser, 2001: 48). In
an editorial in Al Hayat of London during this time, Hafiz Assad was compared to Ceausescu and was called an Arab Ceausescu
(Pipes, 1991: 14). In addition, during these days he was feeling societal pressure from different segments of Syrian society,
including new business class, who wanted to transform its economic power to a political one and the Sunni majority, whose
members were asking for greater political inclusion (Robinson, 1998: 170). In order to stop a possible public reaction against his
regime, Assad first tried to use his censorship mechanisms to stop dissemination of information about the
incidents in Eastern Europe. Later, he made some important public appearances and underlined the differences between Romania
and Syria and stressed that he would not share the same fate as Ceausescu of Romania. Thus, in a direct response to upheavals in
Eastern Europe, Assadstressed that Syria would not copy, and had never copied in the past, the examples of other countries.
Changes in Eastern Europe were not going to compel Syria to alter its system, in as much as Syria had been ahead of these
countries, implementing a multi- party system and a mixed economy as early as 20 years previously. Freedom, Assad said, would
have to be organized(Bahout, 1994: 65) 227 | P a g e He also took some extra precautions, such as increasing surveillance and
monitoring of political groups, in his well-controlled country in order to make sure that something of this magnitude would not
take place within Syrian territories. The regime changes and peoples movements in Central and Eastern Europe
also brought some important changes in the relationships of these countries with Syria. For decades, many of
these countries foreign policies had been shaped by the principles and doctrines of the Warsaw Pact. In most of these countries
relations with Syria, they had followed a common foreign policy and had become natural allies of Syria. The members of the
Warsaw Pact had particularly endorsed the position and policies of the Syrian government in Syrias confrontation with Israel. As a
result, Syria had received a huge amount of armaments and financial and technical aid from these
countries. In fact, during most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had been the primary source of political,
military, and economic assistance and support for the Syrians, and she had provided strategic backing in the face of possible Israeli
or US attack on Syria (Zisser, 2001: 45). The communist regimes in these countries had refused to extend and improve diplomatic
relations with the state of Israel. After regime changes in these countries, the new leaders not only renounced ties with the
friends of old regime, but . they were also waiting in line to renew relations with Israel. Moreover, adding insult to injury, new
governments in Central Europe have atoned for past sins by turning confidential files over to Israel intelligence (Pipes, 1991: 14).
These changes constituted important strategic, political, and economic losses for the Syrian government. As Pipes mentioned,
Assad stated several times that the biggest loser of the change in the international system were Syria and
himself. In fact, a high ranking official in an interview pronounced that Syrians and the loyalists of the
Assad regime regretted the fall of Soviet Union more than Russians or any other people living in
communist countries (Pipes, 1996: 8). 228 | P a g e

2ac growth solves war
Growth prevents conflict
Reghr 13 [Ernie Reghr is Senior Fellow in Arctic Security at The Simons Foundation, 2-4-13, Intrastate Conflict:
Data, Trends and Drivers http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-
Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=158597&tabid=1453496807&contextid774=158597&contextid775=158627] JAKE LEE
The most robustly significant predictor of [armed] conflict risk and its duration is some indicator of
economic prosperity. At a higher income people have more to lose from the destructiveness of conflict;
and higher per-capita income implies a better functioning social contract, institutions and state
capacity.[3] This correlation between underdevelopment and armed conflict is confirmed in a 2008
paper by Thania Paffenholz[4] which notes that since 1990, more than 50% of all conflict-prone countries have
been low income states. Two thirds of all armed conflicts take place in African countries with the highest
poverty rates. Econometric research found a correlation between the poverty rate and likelihood of
armed violence.[T]he lower the GDP per capita in a country, the higher the likelihood of armed
conflict. Of course, it is important to point out that this is not a claim that there is a direct causal connection between poverty
and armed conflict. To repeat, the causes of conflict are complex and context specific, nevertheless, says Paffenholz, there is a
clear correlation between a low and declining per capita income and a countrys vulnerability to
conflict. It is also true, on the other hand, that there are low income countries that experience precipitous economic decline,
like Zambia in the 1980s and 1990s, without suffering the kind of turmoil that has visited economically more successful
countries like Kenya and Cote dIvoire. Referring to both Zambia and Nigeria, Pafenholz says these are cases in which the social
compact has proven to be resilient. Both have formal and informal mechanisms that are able to address grievances in ways that
allowed them to be aired and resolved or managed without recourse to violence. A brief review of literature on economics and
armed conflict, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, indicates the complexity and imprecision behind the
question, does poverty cause conflict? While many of the worlds poorest countries are riven by armed conflict, and while
poverty, conflict and under-development set up a cycle of dysfunction in which each element of the cycle is exacerbated by the
other, it is also the case that conflict obviously does not just afflict the poorest countries as Northern Ireland and the former
Yugoslavia demonstrate. Many poor countries are not at war; shared poverty may not be a destabilizing influence. Indeed,
economic growth can destabilize, as the wars in countries afflicted by an abundance of particular natural resources appear to
show.[5] Another review of the literature makes the general point that the escalation of conflict during economic
downturns is more likely in countries recovering from conflict, or fragile states. That makes Africa
especially vulnerable on two counts: economic deprivation and recent armed conflict are present in a relatively high number of
states, making the continent especially vulnerable to economic shocks. As a general rule, weak economies often
translate into weak and fragile states and the presence of violent conflict, which in turn prevents
economic growth. One study argues that the risk of war in any given country is determined by the
initial level of income, the rate of economic growth and the level of dependency on primary commodity
exports. Changes in rates of economic growth thus lead to changes in threats of conflict. As
unemployment rises in fragile states this can exacerbate conflict due to comparatively better income
opportunities for young men in rebel groups as opposed to labour markets.[6] The concentration of armed
conflict in lower income countries is also reflected in the conflict tabulation by Project Ploughshares over the past quarter
century. The 2009 Human Development Index ranks 182 countries in four categories of Human Development Very High,
High, Medium, Low. Of the 98 countries in the Medium and Low categories of human development in 2009, 55 per cent
experienced war on their territories in the previous 24 years. In the same period, only 24 per cent of countries in the High
human development category saw war within their borders, while just two (5 per cent) countries in the Very High human
development ranking had war on their territory (the UK re Northern Ireland and Israel). The wars of the recent past
were overwhelmingly fought on the territories of states at the low end of the human development
scale. A countrys income level is thus a strong indicator of its risk of being involved in sustained
armed conflict. Low income countries lack the capacity to create conditions conducive to serving the
social, political, and economic welfare of their people. And when economic inequality is linked to
differences between identity groups, the correlation to armed conflict is even stronger. In other words,
group based inequalities are especially destabilizing.[7] These failures in human security are of course heavily
shaped by external factors, notably international economic and security conditions and the interests of the
major powers (in short, globalization),[8] and these factors frequently combine with internal
political/religious/ethnic circumstances that create conditions especially conducive to conflict and
armed conflict.

Absent economic growth war is more likely
Strauss-Kahn 9 (Dominique, "Managing Director at the International Monetary Fund at the Global
Creative Leadership Summit, Economic Stability, Economic Cooperation, and PeaceThe Role of the
IMF", September 23 2009, https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/092309.htm)

Avoiding war As I noted, the crisis is not over. Indeed, its human and social costs might get worse before they get
better. This is especially true in low-income countries. Here, we dont just care about growth for growths
sake, we also want to safeguard peace and prevent war. Indeed, when low-income countries were doing well
over the past decade or so, the incidence of war declined significantly. The great fear is that this trend could be
reversed. Wars might justifiably be called development in reverse. They entail huge economic costs and are the
cause of great suffering. They lead to death, disability, disease, and displacement. One particular issue that
causes great strain on the country itself and neighboring countries is the issue of refugees. Already, in the world today, there are
about 9 million refugees and a further 14 million who are internally displacedin each case, about half are in low-income countries.
So this is a major risk factor. Wars also increase poverty. They reduce growth potential by destroying
infrastructure and leading to a loss in financial and human capital. They divert resources toward violence,
rent-seeking, and corruption. They weaken institutions. Most wars since the 1970s have been wars within states. It is
hard to estimate the true cost of a civil war. Recent research suggests that one year of conflict can knock 2-2
percentage points off a countrys growth rate. And since the average civil war lasts 7 years, that means an economy that is
15 percent smaller than it would have been with peace. The overall cost of a typical civil war, including forced migration and
increased disease, amounts to around 250 percent of GDP on average. Of course, no cost can be put on the loss of life or the great
human suffering that always accompanies war. The causality also runs the other way. Just as wars devastate the
economy, a weak economy makes a country more prone to war. Economic factors matter more
than many people think. The evidence is quite clear on this pointlow income or slow economic growth
increases the risk of a country falling into civil conflict. Poverty and economic stagnation lead people to
become marginalized, lacking a stake in the productive economy. With little hope of employment or a decent
standard of living, they might turn instead to violent activities, where income opportunities might be higher.
Dependence on natural resources is also a risk factorcompetition for control over these resources can trigger conflict and income
from natural resources can finance war. And so we can see a vicious circlewar makes economic conditions and
prospects worse, and weakens institutions, and this in turn increases the likelihood of war. Once a war has
started, its hard to stop. And even if it stops, its easy to slip back into conflict. During the first decade after a war, there is a 50
percent chance of returning to violence, partly because of weakened institutions.


2ac interdependence
Economic decline kills US interdependence
Royal 10[Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215]
[Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, Economics of
War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate
degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski
and Thompsons (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 oftenbloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher
in a redistribution ofrelative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon
1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflicts as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles
impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global
economic conditions and security conditions remains unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations
suggest that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the
expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace item such as energy resources, the
likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources.
Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it
triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn
internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and
external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood
of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess and Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity
arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995) and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find
supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and
Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states due to the fact the
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. De DeRouen (2000) has provided
evidence showing that periods ofweak economic performance in the United States and thus weak Presidential popularity are statically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of
economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied
connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This
observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as
those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do
not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such the view presented here should be considered ancillary to
those views.

2ac growth solves warming

Growth solves warming [research, the California effect, the EKC, and better tech]
Norberg, 03 Fellow at Timbro and CATO [Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pg 225-237]
All over the world, economic progress and growth are moving hand in hand with intensified
environmental protection. Four researchers who studied these connections found a very strong,
positive association between our [environmental] indicators and the level of economic development. A
country that is very poor is too preoccupied with lifting itself out of poverty to bother about the environment at all. Countries
usually begin protecting their natural resources when they can afford to do so. When they grow richer, they start to
regulate effluent emissions, and when they have still more resources they also begin regulating air
quality. 19 A number of factors cause environment protection to increase with wealth and development. Environmental quality
is unlikely to be a top priority for people who barely know where their next meal is coming from. Abating misery and subduing
the pangs of hunger takes precedence over conservation. When our standard of living rises we start attaching
importance to the environment and obtaining resources to improve it. Such was the case earlier in
western Europe, and so it is in the developing countries today. Progress of this kind, however, requires that people
live in democracies where they are able and allowed to mobilize opinion; otherwise, their preferences will have no impact.
Environmental destruction is worst in dictatorships. But it is the fact of prosperity no less than a sense of
responsibility that makes environmental protection easier in a wealthy society. A wealthier country can afford to tackle
environmental problems; it can develop environmentally friendly technologieswastewater and exhaust
emission control, for exampleand begin to rectify past mistakes. Global environmental development resembles not
so much a race for the bottom as a race to the top, what we might call a California effect. The state of
California's Clean Air Acts, first introduced in the 1970s and tightened since, were stringent emissions
regulations that made rigorous demands on car manufacturers. Many prophets of doom predicted that
firms and factories would move to other states, and California would soon be obliged to repeal its
regulations. But instead the opposite happened: other states gradually tightened up their
environmental stipulations. Because car companies needed the wealthy California market, manufacturers all over the
United States were forced to develop new techniques for reducing emissions. Having done so, they could more easily comply
with the exacting requirements of other states, whereupon those states again ratcheted up their requirements. Anti-globalists
usually claim that the profit motive and free trade together cause businesses to entrap politicians in a
race for the bottom. The California effect implies the opposite: free trade enables politicians to pull
profit-hungry corporations along with them in a race to the top. This phenomenon occurs because compliance
with environmental rules accounts for a very small proportion of most companies' expenditures. What
firms are primarily after is a good business environmenta liberal economy and a skilled workforce not a bad natural
environment. A review of research in this field shows that there are no clear indications of national
environmental rules leading to a diminution of exports or to fewer companies locating in the countries
that pass the rules. 20 This finding undermines both the arguments put forward by companies against
environmental regulations and those advanced by environmentalists maintaining that globalization
has to be restrained for environmental reasons. Incipient signs of the California effect's race to the top
are present all over the world, because globalization has caused different countries to absorb new
techniques more rapidly, and the new techniques are generally far gentler on the environment. Researchers have
investigated steel manufacturing in 50 different countries and concluded that countries with more
open economies took the lead in introducing cleaner technology. Production in those countries
generated almost 20 percent less emissions than the same production in closed countries. This process is
being driven by multinational corporations because they have a lot to gain from uniform production with uniform technology.
Because they are restructured more rapidly, they have more modern machinery. And they prefer assimilating the latest, most
environmentally friendly technology immediately to retrofitting it, at great expense, when environmental regulations are
tightened up. Brazil, Mexico, and Chinathe three biggest recipients of foreign investmenthave
followed a very clear pattern: the more investments they get, the better control they gain over air
pollution. The worst forms of air pollution have diminished in their cities during the period of globalization. When Western
companies start up in developing countries, their production is considerably more environment-friendly than the native
production, and they are more willing to comply with environmental legislation, not least because they have brand images and
reputations to protect. Only 30 percent of Indonesian companies comply with the country's environmental regulations, whereas
no fewer than 80 percent of the multinationals do so. One out of every 10 foreign companies maintained a standard clearly
superior to that of the regulations. This development would go faster if economies were more open and, in particular, if the
governments of the world were to phase out the incomprehensible tariffs on environmentally friendly technology. 21 Sometimes
one hears it said that, for environmental reasons, the poor countries of the South must not be allowed to grow as affluent as our
countries in the North. For example, in a compilation of essays on Environmentally Significant Consumption published by the
National Academy of Sciences, we find anthropologist Richard Wilk fretting that: If everyone develops a
desire for the Western high-consumption lifestyle, the relentless growth in consumption, energy use,
waste, and emissions may be disastrous. 22 But studies show this to be colossal misapprehension. On
the contrary, it is in the developing countries that we find the gravest, most harmful environmental problems. In our affluent
part of the world, more and more people are mindful of environmental problems such as endangered green areas. Every day in
the developing countries, more than 6,9000 people die from air pollution when using wood, dung, and agricultural waste in
their homes as heating and cooking fuel. UNDP estimates that no fewer than 2.2 million people die every year from polluted
indoor air. This result is already disastrous and far more destructive than atmospheric pollution and industrial emissions.
Tying people down to that level of development means condemning millions to premature death every year. It is not true
that pollution in the modern sense increases with growth. Instead, pollution follows an inverted U-
curve. When growth in a very poor country gathers speed and the chimneys begin belching smoke, the
environment suffers. But when prosperity has risen high enough, the environmental indicators show an
improvement instead: emissions are reduced, and air and water show progressively lower concentrations of pollutants.
The cities with the worst problems are not Stockholm, New York, and Zrich, but rather Beijing, Mexico City, and New Delhi. In
addition to the factors already mentioned, this is also due to the economic structure changing from raw-material-intensive to
knowledge-intensive production. In a modern economy, heavy, dirty industry is to a great extent superseded by service
enterprises. Banks, consulting firms, and information technology corporations do not have the same environmental impact as
old factories. According to one survey of available environmental data, the turning point generally comes before a country's per
capita GDP has reached $8,000. At $10,000, the researchers found a positive connection between increased growth and better
air and water quality. 23 That is roughly the level of prosperity of Argentina, South Korea, or Slovenia. In the United States, per
capita GDP is about $36,300. Here as well, the environment has consistently improved since the 1970s, quite contrary to the
picture one gets from the media. In the 1970s there was constant reference to smog in American cities, and rightly so: the air was
judged to be unhealthy for 100300 days a year. Today it is unhealthy for fewer than 10 days a year, with the exception of Los
Angeles. There, the figure is roughly 80 days, but even that represents a 50 percent reduction in 10 years. 24 The same trend is
noticeable in the rest of the affluent worldfor example, in Tokyo, where, a few decades ago, doomsayers believed that oxygen
masks would in the future have to be worn all around the city because of the bad air. Apart from its other positive effects on the
developing countries, such as ameliorating hunger and sparing people the horror of watching their children die, prosperity
beyond a certain critical point can improve the environment. What is more, this turning point is now occurring
progressively earlier in the developing countries, because they can learn from more affluent countries' mistakes
and use their superior technology. For example, air quality in the enormous cities of China, which are the most heavily
polluted in the world, has steadied since the mid-1980s and in several cases has slowly improved. This improvement has
coincided with uniquely rapid growth. Some years ago, the Danish statistician and Greenpeace member Bjrn Lomborg, with
about 10 of his students, compiled statistics and facts about the world's environmental problems. To his astonishment, he found
that what he himself had regarded as self-evident, the steady deterioration of the global environment, did not agree at all with
official empirical data. He found instead that air pollution is diminishing, refuse problems are diminishing, resources are not
running out, more people are eating their fill, and people are living longer. Lomborg gathered publicly available data from as
many fields as he could find and published them in the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
World. The picture that emerges there is an important corrective to the general prophesies of doom that can so easily be imbibed
from newspaper headlines. Lomborg shows that air pollution and emissions have been declining in the developed world during
recent decades. Heavy metal emissions have been heavily reduced; nitrogen oxides have diminished by almost 30 percent and
sulfur emissions by about 80 percent. Pollution and emission problems are still growing in the poor developing countries, but at
every level of growth annual particle density has diminished by 2 percent in only 14 years. In the developed world, phosphorus
emissions into the seas have declined drastically, and E. coli bacteria concentrations in coastal waters have plummeted, enabling
closed swimming areas to reopen. Lomborg shows that, instead of large-scale deforestation, the world's forest acreage increased
from 40.24 million to 43.04 million square kilometers between 1950 and 1994. He finds that there has never been any large-
scale tree death caused by acid rain. The oft-quoted, but erroneous statement about 40,000 species going extinct every year is
traced by Lomborg to its sourcea 20-year-old estimate that has been circulating in environmentalist circles ever since.
Lomborg thinks it is closer to 1,500 species a year, and possibly a bit more than that. The documented cases of extinction during
the past 400 years total just over a thousand species, of which about 95 percent are insects, bacteria, and viruses. As for the
problem of garbage, the next hundred years worth of Danish refuse could be accommodated in a 33-meter-deep pit with an area
of three square kilometers, even without recycling. In addition, Lomborg illustrates how increased prosperity and improved
technology can solve the problems that lie ahead of us. All the fresh water consumed in the world today could be produced by a
single desalination plant, powered by solar cells and occupying 0.4 percent of the Sahara Desert. It is a mistake, then, to believe
that growth automatically ruins the environment. And claims that we would need this or that number of planets for the whole
world to attain a Western standard of consumptionthose ecological footprint calculationsare equally untruthful. Such a
claim is usually made by environmentalists, and it is concerned, not so much with emissions and pollution, as with resources
running out if everyone were to live as we do in the affluent world. Clearly, certain of the raw materials we use today, in
presentday quantities, would not suffice for the whole world if everyone consumed the same things. But that information is just
about as interesting as if a prosperous Stone Age man were to say that, if everyone attained his level of consumption, there
would not be enough stone, salt, and furs to go around. Raw material consumption is not static. With more and more
people achieving a high level of prosperity, we start looking for ways of using other raw materials. Humanity is constantly
improving technology so as to get at raw materials that were previously inaccessible, and we are attaining a
level of prosperity that makes this possible. New innovations make it possible for old raw materials to be
put to better use and for garbage to be turned into new raw materials. A century and a half ago, oil was just something black
and sticky that people preferred not to step in and definitely did not want to find beneath their land. But our interest in finding
better energy sources led to methods being devised for using oil, and today it is one of our prime resources. Sand has never been
all that exciting or precious, but today it is a vital raw material in the most powerful technology of our age, the computer. In the
form of siliconwhich makes up a quarter of the earth's crust it is a key component in computer chips. There is a
simple market mechanism that averts shortages. If a certain raw material comes to be in short supply,
its price goes up. This makes everyone more interested in economizing on that resource, in finding more
of it, in reusing it, and in trying to find substitutes for it. The trend over the last few decades of falling raw material prices
is clear. Metals have never been as cheap as they are today. Prices are falling, which suggests that demand does not exceed
supply. In relation to wages, that is, in terms of how long we must work to earn the price of a raw material, natural resources
today are half as expensive as they were 50 years ago and one-fifth as expensive as they were a hundred years ago. In 1900 the
price of electricity was eight times higher, the price of coal seven times higher, and the price of oil five times higher than today.
25 The risk of shortage is declining all the time, because new finds and more efficient use keep augmenting the available
reserves. In a world where technology never stops developing, static calculations are uninteresting, and wrong. By simple
mathematics, Lomborg establishes that if we have a raw material with a hundred years' use remaining, a 1 percent annual
increase in demand, and a 2 percent increase in recycling and/or efficiency, that resource will never be exhausted. If shortages
do occur, then with the right technology most substances can be recycled. One-third of the world's steel production, for example,
is being reused already. Technological advance can outstrip the depletion of resources. Not many years ago,
everyone was convinced of the impossibility of the whole Chinese population having telephones, because that would require
several hundred million telephone operators. But the supply of manpower did not run out; technology developed instead. Then
it was declared that nationwide telephony for China was physically impossible because all the world's copper wouldn't suffice for
installing heavy gauge telephone lines all over the country. Before that had time to become a problem, fiber optics and satellites
began to supersede copper wire. The price of copper, a commodity that people believed would run out, has fallen continuously
and is now only about a tenth of what it was 200 years ago. People in most ages have worried about important raw materials
becoming exhausted. But on the few occasions when this has happened, it has generally affected isolated, poor places, not open,
affluent ones. To claim that people in Africa, who are dying by the thousand every day from supremely real shortages, must not
be allowed to become as prosperous as we in the West because we can find theoretical risks of shortages occurring is both stupid
and unjust.

Economic downturn causes destroys anti-climate change efforts
Dawson 8
Bill Dawson, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, 11-11, 2008, Obama, Financial Crisis,
Climate Change: Rocky Road Ahead for Journalism and Climate, online:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/11/obama-financial-crisis-and-climate-change/
After Hurricane Katrina, An Inconvenient Truth, the 2007 reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and other events
pushed the climate change issue higher on the public agenda, it may have seemed that it wouldnt soon
slide back down. That assumption was weakened earlier this year when soaring gasoline prices prompted election-year
sloganeering keyed to public concerns - drill here, drill now, pay less, and drill, baby, drill. The congressional defeat in June of the
Lieberman-Warner climate bill was attributed in large part to worries about extra costs that its cap-and-trade program would
impose for cutting greenhouse emissions, as high prices at the pump provided an uneasy backdrop. Then came the early fall financial
meltdown, stock market collapses, and bailouts, with predictions of a deep recession. Intensifying economic worries, combined with cascading
401(k) accounts, sharpened the financial focus of a presidential race in which both major candidates had endorsed the cap-and-trade concept. With
the election now past, economy-related questions loom large for the climate issue and for reporters covering it. Will the
economic and financial crisis and its continuing after-effects eclipse concerns about climate change, at least for the foreseeable future, relegating
climate change, at best, to the inside pages? Less coverage? Different coverage? More attention to the intersection of climate, energy, economy, and
politics? Fewer stories on the science of climate change, and more on policy-focused debates about strategies for dealing with it? Time magazines
Bryan Walsh wrote an article in October that was headlined, Will the Environment Lose Out to the Economy? In it, he juxtaposed scientists and
environmentalists warnings about severe consequences of global warming and mounting worries about the dire consequences of a global economic
collapse: What happens when another more alarming, more immediate catastrophe co-opts peoples fear?
Capturing the uncertainty of the moment, Walsh continued: With the tanking economy dominating the news, and the
government willing to virtually bankrupt itself to bail out the financial sector, it could be hard to push the
climate change agenda - and possibly hard to find any money left to support it.

Growths a pre-requisite to dealing with climate change
Elliot 8
(economics editor, The Guardian, (Larry, Can a dose of recession solve climate change?, The Guardian,
August 25, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/25/economicgrowth.globalrecession)
Politically, recessions are not helpful to the cause of environmentalism. Climate change is replaced by
concerns about unemployment and stimulating growth. To be fair, politicians respond to what they hear from voters:
Gordon Brown's survival as prime minister depends on how well his package of economic measures is received, not on what he does
or doesn't do to limit greenhouse gases. Looking back, it is clear that every advance in the green movement has
coincided with period of strong growth - the early 1970s, the late 1980s and the first half of the current
decade. It was tough enough to get world leaders to make tackling climate change a priority when the
world economy was experiencing its longest period of sustained growth: it will be mightily difficult to
persuade them to take measures that might have a dampen growth while the dole queues are lengthening.
Those most likely to suffer are workers in the most marginal jobs and pensioners who will have to pay perhaps 20% of their income
on energy bills. Hence, recession does not offer even a temporary solution to the problem of climate change
and it is a fantasy to imagine that it does. The real issue is whether it is possible to challenge the "growth-at-any-cost
model" and come up with an alternative that is environmentally benign, economically robust and politically feasible. Hitting all three
buttons is mightily difficult but attempting to do so is a heck of a lot more constructive than waiting for industrial capitalism to
collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

Economic decline derails climate change solutions
Okonski and Boin 8
[Kendra and Caroline. Environment Program at the Intl Policy Network. Protectionism May be Harmful
to All International Policy Network, 2/3/8 ln]
The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where European and American producers are not
disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game
would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade would be replaced by
losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation. Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are
widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions are concentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national
governments to "protect" their business from competition, especially when supported by moralists, such as environmentalists, who
claim that such protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised labor unite. The Lieberman-Warner bill is
endorsed not only by major Green groups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade unions. Similarly, various
European trade unions have applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. But in reality, it is far more
moral to support liberalization. Trade barriers of any kind, including "green" subsidies, tariffs and quotas, harm
both consumers and producers. They artificially increase costs, leading to unnecessary waste of scarce
natural and human resources. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase the same goods and
services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future. Although some claim
that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually counterproductive. They favor the status
quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-saving
technologies. Consider bananas. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and Russia. But to do so would be
farmore costly than growing them in warm places, and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Which is why theyare
grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more
sustainably. Poor countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers -- with adverse
effects on both people and the environment. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor countries
being sold to industrialized countries. So local companies will have less money to invest in new, cleaner
technologies. Instead, they will continue to use older, dirtier production methods and thus will use scarce
resources less sustainably. This effect would be exacerbated by reduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover,
less trade means less wealth, which translates into fewer resources available to invest in environmental conservation. India
demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984, India had one car manufacturer, which produced just one car -- the
Ambassador -- which was technologically inferior, belched pollutants, and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began
to open its market to foreign car producers. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited
from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner, moretechnologically advanced and efficient. Environmental
ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume less, have fewer
children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based on their scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record
of false predictions in recent decades, these claims should not be heeded seriously. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda
but they have little merit in terms of their practical ability to enable humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-
more sustainable manner. The competitive market process, underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is inherently
more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green,
harms the vast majority of people as well as the environment -- and is best avoided.

Growth is good it allows for the proliferation of technology that solves our dependence
on carbon-emitters, mitigates inefficient land use, and risk of ecological collapse and
resource depletion is empirically denied failure to maintain it leads to a shift towards
ecologically detrimental practices
Ridley, 4/25
(Matt, Matt Ridley's books have sold over a million copies, been translated into 30 languages, been short-listed for nine major literary prizes and
won several awards. His TED talk "When Ideas Have Sex" has been viewed more than two million times.
With BA and DPhil degrees from Oxford University, he worked for the Economist for nine years as science editor, Washington correspondent and
American editor, before becoming a self-employed writer and businessman. He was founding chairman of the International Centre for Life in
Newcastle. He was non-excutive chairman of Northern Rock plc and Northern 2 VCT plc. He also commissioned the Northumberlandia landform
sculpture and country park. He currently writes the Mind and Matter column in the Wall Street Journal and writes regularly for The Times. As Viscount
Ridley, he was elected to the House of Lords in February 2013. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of Medical Sciences,
and a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Wall Street Journal, The Worlds Resources Arent Running Out
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304279904579517862612287156?mod=WSJ_h
p_RightTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj, April 25, 2014, ak.)

The World's Resources Aren't Running Out: Ecologists worry that the world's resources come in fixed
amounts that will run out, but we have broken through such limits again and again
How many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the world's resources, "running out" of oil,
"reaching the limits" of the atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or "approaching the carrying
capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements is
that there is a fixed amount of stuffmetals, oil, clean air, landand that we risk exhausting it through our
consumption. "We are using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably produce, and unless we change course, that
number will grow fastby 2030, even two planets will not be enough," says Jim Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for
Nature International (formerly the World Wildlife Fund). But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst
through such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn't end for
lack of stone. Ecologists call this " niche construction"that people (and indeed some other animals) can create new
opportunities for themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way. Agriculture is the
classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying on nature's bounty and substituted an artificial and
much larger bounty. Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter's
tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is
discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented,
demand for copper falls. That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort
of superstitious magic called "markets" or "prices" to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The
easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists. I have lived among both tribes. I
studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years.
When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I
very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpointthat there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that there are
no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less. This disagreement goes to the heart of many
current political issues and explains much about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate
debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming.
So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But
optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon
energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm. It is striking, for example, that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8
degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on several assumptions: little technological
change, an end to the 50-year fall in population growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income and
not much improvement in the energy efficiency of the economy. Basically, that would mean a world much
like today's but with lots more people burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in emissions.
Most economists expect a five- or tenfold increase in income, huge changes in technology and an end to
population growth by 2100: not so many more people needing much less carbon. In 1679, Antonie van
Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist, estimated that the planet could hold 13.4 billion people, a number that most
demographers think we may never reach. Since then, estimates have bounced around between 1 billion and 100 billion, with no sign
of converging on an agreed figure. Economists point out that we keep improving the productivity of each acre of
land by applying fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides and irrigation. Further innovation is bound to shift
the ceiling upward. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University calculates that the amount of land required to
grow a given quantity of food has fallen by 65% over the past 50 years, world-wide. Ecologists object that these
innovations rely on nonrenewable resources, such as oil and gas, or renewable ones that are being used up faster than they are
replenished, such as aquifers. So current yields cannot be maintained, let alone improved. In his recent book "The View from Lazy
Point," the ecologist Carl Safina estimates that if everybody had the living standards of Americans, we would need 2.5 Earths
because the world's agricultural land just couldn't grow enough food for more than 2.5 billion people at that level of consumption.
Harvard emeritus professor E.O. Wilson, one of ecology's patriarchs, reckoned that only if we all turned vegetarian could the world's
farms grow enough food to support 10 billion people. Economists respond by saying that since large parts of the world,
especially in Africa, have yet to gain access to fertilizer and modern farming techniques, there is no reason to
think that the global land requirements for a given amount of food will cease shrinking any time soon.
Indeed, Mr. Ausubel, together with his colleagues Iddo Wernick and Paul Waggoner, came to the startling conclusion that, even
with generous assumptions about population growth and growing affluence leading to greater demand for
meat and other luxuries, and with ungenerous assumptions about future global yield improvements, we
will need less farmland in 2050 than we needed in 2000. (So long, that is, as we don't grow more biofuels on
land that could be growing food.) But surely intensification of yields depends on inputs that may run out? Take water, a
commodity that limits the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and 1970s of water demand by the year
2000 proved grossly overestimated: The world used half as much water as experts had projected 30 years
before. The reason was greater economy in the use of water by new irrigation techniques. Some countries, such as
Israel and Cyprus, have cut water use for irrigation through the use of drip irrigation. Combine these improvements with
solar-driven desalination of seawater world-wide, and it is highly unlikely that fresh water will limit human
population. The best-selling book "Limits to Growth," published in 1972 by the Club of Rome (an influential global think tank),
argued that we would have bumped our heads against all sorts of ceilings by now, running short of various metals, fuels, minerals
and space. Why did it not happen? In a word, technology: better mining techniques, more frugal use of materials,
and if scarcity causes price increases, substitution by cheaper material. We use 100 times thinner gold
plating on computer connectors than we did 40 years ago. The steel content of cars and buildings keeps
on falling. Until about 10 years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short
decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would be faced
with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. But thanks to fracking and the shale
revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you
will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor in Ireland. Just as you are
likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland, so we may well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels
long before they run out. The economist and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient of
some kinds of solar panels. Tellurium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth's crustone atom per billion. Will it soon run out?
Mr. Worstall estimates that there are 120 million tons of it, or a million years' supply altogether. It is sufficiently concentrated in the
residues from refining copper ores, called copper slimes, to be worth extracting for a very long time to come. One day, it will also be
recycled as old solar panels get cannibalized to make new ones. Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The
richest phosphate mines, such as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world is
running out? No: There are extensive lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all the phosphorus atoms put into the ground
over past centuries still exist, especially in the mud of estuaries. It's just a matter of concentrating them again. In 1972, the ecologist
Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind was
equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by technology. In other words, the damage done to Earth increases the
more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have. Many ecologists still subscribe to this doctrine, which
has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven't been kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence
and new technology have led to less human impact on the planet, not more. Richer people with new
technologies tend not to collect firewood and bushmeat from natural forests; instead, they use electricity
and farmed chickenboth of which need much less land. In 2006, Mr. Ausubel calculated that no country with a
GDP per head greater than $4,600 has a falling stock of forest (in density as well as in acreage). Haiti is 98%
deforested and literally brown on satellite images, compared with its green, well-forested neighbor, the Dominican Republic. The
difference stems from Haiti's poverty, which causes it to rely on charcoal for domestic and industrial energy,
whereas the Dominican Republic is wealthy enough to use fossil fuels, subsidizing propane gas for cooking
fuel specifically so that people won't cut down forests. Part of the problem is that the word "consumption" means
different things to the two tribes. Ecologists use it to mean "the act of using up a resource"; economists mean "the purchase of goods
and services by the public" (both definitions taken from the Oxford dictionary). But in what sense is water, tellurium or
phosphorus "used up" when products made with them are bought by the public? They still exist in the
objects themselves or in the environment. Water returns to the environment through sewage and can be
reused. Phosphorus gets recycled through compost. Tellurium is in solar panels, which can be recycled. As
the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his 1980 book "Knowledge and Decisions," "Although we speak loosely of
'production,' man neither creates nor destroys matter, but only transforms it." Given that innovationor
"niche construction"causes ever more productivity, how do ecologists justify the claim that we are already
overdrawn at the planetary bank and would need at least another planet to sustain the lifestyles of 10
billion people at U.S. standards of living? Examine the calculations done by a group called the Global Footprint Network
a think tank founded by Mathis Wackernagel in Oakland, Calif., and supported by more than 70 international environmental
organizationsand it becomes clear. The group assumes that the fossil fuels burned in the pursuit of higher yields must be offset in
the future by tree planting on a scale that could soak up the emitted carbon dioxide. A widely used measure of "ecological footprint"
simply assumes that 54% of the acreage we need should be devoted to "carbon uptake." But what if tree planting wasn't the
only way to soak up carbon dioxide? Or if trees grew faster when irrigated and fertilized so you needed
fewer of them? Or if we cut emissions, as the U.S. has recently done by substituting gas for coal in
electricity generation? Or if we tolerated some increase in emissions (which are measurably increasing crop yields, by the way)?
Any of these factors could wipe out a huge chunk of the deemed ecological overdraft and put us back in planetary credit. Helmut
Haberl of Klagenfurt University in Austria is a rare example of an ecologist who takes economics seriously. He points out that his
fellow ecologists have been using "human appropriation of net primary production"that is, the percentage of the world's green
vegetation eaten or prevented from growing by us and our domestic animalsas an indicator of ecological limits to growth. Some
ecologists had begun to argue that we were using half or more of all the greenery on the planet. This is
wrong, says Dr. Haberl, for several reasons. First, the amount appropriated is still fairly low: About 14.2% is
eaten by us and our animals, and an additional 9.6% is prevented from growing by goats and buildings,
according to his estimates. Second, most economic growth happens without any greater use of biomass.
Indeed, human appropriation usually declines as a country industrializes and the harvest growsas a
result of agricultural intensification rather than through plowing more land. Finally, human activities actually
increase the production of green vegetation in natural ecosystems. Fertilizer taken up by crops is carried into forests
and rivers by wild birds and animals, where it boosts yields of wild vegetation too (sometimes too much, causing algal blooms in
water). In places like the Nile delta, wild ecosystems are more productive than they would be without human intervention, despite
the fact that much of the land is used for growing human food. If I could have one wish for the Earth's environment, it would be to
bring together the two tribesto convene a grand powwow of ecologists and economists. I would pose them this simple question and
not let them leave the room until they had answered it: How can innovation improve the environment?

Warming Can Be Solved Without Impairing Economic Growth
KofKoff, 2-3 [Writer and Editor at Uloop News at Columbia University, Congressional Staffer, 2-3-2014,
A New Approach To Global Warming, The Bottom Line, http://www.cbs-
bottomline.com/news/view.php/5665/A-New-Approach-To-Global-Warming]

I don't doubt the good intentions of those that believe global warming is an extreme threat to mankind. If
you believe that global warming will ultimately lead to destruction and death it is admirable to want to do
what is necessary to protect people. At the same time, it would be imprudent to ignore the virtues that
have arisen from the growth of non-renewable, yet reliable, energy sources over the course of history. So
here we are, attempting to fight the supposed effects of industrialization without impairing the necessary
growth and improvement of the global economy. Unfortunately, the suggested cure of the day - via
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - may leave us with less growth and the environmental
catastrophes we fear. Take Germany as an example of a country that takes global warming seriously. The
country plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 - 95% by 2050 versus 1990 levels. While a valiant
effort no doubt, Germany only accounts for 2.3% of global emissions and will account for even less going
forward as developing nations continue to grow and industrialize. It is hard to believe that Germany's
actions alone can possibly thwart global warming. Their actions seem as unrealistic as if Luxembourg
spent enormous sums of its GDP on its military in the hopes of ensuring world peace. At the end of the
day, Luxembourg simply cannot tip the scales in any recognizable fashion. Similarly, if the US, EU, China
and India are not also committed to reducing emissions, it seems that Germany's effort - which is already
bearing some of the world's highest energy costs - will be for naught. The EU, following Germany's lead,
recently proposed cutting its carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 from 1990 levels - an ambitious goal that
the International Energy Agency supports, but admits will reduce Europe's competitiveness for at least
20-years. According to the IEA, however, even if the EU stopped emitting greenhouse gases altogether by
2030, it would not be sufficient to achieve its desired ends. As a result, if the IEA is correct, the EU's
carbon austerity - at the 40% level - seems like a fool's errand. To be fair, if mankind is responsible for
global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are the culprit, then directionally, less greenhouse gases
are certainly better than more. But reducing emissions alone is just a means to an end - not the end itself.
Ultimately the goal should be protecting the most vulnerable in the manner that results in the lowest risk-
adjusted cost possible, where risk is tied to the likelihood of success. Consider telling the citizens of the
Maldives that they will be better off three feet underwater rather than six. At the end of the day, if the
efforts to limit global warming aren't sufficient to curtail the catastrophes many predict (ex. Low-lying
areas are still flooded), the efforts will have been in vain. Granted, there will always be victories on the
margin, but it does beg the question: What amount of carbon austerity and economic impact are we
willing to bear in the name of global warming, and if we bear these economic hardships and the ice caps
continue to melt and the temperature continues to rise, will we see it as a call for even further emissions
limits or will we finally change our approach? Germany's Federal Environmental Agency says that to
reduce global temperatures by 2o C, it would require global carbon reductions of 50% by 2050 versus
1990 levels. If we assume these estimates are accurate, a big if (remember in 2008 when Al Gore said the
polar ice caps would be gone in 5-years?), it would still require too many variables to work out as planned
for it to be achievable in a world filled with the variety of nations, economies and viewpoints of which it is
currently comprised. Would it not be more effective, on a risk-adjusted basis, to focus our efforts on
preparing for what we expect is to come or towards creating the innovative technology necessary to stop
climate change more abruptly? Why not begin to pare back government subsidies for home insurance in
flood prone areas to prod families to move towards safer zones? Or create contingency plans to conserve
water in flood years for years when there are droughts? Or better yet, lift restrictions on drought-resistant
genetically modified crops (queue the non-GMO hysteria!). And why not build infrastructure like flood
walls in at risk areas (i.e. the Maldives, New York City, etc.) that will help to protect against rising sea
levels and catastrophic natural disasters (which will happen even if global warming doesn't)? By planning
for global warming rather than trying to stop global warming, either this money will be spent to defend
against catastrophes that do not materialize or we will have successfully protected humanity from disaster
without so severely stemming global economic growth. Conversely, we can follow the current path,
imparting high cost emissions restrictions on industrialized countries and stifling the rise of resource-
rich, developing nations, while hoping that our estimates are correct and that our efforts will assuage
nature's fury.
Growth is Key to Solve The Consequences Of Warming
Goklany, 11 [Indur M. Goklany, Science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department
of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology
Policy, December 2011, Misled on Climate Change: How the UN IPCC (and others) Exaggerate the
Impacts of Global Warming, Reasons,
http://reason.org/files/how_ipcc_misleads_on_climate_change_impacts.pdf]
Although the IPCC notes that sustainable development can reduce vulnerability to climate change, and
climate change could impede nations abilities to achieve sustainable development pathways,49 many
proponents of greenhouse gas controls dwell only on the latter (downside) aspect of economic
development while generally ignoring the upside.50 But does global warming hinder sustained
development or does sustained development make it easier to cope with warming, and which effect, if
either, is predominant? It is possible to answer these questions using results from the previously
discussed British government-sponsored Fast Track Assessments (FTAs) of the global impacts of global
warming.51 The FTAs provide estimates of the contribution of global warming to the total populations at
risk of malaria, hunger and coastal flooding due to sea level rise for 2085. Notwithstanding the
implausibility of any forecast of events in 2085, these estimates of populations at risk may be converted
into mortality estimates by comparing historical mortality estimates from the World Health Organization
(for 1990, the base year) against FTA estimates of populations at risk for that year. The results indicate
that under the IPCCs warmest (A1FI) scenario, global warming would contribute no more than 13% of the
total mortality from malaria, hunger and coastal flooding in 2085.52 The remaining 87% or more is due to
non-global warming related factors. Had improvements in adaptive capacity been appropriately
accounted for, the mortality attributed to both global warming and non-global warming factors would
have been much smaller, but probably by a similar amount, so the proportional contribution from each
would likely not be changed much. FTA results also indicate that by 2085, global warming would reduce
the global population at risk of water shortages, although some areas would see increases.53 This finding
is contrary to the erroneous impression conveyed by the IPCCs AR4s Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers54 because that summary emphasizes the number of people that may experience an
increase in water shortage but neglects to provide corresponding estimates for the number that would see
a reduction in water shortage.55 However, the finding that the net population experiencing water
shortage would be reduced is consistent with other studies of the global impact of global warming on
water resources. Remarkably, this result is obtained despite the fact that the author of the study does not
allow for any adaptation and, consequently, nor does it account for advances in adaptive capacity that
should logically occur under the IPCC scenarios.57 Had adaptation been considered, the net population at
risk of water shortage due to global warming would have decreased even more substantially than the
author indicates. Partly due to increases in net primary productivity because of CO2 fertilization, the
amount of habitat devoted to cropland would be halved by global warming under the A1FI scenario, at
least through 2100.58 Since diversion of habitat to cropland is perhaps the single largest threat to species
and ecosystems, 59 this means that global warming could actually reduce pressures on biodiversity.60
Thus, at least through 20852100, GW may relieve some of the problems that some poor countries face
currently (e.g., water shortage and habitat loss), while in other instances, the contribution of GW to the
overall problem (e.g., cumulative mortality from malaria, hunger and coastal flooding) would be
substantially smaller than that of non-GW related factors. Notably, economic development, one of
the fundamental drivers of GW, would reduce mortality problems regardless of whether
they are due to GW or non-GW related factors (see Figure 4). Hence, lack of economic
development would be a greater problem than global warming, at least through 20852100.
This reaffirms the story told by Figure 6, which shows that notwithstanding global warming and despite
egregiously overestimating the negative consequences of global warming while underestimating its
positive impacts, future net GDP per capita will be much higher than it is today under each scenario
through at least 2200. Note that Figure 6 also shows that through 2200, notwithstanding global warming,
net GDP per capita will be highest under the warmest scenario, and lowest under the poorest scenario
(A2). This suggests that if humanity has a choice of which development path to take, it ought to strive to
effect the scenario that has the highest economic growth, whether or not that exacerbates global
warming.61 The additional economic development would more than offset the cost of any
warming. No less important, it is far cheaper for the world to advance economic development than
mitigate climate change by a meaningful amount.62 This is consistent with the aforementioned analysis of
various climate-sensitive infectious diseases, whose authors observe that: [D]eaths will first increase,
because of population growth and climate change, but then fall, because of development As climate can
only be changed with a substantial delay, development is the preferred strategy to reduce infectious
diseases even if they are exacerbated by climate change. Development can increase the capacity to cope
with projected increases in infectious diseases over the medium to long term.63 Thus, it is most unlikely
that under the IPCCs warmest scenario, global warming will overwhelm economic development in
countries that are currently poor, regardless of the Stern Reviews upper bound damage estimates.
Second, economic development should be given priority over reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would
enable poorer countries to cope not only with any negative impacts of climate change, but more
importantly, other larger problems that they will face.64 This is most obvious from an examination of
Figures 3 through 5, which indicate that malnutrition, infant mortality and life expectancy improve most
rapidly with economic development at its lowest levels.
Economic Growth Is The Solution to Climate Change
Worstall, 11 [Tim Worstall, Writer on Economics at Forbes, 8-10-2011, Solving Climate Change, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/]
We know very well that theres a connection between economic growth and population size. Richer
countries on average have lower fertility rates so as the world becomes richer fewer children are born. So
more economic growth leading to peaking and declining population really isnt a surprise at all. However,
look at that light green line. The RCP 2.6 one, the whew, we dodged it one. The highest economic growth
model leads to the lowest level of emissions considered. Less economic growth leads to higher emissions.
Note again that these are not my assumptions. They are those of the IPCC process. Which is something of
a body blow to those telling us that we must cease economic growth if calamity is to be averted: the very
assumptions built into the whole proof that climate change is something we should worry about say
exactly the opposite. Economic growth is the way out, not the problem. By the way, the assumption there
about the rate of economic growth, from a roughly $50 trillion global economy in 2000 to a roughly $300
trillion one in 2100. Thats not all that far off the growth rate we had in the 20th century. This is how
much energy were going to use and where were going to get it from. We need to be more parsimonious in
our use of energy, yes. We need to use less of it per unit of GDP (which is known as energy intensity and
their desired decrease in that isnt far off what the advanced economies already manage) but we dont
actually need to use less of it overall. Less oil, yes, but we can near double our energy consumption and
still hit that we missed the problem sweet spot. Its also amusing to note what a small role for solar and
wind power is necessary to hit that target. Again, I want to point out that these arent my assumptions,
theyre not made up out of whole cloth by some denialist, these are the assumptions which the very
scientists who tell us about climate change themselves think are the driving forces and likely outcomes.
Which leads to a very interesting conclusion indeed. We dont have to stop economic growth at all, we can
quite happily have around the same amount of it that we had in the 20 th century. So thats a large
number of the Green Miserablists shown to be wrong. We dont have to reduce or even severely limit our
energy consumption: we just have to get the growth in our consumption from other than the usual
sources. A large number of the Energy Miserablists shown to be wrong there too. Or, to boil it right down,
the IPCC is telling us that the solution to climate change is economic growth and low-carbon energy
generation. Thats absolutely all we have to do.
Economic Growth is The Way Out of Warming IPCC Proves
GWPF, 11 [The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10-08-11, IPCC: ONLY ECONOMIC GROWTH CAN
SOLVE CLIMATE AND ENERGY CHALLENGES, http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-only-economic-growth-
can-solve-climate-and-energy-challenges/]
The IPCC process has just released their first update to these models since 2000. The overview paper is
here. Im not going to delve into all of the details (for which readers will no doubt than me) I just wanted
to make a few general points with the use of a couple of their graphs. As a handy guide, RCPnumber
should be interpreted thusly: the higher the number after the RCP the closer we are to boiling Flipper as
the last humans fight on the desert shores of Antarctica. The lower the number the more we can say,
Phew, we dodged the problem. More specifically, RCP2.6 means CO2 peaks out at 490 ppm and then
declines. RCP8.5 means it gets to 1370 ppm and perhaps keeps going leading to that dolphin BBQ. Note
please that I dont have to believe these numbers, you dont, no one has to believe any of this at all.
However, we do need to realise that these are the numbers which are being fed into the climate change
models (perhaps more accurately, that these are the numbers that will be) and thus produce those IPCC
reports. Which means that anyone taking the outputs of those IPCC reports seriously needs to take these
inputs seriously. My general points can be made quite simply with the aid of two of their charts.We know
very well that theres a connection between economic growth and population size. Richer countries on
average have lower fertility rates so as the world becomes richer fewer children are born. So more
economic growth leading to peaking and declining population really isnt a surprise at all. However, look
at that light green line. The RCP 2.6 one, the whew, we dodged it one. The highest economic growth
model leads to the lowest level of emissions considered. Less economic growth leads to higher emissions.
Note again that these are not my assumptions. They are those of the IPCC process. Which is something of
a body blow to those telling us that we must cease economic growth if calamity is to be averted: the very
assumptions built into the whole proof that climate change is something we should worry about say
exactly the opposite. Economic growth is the way out, not the problem. By the way, the assumption there
about the rate of economic growth, from a roughly $50 trillion global economy in 2000 to a roughly $300
trillion one in 2100. Thats not all that far off the growth rate we had in the 20th century
Global Warming can be Solved without Drastic Burdens on The Economy
Siegel, 07 [Jeremy J. Siegel, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania, October 2007, How to End Global Warming, Going Green,
http://m.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T038-C000-S002-how-to-end-global-warming.html]
The mere mention of global warming raises the temperature level of political discourse. On one side,
many conservatives concede that the earth is getting warmer, but they do not believe that human activity
is necessarily the cause -- and even if it is, they argue, there's little we can do about it. On the other side,
some environmentalists believe that radical measures are called for -- measures that could grind
economic growth to a halt. Unfortunately, all the heated rhetoric obscures some viable, middle-of-the-
road approaches. I strongly believe in the power of free markets, and I think we can use free-market
solutions to attack global warming without imposing an undue burden on the world economy. Key facts I
believe that global warming is real, that it stems mostly from the increase in greenhouse gases and that it
does pose a long-term threat. The basic facts are well known. The world is pumping about 8 billion tons of
carbon emissions from fossil fuels into the atmosphere each year, up nearly 500% from 1950. That
number is likely to double by mid century if nothing is done to curtail emissions. Global warming is
expected to accentuate climatic extremes. Some areas of the world, particularly those in the far north, may
benefit as the length of growing seasons increases. But warming is likely to bring excessive rain to some
regions and drought to others. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects an
increase in the frequency of major cyclonic storms, such as the intense hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast
in 2005. In my opinion, the most costly consequence of global warming is the possibility of rising ocean
levels caused by melting ice and the expansion of warming water. Sea levels would rise by 23 feet if all of
Greenland's ice sheet melted, and another 230 feet if all of Antarctica's ice melted. The latter scenario
would submerge more than half the world's population. The IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise only 7
inches to 2 feet by the end of this century, although it is said the figure could be much greater, depending
on ice-flow dynamics and other factors. But even modest melting could trigger climate changes that would
make many of the world's largest cities uninhabitable and dramatically reduce the world's arable land.
Many believe that any attempt to curtail carbon emissions will sharply reduce economic growth and cause
severe economic hardships. I disagree. For starters, one study has shown that just by using today's
technologies, it would be possible to reduce emissions by several billion tons per year without doing much
harm to world economic output. This could be accomplished by increasing the amount of electricity
produced at nuclear-power plants, doubling the fuel efficiency of automobiles and using more-energy-
efficient technologies in buildings. Consider the energy-efficiency improvements in California, which has
the toughest environmental laws in the country. On a per-person basis, Californians use about one-third
less energy than the average American and emit only about half as much carbon dioxide. Yes, energy
prices are high in California, but no one I know would call the state impoverished because of its energy-
saving initiatives.

Economic growth mitigates the impact of global warming
Kreutzer 13 David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. is a Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change. From 1984 to 2007, he
taught economics at Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., where he also served as Director of the International Business
Program. In addition, Kreutzer was a Visiting Economist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1994 and was a visiting
economics instructor at Ohio University in the early 1980s. Kreutzer earned a doctorate in economics from George Mason University
in 1984. He also has a bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from Virginia Tech. (5/28/2013, David, The Heritage
Foundation, A Cure Worse Than the Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/a-cure-worse-than-the-disease-global-economic-impact-of-global-warming-
policy // SM)
Although most poverty policies address relative poverty, absolute poverty is a greater concern when assessing the impact of climate
on income. As countries become richer, they can afford to air-condition larger fractions of their homes,
businesses, and factories. In addition, the climate-sensitive agricultural sector typically becomes a smaller
fraction of GDP. At the same time, richer countries can afford to plant the more expensive, climate-tolerant
hybrid seeds and spend more on irrigation and other yield-enhancing agricultural capital. As with
virtually all adversity, a stronger economy helps to overcome the challenges posed by warmingalthough
not all effects of warming on income are negative.[6] By the same logic, as weak economies grow stronger, the
impact of global warming becomes less problematic.


2ac ekc
Economic Growth Minimizes the Harms on the Environment Like Pollution
Green, 12 [ Kenneth P. Green, Environmental Scientist and Studies Public Policy about Energy and
Natural Resource at Fraser Institute, 11-7-2012, Why Growth Is the Environments Best Friend, The
American, http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/why-growth-is-the-environments-best-
friend]
The single best thing we could do to minimize energys impact on the environment is to not only maximize
our own economic growth but also to help developing countries increase theirs. Editors note: This is part four in
a series of essays on energy system dynamics and energy policy. [The] dirtiest water and air are not found in the rich countries,
rather they are found in the developing nations. As pollution is rapidly becoming a global issue, worldwide
prosperity should be viewed as the solution to, not the cause of, the problem. Hans-Joachim Ziock, Klaus
Lackner, and Douglas Harrison Most people know that energy production causes considerable environmental damage. And
indeed, energy production, distribution, and use are responsible for much of the damage that humanity
inflicts on the environment. Globally, energy production generates prodigious amounts of air pollution,
water pollution, habitat destruction, landscape destruction, wildlife mortality, and much
more. But what people are often confused about is the nature of the relationship between energy use and
environmental damage over time. Since the time of Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb, not to mention Al Gores Earth
in the Balance, environmental activists have asserted that there is a linear relationship between energy and
the environment and that its a bad one. In their equation, more humanity, plus more energy use,
automatically equates to more damage. As Ehrlich once famously opined about the possibility for unlimited energy for
humanity, it would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. Jeremy Rifkin, another environmental activist, said that its the
worst thing that could happen to our planet. The Environmental Kuznets Curve But the above view of the relationship between
energy and the environment is both nave and misleading. Economists have long observed that there is a better way to
look at the triad relationship of humans, energy, and the environment, and that is a much more optimistic
one, based on observations of how energys impact on the environment changes as countries go through
development. Rather than displaying a linear relationship between energy use and environmental degradation, the real
relationship looks more like an inverted letter U. This relationship is generally called the environmental Kuznets
curve, or the environmental transition curve. Figuure 1 is a graphic representation of the Kuznets curve.
The bottom axis is economic growth, and the upright axis represents environmental use of a natural resource such as timber, water,
or soil. The upright axis might also represent the use of environmental services such as diluting waste products in the air or the
service one gets from a rivers ability to break down a certain quantity of waste in a manner that harms neither fish nor people.
figure1_green As the figure illustrates, for any given environmental resource, society passes through a series of phases. As
countries develop, they use natural resources and environmental waste management services to build
wealth with which people satisfy their basic needs for housing, food, education, health care, mobility, and
so on. If a country grows large enough, a society will often use more than its local environment can
sustain. That is the point marked on the figure as PO, the point where overutilization of a resource
commences. The horizontal line represents the sustainable-use level of the resource, which should be
understood as a dynamic capacity that changes over time, as populations change and as climates
fluctuate. It must be evaluated on an ongoing basis. The point of perception (PP), where people notice
they are overutilizing a resource, quickly follows, and people take steps to reduce their overuse, both as
individuals and as a society. This is the point of action, or PA. Finally, and usually in relatively short order,
the overuse ends, and resource use is reduced, one hopes, to the maximum sustainable level (PSUST).
Driving environmental resource use to zero, whether its the consumption of a given fuel or the use of
natures waste remediation ability, represents a massive amount of lost economic value that could instead
be put to a myriad of good uses, such as alleviating poverty here and abroad or paying for the many
entitlements that the United States has adopted over the last century. Air Pollution and the Kuznets Curve For an
example of the Kuznets curve, lets take air pollution the production and use of fossil fuels is a major source of air
pollutants around the world. From mining to refining, virtually every step in energy production,
conversion, distribution, and, often, use results in the emission of a variety of air pollutants. These pollutants
include coarse and fine particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, ozone precursors, and yes, some of the greenhouse gases
as well, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Air pollution takes a significant toll on human health,
causing respiratory and cardiovascular problems in sensitive members of the population. And in the early days
of our development, we certainly did foul our air. Who hasnt heard of the infamous smog of Los Angeles in the 1950s? But here in
the United States, we are long past the point of perception, which began around 1900. And the cleanup began shortly thereafter. As
researcher Indur M. Goklany, a student of environmental transitions, points out, By 1912 the federal Bureau of Mines reported that
23 of the 28 cities that had populations in excess of 200,000 were making some effort to control smoke. And air pollution levels
continue to decline sharply as newer technologies and pollution control devices combine to make our system of energy production
cleaner every year. Figure 2 shows how air pollution levels in the United States have improved, even as our energy use continues to
increase.

Kuznets Curve Indicates Growth Leads a Good Environment
Arman, 14 [Hasan Arman, Professor and Doctor at United Arab Emirates University, January 2014, The
effects of economic growth on environment: an application of environmental kuznets curve in United
Arab Emirates, Tojsat: The Online Journal of Science and Technology,
http://www.tojsat.net/index.php/tojsat/article/view/148]

The correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation is becoming important as a
result of the concerns for environment and sustainable development. The correlation has been empirically
modeled through CO2 emissions and per capita income relationship by many researchers. The results of
such researches have been formulated by environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis. According to
EKC hypothesis there is an inverted Ushape relationship between environmental degradation and income
per capita so that, eventually, growth reduces the environmental impact of economic activity. Having such
trend in a country is thought to be one of the most important indicators of sustainable economic
development. The main objective of this study is to analyze the effect of economic growth on environment
by applying EKC approach to UAE economy. The long-run EKC relationship for CO2 emission and UAEs
per capita income over the 1970- 2010 period was analyzed. An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL)
model was used to determine the effects of per capita income, openness ratio of UAE economy, and
human development index (HDI) on CO2 emission. According to the results there was a inverted-U shape
relationship between CO2 emission and per capita income of UAE. In addition to that even though there
were expected significant negative effects of energy consumption, opening ratio and HDI on CO2
emission, their effects were not statistically significant. According to results of the analysis one can
conclude that the economic growth in UAE is leading a decent environment, which is supporting the EKC
hypothesis.
Economic Growth Is Beneficial to Solving Warming and the Environment Kuznets Curve
Neumayer, 10 [Eric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development in the Department of
Geography and Environment, 2010, The environmental Kuznets curve, LSE Research Online,
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30809/1/The%20environmental%20kuznets%20curve(lsero).pdf]
The presumption is often made that economic growth and trade liberalization are good for the
environment. The risk being that policy reforms designed to promote growth and liberalization may be
encouraged with little consideration of the environmental consequences (Arrow et al., 1995). At the early stages of the
environmental movement some scientists began to question how natural resource availability could be
compatible with sustained economic growth (Meadows, Meadows, Zahn, & Milling, 1972). Neoclassical economists, on the other
hand, fiercely defended that limits to growth due to resource constraints were not a problem (e.g. Beckerman, 1974). Thus the debate
between the so-called environmental pessimists and optimists began as centered on nonrenewable
resource availability. Although the debate has continued throughout the years (e.g. Beckerman, 1992; Lomborg, 2001; Meadows, Meadows, &
Randers, 1992; Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 2004) the pessimists were perhaps nave in extrapolating past trends without considering how
technical progress and a change in relative prices can work to overcome apparent scarcity of limits (Neumayer, 2003b: 46). In the 1980s large
issues such as ozone layer depletion, global warming and biodiversity loss began to refocus the debate
around the impacts of environmental degradation on economic growth. Interest was shifting away from
natural resource availability towards the environment as a medium for assimilating wastes (i.e. from source to
sink) (Neumayer, 2003b: 47). Also, following the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), the discourse of sustainable development
largely embraced the economic growth logic as a way out of poverty, social depravation and also
environmental degradation particularly for the developing world. Thus the relationship between economic growth and the
environment came under increased scrutiny. In the 1990s the empirical literature on the link between economic growth
and environmental pollution literally exploded (see Cole & Neumayer, 2005; Stern, 2003; 2004 for overviews). Much of this
literature sought to test the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, which posits that in the early
stages of economic development environmental degradation will increase until a certain level of income is
reached (known as the turning point) and then environmental improvement will occur. This relationship between per capita
income and pollution is often shown as an inverted U-shaped curve. This curve is named after Kuznets (1955) who hypothesized that
economic inequality increases over time and then after a threshold becomes more equal as per capita
income increases. In the early 1990s the EKC was introduced and popularized with the publication of Grossman and Kruegers (1991) work on
the potential environmental impacts of NAFTA, and the 1992 World Bank Report (Shafik & Bandyopadhyay, 1992; World Bank, 1992). This chapter will
critically review the theoretical and empirical literature on the EKC. We find that recent improvements in empirical methods
address a number of past criticisms, which adds robustness to the EKC results for certain environmental
pollutants. However economic growth and liberalization should not be thought of as a panacea for environmental problems particularly in the
developing world. Recent work has demonstrated the unpleasant implications for many less developed countries


Air pollution proves EKC theory development results in net less pollution
Green 12 (Kenneth P. Green D.Env., environmental science and engineering, UCLA, M.S., molecular genetics, San Diego State
University B.S., biology, UCLA, Green has testified before regulatory and legislative bodies at the local, state and federal levels,
including many times before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He was also a designated expert reviewer for
two reports by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Green has studied energy and energy-related
environmental policy for nearly 20 years. Why Growth Is the Environments Best Friend,
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/why-growth-is-the-environments-best-friend, November 7, 2012)dt
Most people know that energy production causes considerable environmental damage. And indeed, energy production,
distribution, and use are responsible for much of the damage that humanity inflicts on the environment.
Globally, energy production generates prodigious amounts of air pollution, water pollution, habitat destruction, landscape
destruction, wildlife mortality, and much more. But what people are often confused about is the nature of the
relationship between energy use and environmental damage over time. Since the time of Paul Ehrlich and The
Population Bomb, not to mention Al Gores Earth in the Balance, environmental activists have asserted that there is a linear
relationship between energy and the environment and that its a bad one. In their equation, more humanity, plus more energy use,
automatically equates to more damage. As Ehrlich once famously opined about the possibility for unlimited energy for humanity, it
would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. Jeremy Rifkin, another environmental activist, said that its the worst thing
that could happen to our planet. The Environmental Kuznets Curve But the above view of the relationship between energy and the
environment is both nave and misleading. Economists have long observed that there is a better way to look at the
triad relationship of humans, energy, and the environment, and that is a much more optimistic one, based on
observations of how energys impact on the environment changes as countries go through development. Rather than
displaying a linear relationship between energy use and environmental degradation, the real relationship
looks more like an inverted letter U. This relationship is generally called the environmental Kuznets curve, or the
environmental transition curve. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the Kuznets curve. The bottom axis is economic growth, and
the upright axis represents environmental use of a natural resource such as timber, water, or soil. The upright axis might also
represent the use of environmental services such as diluting waste products in the air or the service one gets from a rivers ability to
break down a certain quantity of waste in a manner that harms neither fish nor people. As the figure illustrates, for any given
environmental resource, society passes through a series of phases. As countries develop, they use natural resources and
environmental waste management services to build wealth with which people satisfy their basic needs for
housing, food, education, health care, mobility, and so on. If a country grows large enough, a society will often use more than
its local environment can sustain. That is the point marked on the figure as PO, the point where overutilization of a resource
commences. The horizontal line represents the sustainable-use level of the resource, which should be understood as a dynamic
capacity that changes over time, as populations change and as climates fluctuate. It must be evaluated on an ongoing basis. The
point of perception (PP), where people notice they are overutilizing a resource, quickly follows, and people
take steps to reduce their overuse, both as individuals and as a society. This is the point of action, or PA. Finally,
and usually in relatively short order, the overuse ends, and resource use is reduced, one hopes, to the
maximum sustainable level (PSUST). Driving environmental resource use to zero, whether its the consumption of a given
fuel or the use of natures waste remediation ability, represents a massive amount of lost economic value that could instead
be put to a myriad of good uses, such as alleviating poverty here and abroad or paying for the many
entitlements that the United States has adopted over the last century. Air Pollution and the Kuznets Curve For an
example of the Kuznets curve, lets take air pollution the production and use of fossil fuels is a major source of air pollutants
around the world. From mining to refining, virtually every step in energy production, conversion, distribution, and, often, use results
in the emission of a variety of air pollutants. These pollutants include coarse and fine particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
oxides, ozone precursors, and yes, some of the greenhouse gases as well, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Air
pollution takes a significant toll on human health, causing respiratory and cardiovascular problems in sensitive members of the
population. And in the early days of our development, we certainly did foul our air. Who hasnt heard of the
infamous smog of Los Angeles in the 1950s? But here in the United States, we are long past the point of perception,
which began around 1900. And the cleanup began shortly thereafter. As researcher Indur M. Goklany, a student of environmental
transitions, points out, By 1912 the federal Bureau of Mines reported that 23 of the 28 cities that had populations in excess of
200,000 were making some effort to control smoke. And air pollution levels continue to decline sharply as newer
technologies and pollution control devices combine to make our system of energy production cleaner
every year. Figure 2 shows how air pollution levels in the United States have improved, even as our energy use continues to
increase. But the situation is far worse in the developing world, where outdoor pollution takes a high toll,
and indoor pollution is higher still. According to the World Health Organization (WHO): More than half of the worlds
population relies on dung, wood, crop waste, or coal to meet their most basic energy needs. Cooking and heating with such solid
fuels on open fires or stoves without chimneys leads to indoor air pollution. This indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging
pollutants including small soot or dust particles that are able to penetrate deep into the lungs. In poorly ventilated dwellings, indoor
smoke can exceed acceptable levels for small particles in outdoor air 100-fold. Exposure is particularly high among women and
children, who spend the most time near the domestic hearth. Every year, indoor air pollution is responsible for the death of 1.6
million people thats one death every 20 seconds. Furthermore, according to WHO: indoor air pollution [is] the 8th most
important risk factor and [is] responsible for 2.7 percent of the global burden of disease. Globally, indoor air pollution from solid
fuel use is responsible for 1.6 million deaths due to pneumonia, chronic respiratory disease, and lung cancer, with the overall disease
burden (in Disability-Adjusted Life Years or DALYs, a measure combining years of life lost due to disability and death) exceeding the
burden from outdoor air pollution five-fold. In high-mortality developing countries, indoor smoke is responsible for an estimated 3.7
percent of the overall disease burden, making it the most lethal killer after malnutrition, unsafe sex, and lack of safe water and
sanitation. The Importance of Understanding the Kuznets Curve Energy is clearly not environmentally benign our use of energy
pollutes air and water, degrades land and sea, and more. However, understanding the environmental transition curve suggests that
as societies continue to develop, their environmental impact will reduce over time. Indeed, the environmental
transition curve suggests that the single best thing we could do to minimize energys impact on the environment
is to not only maximize our own economic growth but also to help developing countries increase theirs,
allowing them to switch to ever cleaner, less polluting forms of energy. Caveats apply, of course some
economists argue that the environmental transition curve does not apply to all pollutants and all societies and that while it might
work for local-area pollutants and resource protection, it may not work for global pollutants, such as soot or other greenhouse gases.
They fear that certain wealthy countries might bring pollution to other parts of the world, as various businesses are forced to relocate
to remain competitive. That may well be true, but it does not negate the idea of an environmental transition; it simply lengthens the
time it takes to turn things around for certain global pollutants, because remediation then becomes dependent on other countries
passing through their own environmental transitions.


2ac tech solves
Tech innovation solves sustainability
Robertson 07 [Ross, Senior Editor at EnlightenNext, former NRDC member, A Brighter Shade of
Green, What is Enlightenment, Oct-Dec, http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j38/bright-
green.asp?page=1]
This brings me to Worldchanging, the book that arrived last spring bearing news of an environ-mental paradigm so shamelessly up
to the minute, it almost blew out all my green circuits before I could even get it out of its stylish slipcover. Worldchanging: A Users
Guide for the 21st Century. Its also the name of the group blog, found at Worldchanging.com, where the material in the book
originally came from. Run by a future-savvy environmental journalist named Alex Steffen, Worldchanging is one of the central hubs
in a fast-growing network of thinkers defining an ultramodern green agenda that closes the gap between nature and societybig
time. After a good solid century of well-meaning efforts to restrain, reduce, and otherwise mitigate our presence here on planet
Earth, theyre saying its time for environmentalism to do a one-eighty. Theyre ditching the long-held tenets of
classical greenitude and harnessing the engines of capitalism, high technology, and human ingenuity to
jump-start the manufacture of a dramatically sustainable future. They call themselves bright green, and if youre at
all steeped in the old-school dark green worldview (their term), theyre guaranteed to make you squirm. The good news is, they just
might free you to think completely differently as well. Worldchanging takes its inspiration from a series of speeches given by sci-fi
author, futurist, and cyberguru Bruce Sterling in the years leading up to the turn of the millenniumand from the so-called Viridian
design movement he gave birth to. Known more in those days as one of the fathers of cyberpunk than as the prophet of a new
twenty-first-century environmentalism, Ster-ling nevertheless began issuing a self-styled prophecy to the design world announcing
the launch of a cutting-edge green design program that would embrace consumerism rather than reject it. Its mission: to take on
climate change as the planets most burning aesthetic challenge. Why is this an aesthetic issue? he asked his first audience in 1998
at San Franciscos Yerba Buena Center for the Arts near my old office at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Well, because its a
severe breach of taste to bake and sweat half to death in your own trash, thats why. To boil and roast the entire physical world, just
so you can pursue your cheap addiction to carbon dioxide. Explaining the logic of the bright green platform, Sterling writes: Its a
question of tactics. Civil society does not respond at all well to moralistic scolding. There are small minority groups
here and there who are perfectly aware that it is immoral to harm the lives of coming generations by massive consumption now:
deep Greens, Amish, people practicing voluntary simplicity, Gandhian ashrams and so forth. These public-spirited voluntarists are
not the problem. But theyre not the solution either, because most human beings wont volunteer to live like they do. . .
. However, contemporary civil society can be led anywhere that looks attractive, glamorous and seductive.
The task at hand is therefore basically an act of social engineering. Society must become Green, and it
must be a variety of Green that society will eagerly consume. What is required is not a natural Green, or a
spiritual Green, or a primitivist Green, or a blood-and-soil romantic Green. These flavors of Green have
been tried and have proven to have insufficient appeal. . . . The world needs a new, unnatural, seductive,
mediated, glamorous Green. A Viridian Green, if you will. Sterling elaborates in a speech given to the Industrial Designers
Society of America in Chicago in 1999: This cant be one of these diffuse, anything-goes, eclectic, postmodern
things. Forget about that, thats over, thats yesterday. Its got to be a narrow, doctrinaire, high-velocity movement.
Inventive, not eclectic. New, not cut-and-pasted from the debris of past trends. Forward-looking and high-tech, not
William Morris medieval arts-and-craftsy. About abundance of clean power and clean goods and clean products, not
conservative of dirty power and dirty goods and dirty products. Explosive, not thrifty. Expansive, not niggling. Mainstream, not
underground. Creative of a new order, not subversive of an old order. Making a new cultural narrative, not
calling the old narrative into question. . . . Twentieth-century design is over now. Anything can look like anything now.
You can put a pixel of any color anywhere you like on a screen, you can put a precise dot of ink anywhere on any paper, you can stuff
any amount of functionality into chips. The limits arent to be found in the technology anymore. The limits are
behind your own eyes, people. They are limits of habit, things youve accepted, things youve been told, realities youre ignoring.
Stop being afraid. Wake up. Its yours if you want it. Its yours if youre bold enough. It was a philosophy that completely reversed
the fulcrum of environmental thinking, shifting its focus from the flaws inherent in the human soul to the failures inherent in the
world weve designeddesigned, Sterling emphasized. Things are the way they are today, he seemed to be saying, for no
greater or lesser reason than that we made them that wayand theres no good reason for them to stay the
same. His suggestion that its time to hang up our hats as caretakers of the earth and embrace our role as its
masters is profoundly unnerving to the dark green environmentalist in me. But at this point in history, is it any more than a
question of semantics? With PCBs in the flesh of Antarctic penguins, there isnt a square inch of the planets surface
that is unmanaged anymore; there is no more untouched natural state. We hold the strings of global
destiny in our fingertips, and the easy luxury of cynicism regarding our creative potential to re-solve
things is starting to look catastrophically expensive. Our less-than-admirable track record gives us every
reason to be cautious and every excuse to be pessimists. But is the risk of being optimistic anyway a risk
that, in good conscience, we can really afford not to take? Sterlings belief in the fundamental promise of human
creativity is reminiscent of earlier de-sign visionaries such as Buckminster Fuller. I am convinced that creativity is a priori to the
integrity of the universe and that life is regenerative and conformity meaningless, Fuller wrote in I Seem to Be a Verb in 1970, the
same year we had our first Earth Day. I seek, he declared simply, to reform the environment instead of trying to reform man.
Fullers ideas influenced many of the twentieth centurys brightest environmental lights, including Stewart Brand, founder of the
Whole Earth Catalog and the online community The WELL, an early precursor of the internet. Brand took Fullers approach and ran
with it in the sixties and seventies, helping to spearhead a tech-friendly green counterculture that worked to pull environmentalism
out of the wilderness and into the realms of sustainable technology and social justice. We are as gods, and might as well
get good at it, he wrote in the original 1968 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog, and hes managed to keep himself on the
evolving edge of progressive thought ever since. Brand went on to found the Point Foundation, CoEvolution Quarterly (which
became Whole Earth Review), the Hackers Conference, the Global Business Network, and the Long Now Foundation. As he gets
older, he recently told the New York Times, he continues to become more rational and less romantic. . . . I keep seeing the harm
done by religious romanticism, the terrible conservatism of romanticism, the ingrained pessimism of romanticism. It builds in a
certain immunity to the scientific frame of mind. Bright Green Many remember the Whole Earth Catalog with a fondness reserved
for only the closest of personal guiding lights. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, thirty-five years before Google came
along, recalls Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. It was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions. For Alex Steffen,
its the place where a whole generation of young commune-kid geeks like myself learned to dream weird. And at Worldchanging,
those unorthodox green dreams have grown into a high-speed Whole Earth Catalog for the internet generation, every bit as
inventive, idealistic, and brazenly ambitious as its predecessor: We need, in the next twenty-five years or so, to do something never
before done, Steffen writes in his introduction to Worldchanging. We need to consciously redesign the entire material
basis of our civilization. The model we replace it with must be dramatically more ecologically sustainable,
offer large increases in prosperity for everyone on the planet, and not only function in areas of chaos and
corruption, but also help transform them. That alone is a task of heroic magnitude, but theres an additional complication:
we only get one shot. Change takes time, and time is what we dont have. . . . Fail to act boldly enough and we may fail completely.
Another world is possible, goes the popular slogan of the World Social Forum, a yearly gathering of antiglobalization activists from
around the world. No, counters Worldchanging in a conscious riff on that motto: Another world is here. Indeed, bright green
environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the tools,
models, and ideas that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent
for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions. As Sterling said in his first Viridian design speech, paying
homage to William Gibson: The future is already here, its just not well distributed yet. Of course, nobody
knows exactly what a bright green future will look like; its only going to become visible in the process of
building it. Worldchanging: A Users Guide is six hundred pages long, and no sin-gle recipe in the whole cornucopia takes up
more than a few of them. Its an inspired wealth of information I cant even begin to do justice to here, but it also presents a
surprisingly integrated platform for immediate creative action, a sort of bright green rule set based on the
best of todays knowledge and innovationand perpetually open to improvement.

Growth solves biodiversity Improved tech, agriculture, effective and peaceful
governments the Environmental Kuznets Curve proves
The Economist 13 Well-established economics magazine (9/14/2013, The Economist, Contrary to popular belief,
economic growth may be good for biodiversity, http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21585100-contrary-popular-
belief-economic-growth-may-be-good-biodiversity-long-view // SM)

Economic growth is widely believed to damage species other than man. But as the contrasting fortunes of forests (a fair proxy for
biodiversity) on the Korean peninsula and Hispaniola suggest, it is not so much growth as poverty that
reduces biodiversity. Poverty without growth, combined with lots of people, is disastrous. Poverty combined with growth can be equally
calamitous. But once people enjoy a certain level of prosperity, the benefits of growth to other species outweigh
its disadvantages. There appears to be an environmental version of the Kuznets curve, which describes the
relationship between prosperity and inequality in an inverted U-shape. At the early stages of growth, inequality tends to
rise; at the later stages it falls. Similarly, in the early stages of growth, biodiversity tends to suffer; in the later stages it
benefits. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the Zoological Society of London and WWF (see chart 4), shows a 61%
decline in biodiversity between 1970 and 2008 in tropical areas, which tend to be poorer, but a 31%
improvement over the same period in temperate areas, which tend to be richer. Similarly, poor countries tend to
chop down forests, and rich countries to plant them (see interactive chart 5). Some of the improvement might be due to rich
countries exporting their growth to poorer countries, but that is clearly not the only factor at work. Nobody exported growth to North Korea and Haiti,
and their environments still got trashed. Meanwhile in countries that were poor until fairly recentlysuch as South Korea
and Brazilthings are looking up for many species. The evidence suggests that, above a fairly low level of income,
economic growth benefits other species. As the previous article showed, when people get richer, they start behaving
better towards other species. And as countries grow they become cleaner, more urban, more peaceful,
more efficient and better-informed, and their people have fewer children. Other species benefit from all
those effects, and from the scientific and technological progress that comes with growth. Though all species benefit
from fresh water, it is principally for their peoples benefit that societies clean up their rivers. London started building its sewage system the year after
the Great Stink in 1858 because many people were dying of cholera and life in the city became unbearable. Parliament temporarily had to move out of
its premises on the bank of the Thames. In the 1960s President Johnson called the Potomac a national disgrace not so much because it killed fish but
because it was filthy. Shortly afterwards he signed the Water Quality Act. Forty years ago two-thirds of Americas rivers were unsafe for swimming or
fishing. Now only a third are. A clean-up programme designed primarily to benefit people was good for other species too. Even after sewage treatment
had become widespread, rivers were still being poisoned by industrial effluent and pesticides. Controls on those pollutants have done their bit to help
clean up rivers. Britains Environment Agency says that in 1990 the water quality in 55% of rivers was graded good or excellent; now the share is 80%.
That not only makes the rivers safe for recreation, it has also encouraged the return of once-common creatures that became rare in the 20th century.
Otters, for instance, were present in only 6% of 3,300 sites surveyed by the Environment Agency in 1977-79; in 2009-10, they had spread to 60%.
When countries get richer, farming tends to become more intensive. Output increases, marginal land is
left fallow, the agricultural labour force shrinks and people move to the towns. Abandoned land is used for
recreation and turned back to forest or wilderness. That is the main reason why in 2005-10, according to figures from the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, forest cover grew in America and was stable or increasing in every country in Europe except Estonia and
Albania. Sharing or sparing? Many greens argue that intensification of agriculture harms biodiversity. It is true that pesticides and fertiliser tend to
reduce the number of species where they are used, but intensive agriculture employs less land than extensive farming to
produce the same amount of food. The question, then, is whether the net benefits to other species of land-
sharing (farming extensively on a larger area) outweigh those of land-sparing (farming intensively on a
smaller area). A couple of recent papersa theoretical one by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota
and an empirical study by Ben Phalan of Cambridge University, looking at data from Ghana and India
suggest that land-sparing wins. Richer countries tend to be better informed about the value of ecosystems
and take a longer view. That is why China, having destroyed so much of its forest, is now paying its farmers to
plant trees. The ecological value of some of the resulting forest is open to doubta lot of it is monoculture of imported varieties that do not always
suit the local climatebut the numbers are impressive. Forest cover increased by a third between 1990 and 2010. Better-
off countries also have more effective governments, without which conservation would be impossible.
Elephants are doing better in southern Africa than in East or Central Africa. South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana all have well-administered parks
and reasonably effective police forces; in Congo, Chad and Tanzania, those institutions are shakier. Richer countries are generally more
peaceful, too. That is good for their people, but not always for other species. Biodiversity sometimes benefits from conflict: where it keeps people
out, it may conserve habitats for other creatures. The 1,000-sq-km demilitarised zone between North and South Korea, for instance, has become a de
facto nature reserve of great interest to scientists. On balance, though, conflict tends to do more harm than good to
biodiversity, destroying habitats and undermining states efforts to protect other creatures. That is another
reason why elephants are doing better in southern Africa than in Central and East Africa, where militias have plenty of guns and a financial interest in
selling ivory to fund their wars. The impact of prosperity on human demography also benefits biodiversity, but it takes time. In its early stages
economic growth often causes people to multiply faster as death rates come down but birth rates stay high, as is happening in Africa now. That
intensifies competition for resources between humans and other species. But when countries become richer, more women get educated and take jobs,
more people move away from farms and into cities and birth rates start falling. In East Asia fertility has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the 1960s
to 1.6 now. In some countriesJapan, Russia, much of eastern Europe and some of western Europethe population is already declining. But in Africa
it is still rising fast, which is the main reason why the UN expects the worlds population to continue expanding to the end of this century. Lastly,
growth brings scientific advance, which makes it easier to mitigate threats to biodiversity. So far conservation has
been dominated by men in shorts with not much more than a pair of binoculars. Now the digital revolution is transforming it. The data are building up
and becoming easier to access. Three centuries-worth of information on natural history is sitting in museums and universities around the world, and is
now being digitised. The Global Biological Information Facility, an intergovernmental effort, is working to make this information available to
everybody, everywhere. The IUCNs Red List, globally recognised as the repository of information about endangered species, was started as a card-
index system in 1954 by Colonel Leofric Boyle, a British army officer who helped to save the Arabian oryx. Now it is online and accessible, but still not
much more than a list. Microsoft Research, through a partnership with the IUCN, is building a platform on which scientists all over the world will be
able to map the threats to the species they are interested in and discover threats posted by other scientists. The display of data is getting better, too.
ESRI, a technology firm that dominates the mapping business, enables users to build up maps with layers of information on them. It provides its
software free to conservation organisations and has moved it onto the cloud. David Yarnold, the boss of Americas Audubon Society, says his
organisation had data on land use, hydrology and 114 years of bird counts from 470 local groups, none of it shared. Now, thanks to ESRI, all of it is
accessible. Communications technology can also to help collect information on wildlife movements. Large
animalselephant, giraffe, lion, hirolaare now often fitted with GPS collars to track them. Miniaturisation is opening up new
uses for such tools. Technology for Naturea collaboration between Microsoft Research, the Zoological Society of London and University
College Londonis developing Mataki tags, tiny devices attached to animals that can relay information
wirelessly and communicate with each other. The idea is that a tag on, say, an elephant will download its information to a tag on,
say, an oxpeckera bird that rides on an elephants backand all the information will be downloaded to a base station near the oxpeckers nest. The
most useful technology for conservation is remote sensing, now widely used for monitoring deforestation
and species distribution. Peter Fretwell of the British Antarctic Survey, for instance, has been using remote-
sensing data to estimate penguin populations from guano stains. The data can distinguish between
different kinds of penguin because the infrared signature of the guano varies between species. As a result he has doubled his
estimate of emperor-penguin numbers. The tools are improving and getting cheaper. Serge Wich, professor of
primate biology at Liverpools John Moores University, has been using drones to calculate orang-utan densities in the Indonesian rainforest. Orang-
utans make a nest every dayquite comfortable ones, with a blanket woven from branches, explains Mr Wichso orang-utan populations can be
guessed from nest numbers. We were slogging through the rainforest thinking how nice it would be to have a camera fly over it to monitor nest
frequency, he says. But he assumed it would be too expensiveuntil he found an American website, diydrones, which enabled him to make one for
$700. A bunch of conservation organisations has set up ConservationDrones.org to share information about this handy tool; Research Drones, a Swiss
company, makes drones specifically for environmental and research purposes. Its our hope that an unmanned aerial vehicle will become like a pair of
binoculars, says Mr Wich. Remote sensing, combined with economic progress, has also helped sharply to reduce
deforestation in Brazilthe most important country for biodiversity.

2ac goengineering
***this evidence sucks

Economic Growth Leads to CCS And That Combats Climate Change
World Bank, 12 [World Bank, United Nations international financial institution that provides loans to
developing countries for capital programs, 11-12-2012, Emerging economies foster economic growth,
consider CCS, Global CCS Institute,
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/sforbes/2012/11/12/emerging-economies-foster-
economic-growth-consider-ccs]

Why should a developing country bear the extra costs and impacts of CCS if the rest of the world isnt using the technology? From
an emerging economy perspective, the costs and efficiency losses associated with CCS pose significant
challenges. The country-specific actions described here are not comprehensive, but they do give a sense of how three key
emerging economies are thinking about CCS. It is worth noting that collectively, these actions extend beyond
international cooperation and include forward-thinking policies and plans to determine whether and how
CCS fits into the future energy portfolio. China Research for CCS in China has been conducted since 2006 under
the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program), and since 2007 under the National High-tech Research and
Development Program of China (863 Program), which includes a focused research area on CCS. China is also
investing in CCS demonstrations abroad, including a September 2012 investment in one of the US demonstrations, the
Texas Clean Energy Project. Importantly, a series of CCS demonstrations are planned and under way in China,
which is something the Institute highlighted in the Global Status of CCS: 2012 report. CCS demonstration
efforts in China include pre-and post-combustion capture research and demonstration as well as
demonstrations of geologic storage and enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR). In August 2012, the Asian
Development Bank announced plans to work with the National Development Reform Commission to develop a
roadmap for CCS deployment in China. Key milestones in development of CCS in China include: the National
Medium and Long-term Science and Technology Development Plan (2006-2020), which formally establishes CCS as a
leading-edge technology; Chinas National Climate Change Program (2007~2010), which sets the goal of the development
and dissemination of CCS; Chinas Special Science and Technology Action in Response to Climate Change (2007~2020), which
establishes the key task of R&D on CCS; and the National 12th Five-Year Plan Science and Technology Development Plan (2011-
2015), which prompts CCS research and development with provisions to: develop carbon sink techniques (e.g.
grass carbon sequestration), mitigation of greenhouse gases in agriculture and land use, and carbon capture use
and storage (CCUS) technologies to tackle climate change challenges; and focus on the research and development
of advanced technologies, including Gen IV Nuclear Energy Systems, hydrogen and fuel cells, ocean energy, geothermal energy and
CCUS. There has been significant international cooperation on CCS research in China, including engagement with
the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the Institute, as well as focused cooperative research efforts such as the
EU-UK CCS Cooperative Action within China, the US-China Clean Energy Research Center, the China-EU Cooperation on Near Zero
Emissions Coal, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and China. Cooperative efforts under these
programs have spanned basic and applied research, and have also included efforts designed to inform
policy and regulatory developments that would enable CCS in China.[2]

Growth leads to carbon sequestration
Anderson 4, Terry, Executive Director of the Political Economy Research Center [Why Economic
Growth is Good for the Environment April 24
th
, http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php]

The link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic prosperity is no different. Using data from the
United States, Professor Robert McCormick finds that "higher GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas]
emissions." He goes a step further by performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon
emissions. This requires subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water)
from carbon emissions. Think of it this way: When you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In a
poor country that wood would have been burned to cook supper or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon
into the atmosphere. McCormick shows that economic growth in the United States has increased carbon
sequestration in many ways, including improved methods of storing waste, increased forest coverage, and
greater agricultural productivity that reduces the acreage of cultivated land. Because rich economies
sequester more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an
economy's net addition to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick's data show that "rich countries take
more carbon out of the air than poorer ones" and that "the growth rate of net carbon emission per
person will soon be negative in the United States." Put differentlyricher may well be cooler. Global-
warming policy analysts agree that greenhouse gas regulations such as those proposed at Kyoto would
have negative impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should take great care that
regulations in the name of global warming "not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

That solves warming
Science Daily 7 [Carbon Capture And Storage To Combat Global Warming Examined, June 11
th
,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611153957.htm]

Carbon capture and storage, also called carbon sequestration, traps carbon dioxide after it is produced
and injects it underground. The gas never enters the atmosphere. The practice could transform
heavy carbon spewers, such as coal power plants, into relatively clean machines with regard to global
warming. ''The notion is that the sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, the sooner we'll be able to
tackle the climate problem,'' said Sally Benson, executive director of the Global Climate and Energy
Project (GCEP) and professor of energy resources engineering. ''But the idea that we can take fossil fuels
out of the mix very quickly is unrealistic. We're reliant on fossil fuels, and a good pathway is to find ways
to use them that don't create a problem for the climate.'' Carbon capture has the potential to reduce more
than 90 percent of an individual plant's carbon emissions, said Lynn Orr, director of GCEP and professor
of energy resources engineering. Stationary facilities that burn fossil fuels-such as power plants or cement
factories-would be candidates for the technology, he said. Capturing carbon dioxide from small, mobile
sources, such as cars, would be more difficult, Orr said. But with power plants comprising 40 percent of
the world's fossil fuel-derived carbon emissions, he added, the potential for reductions is significant. Not
only can a lot of carbon dioxide be captured, but the Earth's capacity to store it is also vast, he added.
Growth Is Key to Geoengineering That Solves Carbon Pollution
Wagner, 12 [Gernot Wagner, Economist, Environmental Defense Fund and author, 10-31-12,
Geoengineering: Ignore Economics and Governance at Your Peril, The Blog, Huffpost Green,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernot-wagner/geoengineering-ignore-economics_b_2049335.html]

You can see where economics enters the picture. The first form of geoengineering won't happen unless we
place a serious price on carbon pollution. The second may be too cheap to resist. In a recent Foreign Policy essay,
Harvard's Martin Weitzman and I called the forces pushing us toward quick and dirty climate modification "free driving." Crude
attempts to, say, inject sulfur particles into the atmosphere to counter carbon dioxide already there would
be so cheap it might as well be free. We are talking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That's
orders of magnitude cheaper than tackling the root cause of the problem. Given the climate path we are
on, it's only a matter of time before this "free driver" effect takes hold. Imagine a country badly hit by adverse
climate changes: India's crops are wilting; China's rivers are drying up. Millions of people are suffering. What government, under
such circumstances, would not feel justified in taking drastic action, even in defiance of world opinion? Once we reach that tipping
point, there won't be time to reverse warming by pursuing collective strategies to move the world onto a more sustainable growth
path. Instead, speed will be of the essence, which will mean trying untested and largely hypothetical techniques like mimicking
volcanoes and putting sulfur particles in the stratosphere to create an artificial shield from the sun. That artificial sunscreen may
well cool the earth. But what else might it do? Floods somewhere, droughts in other places, and a host of unknown and largely
unknowable effects in between. That's the scary prospect. And we'd be experimenting on a planetary scale, in warp speed. That all
leads to the second key point: we ought to do research in geoengineering, and do so guided by sensible
governance principles adhered to be all. We cannot let research get ahead of public opinion and
government oversight. The geoengineering governance initiative convened by the British Royal Society, the Academy of
Sciences for the Developing World, and the Environmental Defense Fund is a necessary first step in the right direction. Is there any
hope in this doomsday scenario? Absolutely. Country after country is following the trend set by the European
Union to institute a cap or price on carbon pollution. Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and also California are
already -- or will soon be -- limiting their carbon pollution. India has a dollar-a-ton coal tax. China is experimenting with seven
regional cap-and-trade systems. None of these is sufficient by itself. But let's hope this trend expands -- fast -- to include the really
big emitters like the whole of China and the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, and others. Remember, the question is not if the "free driver"
effect will kick in as the world warms. It's when.

2ac growth solves biodiversity
Economic growth is good for the environmenthelps biod
The Economist 13 (The Economist, The effects of growth The long view,Sep 14th 2013,
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21585100-contrary-popular-belief-economic-growth-may-be-good-biodiversity-
long-view //SRSL)
COMPARISONS BETWEEN ADJOINING countries separated by politics or economics can be instructive. North Koreas forests have
been shrinking by around 2% a year for 20 years; South Koreas are stable. Satellite pictures of the island of Hispaniola in the
Antilles show that the western side (Haiti, with a GDP per person of $771 a year) is barren, whereas the eastern side (Dominican
Republic, GDP per person $5,736) still has plenty of dense forest. Economic growth is widely believed to damage
species other than man. But as the contrasting fortunes of forests (a fair proxy for biodiversity) on the
Korean peninsula and Hispaniola suggest, it is not so much growth as poverty that reduces biodiversity.
Poverty without growth, combined with lots of people, is disastrous. Poverty combined with growth can be
equally calamitous. But once people enjoy a certain level of prosperity, the benefits of growth to other
species outweigh its disadvantages. There appears to be an environmental version of the Kuznets curve, which
describes the relationship between prosperity and inequality in an inverted U-shape. At the early stages of growth,
inequality tends to rise; at the later stages it falls. Similarly, in the early stages of growth, biodiversity
tends to suffer; in the later stages it benefits. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the Zoological Society of
London and WWF (see chart 4), shows a 61% decline in biodiversity between 1970 and 2008 in tropical areas, which tend to be
poorer, but a 31% improvement over the same period in temperate areas, which tend to be richer. Similarly, poor countries tend to
chop down forests, and rich countries to plant them (see interactive chart 5). Some of the improvement might be due to
rich countries exporting their growth to poorer countries, but that is clearly not the only factor at work.
Nobody exported growth to North Korea and Haiti, and their environments still got trashed. Meanwhile in
countries that were poor until fairly recentlysuch as South Korea and Brazilthings are looking up for
many species. The evidence suggests that, above a fairly low level of income, economic growth benefits
other species. As the previous article showed, when people get richer, they start behaving better towards other
species. And as countries grow they become cleaner, more urban, more peaceful, more efficient and
better-informed, and their people have fewer children. Other species benefit from all those effects, and
from the scientific and technological progress that comes with growth. Though all species benefit from
fresh water, it is principally for their peoples benefit that societies clean up their rivers. London started
building its sewage system the year after the Great Stink in 1858 because many people were dying of cholera and life in the city
became unbearable. Parliament temporarily had to move out of its premises on the bank of the Thames. In the 1960s President
Johnson called the Potomac a national disgrace not so much because it killed fish but because it was
filthy. Shortly afterwards he signed the Water Quality Act. Forty years ago two-thirds of Americas rivers
were unsafe for swimming or fishing. Now only a third are. A clean-up programme designed primarily to benefit
people was good for other species too. Even after sewage treatment had become widespread, rivers were still being poisoned by
industrial effluent and pesticides. Controls on those pollutants have done their bit to help clean up rivers. Britains Environment
Agency says that in 1990 the water quality in 55% of rivers was graded good or excellent; now the share is 80%. That not only makes
the rivers safe for recreation, it has also encouraged the return of once-common creatures that became rare in the 20th century.
Otters, for instance, were present in only 6% of 3,300 sites surveyed by the Environment Agency in 1977-79; in 2009-10, they had
spread to 60%. When countries get richer, farming tends to become more intensive. Output increases, marginal land is left fallow,
the agricultural labour force shrinks and people move to the towns. Abandoned land is used for recreation and turned back to forest
or wilderness. That is the main reason why in 2005-10, according to figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organisation, forest cover grew in America and was stable or increasing in every country in Europe except Estonia and Albania. S
haring or sparing? Many greens argue that intensification of agriculture harms biodiversity. It is true that
pesticides and fertiliser tend to reduce the number of species where they are used, but intensive agriculture employs less
land than extensive farming to produce the same amount of food. The question, then, is whether the net benefits to
other species of land-sharing (farming extensively on a larger area) outweigh those of land-sparing (farming intensively on a
smaller area). A couple of recent papersa theoretical one by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota and an empirical study by
Ben Phalan of Cambridge University, looking at data from Ghana and Indiasuggest that land-sparing wins. Richer countries
tend to be better informed about the value of ecosystems and take a longer view. That is why China,
having destroyed so much of its forest, is now paying its farmers to plant trees. The ecological value of some of
the resulting forest is open to doubta lot of it is monoculture of imported varieties that do not always suit the local climatebut
the numbers are impressive. Forest cover increased by a third between 1990 and 2010. Better-off countries
also have more effective governments, without which conservation would be impossible. Elephants are doing better in southern
Africa than in East or Central Africa. South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana all have well-administered parks and reasonably
effective police forces; in Congo, Chad and Tanzania, those institutions are shakier. Richer countries are generally more
peaceful, too. That is good for their people, but not always for other species. Biodiversity sometimes benefits from conflict: where
it keeps people out, it may conserve habitats for other creatures. The 1,000-sq-km demilitarised zone between North and South
Korea, for instance, has become a de facto nature reserve of great interest to scientists. On balance, though, conflict tends
to do more harm than good to biodiversity, destroying habitats and undermining states efforts to protect
other creatures. That is another reason why elephants are doing better in southern Africa than in Central
and East Africa, where militias have plenty of guns and a financial interest in selling ivory to fund their
wars. The impact of prosperity on human demography also benefits biodiversity, but it takes time. In its
early stages economic growth often causes people to multiply faster as death rates come down but birth
rates stay high, as is happening in Africa now. That intensifies competition for resources between humans and other
species. But when countries become richer, more women get educated and take jobs, more people move away from farms and into
cities and birth rates start falling. In East Asia fertility has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the 1960s to 1.6 now. In some
countriesJapan, Russia, much of eastern Europe and some of western Europethe population is already declining. But in Africa it
is still rising fast, which is the main reason why the UN expects the worlds population to continue expanding to the end of this
century.





Generic K answers
1. Our interpretation: The neg is responsible for the process of change not just the endpoint
of the alternative
Reciprocity: The AFF must have a specific process for solvency; the neg should have the
same burdens
Limits: Only way to prevent from alternatives with mindset fiat such as text: world peace
Real World: Any policy made in the real world has to have a process it is the only way to
have a solvency debate

Roleplaying good key to understanding the acts of the state thats a prerequisite to
social change
R, Associate Professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and head of the
Centre for Transatlantic Relations. His interests include U.S. foreign policy, origins of war,
political theory, and philosophy of science, 13
(Johannes Gullestad, 2013, Mechanistic Realism and US Foreign Policy: A New Framework for
Analysis, p.27) //RH
If they are, we know a lot about how they typically go about. We know approximately how they collect
information, how they form beliefs, how they cope with problems and how they make decisions. This
allows us to use ourselves as instruments of comprehension, performing what Schelling (1978/2006: 18) calls
the -method of vicarious problem solving". The method is also favored by Holsti (1995: 251), who describes how
researchers can come to terms with how political leaders reach decisions: In searching for explanations, then, we must
place us in the position of the policy makers and try to understand their intentions and purposes, and
then understand why they chose various strategies and actions to sustain or achieve them. (Ibid.) This method
can only indicate how mental states fit together, but constrained by other sources of evidence, it is more fulfilling to make sense of
other people's behavior in terms of reasons than in terms of other less transparent cognitive mechanisms since they "impinge on
what we do in a transparent manner" and because "acting on a reason is a staple experience" (Malnes 2006: 186). An example
illustrates the point. The number of troops deployed to the Iraq war puzzled many as it, compared to military operations of similar
scope, was conspicuously lower. Why? It has been suggested that the mechanism known as wishful thinking can dispel the puzzle.
Wishful thinking refers to the recurring phenomenon that a person's desire impinges on her beliefs behind her back. Somehow, to
relieve the discomfort generated by realizing the looming challenges and costs of war, it is argued, the Bush administration came to
believe that a relatively smaller troop contingent could suffice for the task. They believed wishfully that "once a people is liberated
from tyranny, it will automatically endorse democracy irrespective of regional, religious and cultural variations, because liberty is a
universal aspiration" (Miller 2010: 60).

Critical realism engages in a retroductive approach to reality instead of representations
or epistemology, the perm allows for ethics and fact.
Roach, Associate Professor of International Politics in the Department of Government and
International Affairs at the University of South Florida, 10
(Steven C., Critical theory of international politics : complementarity, justice, and governance,
Routledge, 2010, Hatcher Graduate Library, p. 94-95) //RL

This, however, raises the question of what causes us to experience reality. According to Heikki Patomaki and Colin Wight
(2000: 223), "the social world cannot be reduced either to its experiential moment or to its intersubjective
elements" and where "the intersubjective meanings and relations . . . do not exhaust the social world. For
critical theorists this under-lying reality provides the conditions of possibility for actual events and
perceived/or experienced phenomena" (Patomaki and Wight 2000: 223). Critical realism's criticism of
epistemology is based on the idea that the conditions of possibility arise from our understanding of these
causal powers and tendencies, and not necessarily from concepts or representations of experienced
phenomena. In the same way that epistemologists assume an autonomous function and reality for concepts, so too do critical
realists assume "that research is about gaining knowledge of a reality that exists independently of our
representations of it" (Justin Cruickshank 2003: 3). It is this structural independence, in other words, that presupposes
causation and, more importantly, that prevents critical realism's slide into the pure subjectivity of postmodernism. Nonetheless,
critical realism does not adopt a deductive nor inductive method, but advocates a different type of
methodological approach: retroduction or analysis based on analogy and metaphor, such as depth.
Retroduction presupposes the distinction between the transitive and intransitive dimension of reality. Here
the intransitive dimension of reality reflects "an attempt to identify the behind appearances" (Dean et al. 2006a: 9), while the
transitive dimension is what science does to produce knowledge and to analyze phenomena. In this way, the intransitive
dimension focuses on the tendencies and emergence of causal powers; while the transitive approach
stresses the objective facts of science and detachment from reality. As Kathryn Dean et al. (2006a: 6) put it:
"Detachment has here the dual reference to the object of knowledge and to the scientist's own particular life situation. This two-
dimensional detachment is intended to ensure the absolute separation of facts and values and the
cleansing of the universal of all particularistic contamination." Compared to the Frankfurt School's emphasis on the
social genesis of facts (see Chapter 2), the intransitive dimension ultimately requires us to imagine what our world looks, via the
larger metaphor of an irreducible being. But if events, judgments, decisions, and policies arise from an irreducible
being, then how is the social structure structured? For Bhaskar, reality is stratified into three domains: the empirical,
real, and actual. The empirical refers to the observation and description of events or experienced phenomena; while the real refers to
the causal powers or tendencies of social structure. The actual signifies the realm, of events generated by these
mechanisms; hence it lies somewhere between the real and empirical (ibid.). In this context, the actual by
comparison is what links a deeper, underlying understanding of experienced phenomena with scientific
knowledge.
AT: Inuit Ontology k

Our authors cite the binary difference between the solid and liquid state of the ice in the
Arctic and its influence in the waters. The plan is implemented due to these reasons
indicated by Humpert and Rasponik who claim global warming has surpassed it