1

First off is politics

Cybersecurity will pass the bill is bipartisan and there is confidence and support for
the bill but passage before the end of the year is key
Grande 10/28 (Allison, 10/28/14, Senators Optimistic Cybersecurity Bill Will Pass In
2014, Law360, http://www.law360.com/articles/591280/senators-optimisticcybersecurity-bill-will-pass-in-2014)
The leaders of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday they were gearing up to push their
bipartisan cyberthreat information-sharing legislation through Congress before the end of the year, saying
they believed they had ironed out liability and privacy concerns and had the support necessary to complete
the task. In a discussion at the U.S. Chamber of Commerces third annual cybersecurity summit in Washington, Intelligence Committee
Chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., were cautiously optimistic that their
colleagues would be willing to pass S. 2588, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, before the end of
the year. I think if we can get this up on the [Senate] floor, I believe we can pass it, Feinstein said. This bill
isnt a regulatory how-to, its a voluntary bill that allows the voluntary sharing of information with each other and the government with
immunity from lawsuits, essentially. Its a first-step bill, and its the first thing we need to do. According to Feinstein, the bill has faced
broad opposition from two factions: trial lawyers worried about the broad shield from liability, and privacy advocates concerned that the
divulged data will be misused. Feinstein said that she believes that theyve

worked out the issues raised by trial lawyers,

and that while privacy groups are still calling for stronger data safeguards despite several amendments, she is optimistic that the
opposition will be overcome. What Ive heard is 'we want the old bill,' but the old bill got exactly one Republican vote on the
floor, and thats not a good message if you want to pass something, she said. So you have to find a way to work together
and get it done, and we believe we have done that. The senators began working together on the current version of the
information-sharing legislation after the earlier bill fell short of the majority needed for passage. After the duo slugged it out and made
the right kind of compromises on positions without compromising our principles, as Chambliss described it, they unveiled their bill, which
paves the way for the voluntary sharing of threat information between the private sector and government entities. The
passed the Intelligence Committee 12-3 in July, has

CISA bill, which

won praise from the Chamber of Commerce and other business

groups for providing companies with full liability protection if they share cyberinformation in a way that conceals personally identifiable
information, but it continues to draw fire from privacy groups worried about how that data will be shielded from misuse. Since being voted
out of committee, the bill has languished, and the senators vowed Tuesday to aggressively push Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to
bring the bill to the Senate floor once lawmakers return from their break for midterm elections. Obviously, Dianne has a lot more influence
on Sen. Reid than I do, but I have implored that if

there is one piece of legislation that needs to be concluded

between now and the end of the year, this is it, said Chambliss, who is retiring at the end of the congressional session. The
senators said that they are open to making amendments to the bill on the Senate floor, and that House leadership
has already agreed to quickly take up the bill if the Senate passes it. If the bill is not enacted by the end of the year,
Chambliss predicted that it would take at least another year before lawmakers are able to elevate another bill to the Senate floor. Feinstein
echoed her colleagues concerns that a

failure to enact legislation in the next two months would set efforts back

to square one. With you retiring, I think youre right, we go back, well have all the arguments weve already had and disposed of but
with a new cast of characters, and companies are going to continue to get hit, Feinstein said. During the conference Tuesday , parties
ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to Dell Inc. to National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers
voiced support for the bill, a pattern that the senators hoped would be able to help propel their
legislation across the finish line. I would hope we can get people to stand up and come forward and say youve got to do this and
youve got to do it now, Feinstein said. The stakes are too big to let this languish any longer.

Federal ocean development is unpopular drains pc

Iacurci 14 Iacurci, Nature Wrlod News Reporter, 2014, (Jenna, "Obama to Protect Pacific Ocean from
Fishing and Energy Exploration," Nature World News, 6-17, PAS)
www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7615/20140617/obama-to-protect-pacific-ocean-from-fishing-andenergy-exploration.htm 6-28-14
President Barack Obama

will announce Tuesday plans to create what could be the world's largest marine
sanctuary, an initiative that will protect large swaths of the Pacific Ocean from overfishing, energy
exploration and other human activities, according to White House officials. Slated to go into effect later this year
after a comment period, the proposal could double the area of global ocean that is fully protected.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D. Podesta led the effort, aimed to safeguard more ocean territory. "No one
should mistake that the protection of our oceans is a vital international security issue," Kerry said at an international summit on Monday.
"Most people under-estimate the enormous damage we as people are inflicting on our oceans every single day." Under the proposal, The
Washington Post first reported, the president will expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from almost 87,000 square
miles (225,000 sq km) to nearly 782,000 square miles (2.03 million sq km) - an area that includes seven territories and atolls controlled by the
United States. Former President George W. Bush first established the monument during his second term. The United States is the leading
nation in terms of ocean preserves - it controls more than 13 percent of the ocean area overseen by nations. And with this expansion, it would
also protect nearly two dozen species of marine mammals, five types of threatened sea turtles, and a variety of sharks and other predatory fish
species. Environmental groups no doubt applaud the move, but others, mainly political opponents, who question

the scope of
Obama's executive powers are likely to voice harsh criticisms - the president has as used his executive
authority 11 times to protect areas on land without seeking congressional approval. "It's another
example of this imperial presidency," House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., told the Post. "If
there are marine sanctuaries that should be put in place, that should go through Congress." Despite scrutiny, Obama is confident in his
efforts. "We've already shown that when we work together, we can protect our oceans for future generations. So let's redouble our efforts,"
he said in a statement, Reuters reported. And political

will such as this, officials say, is an ingredient that is lacking when it

comes to ocean preservation. Kerry concluded his speech at the summit by saying, "Ask yourself: If this group can't create a serious
plan to protect the ocean for future generations, then who can and who will?" This proposal coincides with the announcement that wildlife in
a vast portion of the Pacific Ocean, controlled by the island nation of Kiribati, will also be protected with a commercial fishing ban.

Obama political capital key for cybersecurity

Newmeyer 14 ( Kevin P. Newmeyer is an Assistant Professor in the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense
University. Who Should Lead U.S. Cybersecurity Efforts? file:///D:/prism115-126_newmeyer.pdf sh) Cybersecurity

concerns have
only grown with the expansion of digital technology into all aspects of daily life and daily government
operations. President Obama in the International Strategy to Secure Cyberspace stated that cybersecurity is part and
parcel of everyday life for all Americans and much of the world. Maintaining the status quo of scattered
responsibilities and patchwork policy solutions is not only poor governance but also potentially places the Nations
critical assets at risk. Establishing a strong DCYBER at a Cabinet-equivalent level would provide the necessary leadership within the
Federal Government. The Department of Homeland Security would continue to play an important role in protecting civilian governmental
systems and coordinating with the private sector. DOD has already taken several steps to improve its capabilities for action, and senior leaders
are addressing cybersecurity in a responsible manner. Congress

and the President need to demonstrate the political

leadership and expend the political capital to make the needed changes in legislation and structure on
the domestic front. Waiting for a perfect solution to appear is not an option. Decisive action is required
now.

Cybersecurity legislation will solve increasingly sophisticated cyber terror attacks

Markon 10/1 (Jerry, 2014, Key Homeland Security official urges passage of cybersecurity bill,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/10/01/key-homeland-security-officialurges-passage-of-cybersecurity-bill/)

A top Department of Homeland Security official on Wednesday called on Congress to pass cybersecurity legislation, saying

there is a

dire need to strengthen the departments ability to defend against cyberattacks. Deputy Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas said the legislation would better equip us to fight computer hackers and state-sponsored
cyberattacks and is especially important in helping DHS compete with private industry to recruit top
cyber personnel. He said the departments labrynthine hiring processes often prevent it from grabbing
top recruits and that the government cant match higher private sector salaries. We have a difficult
time competing with the private sector because of financial realities, Mayorkas said at The Washington Posts
Cybersecurity Summitt 2014, held at the Post building in the District. On the other hand, we are advantaged because our mission is an
extraordinary one. Congress has been struggling for years to pass cybersecurity legislation, even

as law enforcement officials

have said cyberattacks increasingly pose the biggest threat to the nations security. A comprehensive bill to
establish cybersecurity standards died in 2012, but several pieces of legislation are now pending in Congress. One bill that recently passed the
House would require a DHS strategy to recruit and keep cyber personnel. Congressional aides from both parties have said in recent days that
they are hoping to reach agreement on a comprehensive cyber bill to be voted on during Congresss lame-duck session after Novembers
midterm elections. DHS has had major difficulties in not only hiring cyber officials but retaining them once they arrive. A parade of high-level
cyber departures in recent years has helped slow the rollout of key cybersecurity initiatives, including a program aimed at blocking malicious
software before it can infiltrate civilian government computers, former officials have said. Mayorkas said he and Homeland Security Secretary
Jeh Johnson are focused on the problem, pointing out that Johnson personally went on a trip in February to Georgia Institute of Technology and
Morehouse College aimed at recruiting young cyber leaders. While Mayorkas said attackers

are in fact becoming more and

more sophisticated, he added that DHS and the rest of the government are up to the challenge of stopping them. Our
prevention capabilities are growing in sophistication, he said.

Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war

Fritz 09 Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament [Jason, researcher for International
Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at
Bond University, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, July, \http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open
source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised
through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists capabilities, strategies, and
tactics. If

access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually
cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from
another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or
acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser,
and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical
distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking
technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally
agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent
weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly
relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are
connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed
network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation,
roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and
maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to
a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then
be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the
internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to
place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as
autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad

capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is
impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest
multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio
frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged
submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to
automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet
leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had
decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists
blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the
system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations.
By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely
commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia.
Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was
responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation
could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby
hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication
and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For
example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed
Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in
identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out
communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a
traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be
falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on
Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP
addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials.

A sophisticated and all encompassing combination of

traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its
own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.

2
Next off is topicality

the oceans are distinct from the seabed floor that lies beneath them
MarBEF 13 (Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, funded by the European Union, open
oceans, http://www.marbef.org/wiki/open_oceans, accessed 7/7/14)
The open oceans or pelagic ecosystems are the areas away from the coastal boundaries and above the seabed.
It encompasses the entire water column of the seas and the oceans and lies beyond the edge of the continental
shelf. It extends from the tropics to the polar regions and from the sea surface to the abyssal depths. It is a highly heterogeneous and
dynamic habitat. Physical processes control the biological activities and lead to substantial geographic variability in production.

the Aff increases exploration and/or development in the seabed not the ocean
they are ecologically and legally distinct
Berkman 11 (July 2011, Paul Berkman is head of the Arctic Ocean Geopolitics Programme at the Scott
Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, and research professor at Bren School of
Environmental Science & Management, Race for the Arctic: Let the North Pole be a pole of peace,
http://www.global-briefing.org/2011/07/let-the-north-pole-be-a-pole-of-peace/, accessed 7/3/14)
In considering ways to shore up peace in the Arctic Ocean, it is useful to draw a clear distinction between the sea floor (Figure 2a) and the
overlying water column (Figure 2b). Ecologically and

legally distinct, the sea floor and overlying water column

reveal alternative jurisdictional configurations for Arctic and non-Arctic nations alike to share in strategies that can both
promote cooperation and prevent conflict in the Arctic Ocean.

AND, its means ownership

Oxford Dictionary 14 (Oxford Dictionary, its,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/its, accessed 7/2/14)
its Top 1000 frequently used words Syllabification: its Pronunciation: /its / DETERMINER 1Belonging

to or associated with a thing

previously mentioned or easily identified: turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere

the Aff is private ownership which means the exploration or development no longer
belongs to the federal government
Lienert 9 (Ian Lienert, senior economist for the International Monetary Fund, an organization of 188
countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation and secure financial stability, Where Does
the Public Sector End and the Private Sector Begin?,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09122.pdf, accessed 7/3/14)
The concept of ownership

is critical in defining the institutional units that belong to the public or private
sectors. International accounting standards give precedence to economic ownership over legal ownership. Economic
ownership is exercised by a controlling entity when it has the power to govern the financial and operating policies of the other entity. Two
conditions are essential for economic control: first, at least one power condition, such as the majority voting
interest or the power to appoint or remove governing board members, is required; second, at least one benefit condition,
such as the power to dissolve the entity or to control asset distributions, is also needed.

Vote neg:
1 Limits the topic is already massive they allow the Aff to do anything in the
entire mass of ocean water and do anything to explore or develop the seabed and
Market-based mechanisms give the Aff access to a completely separate, limitless
reservoir of plans and advantages that would make this already massive topic
unmanageable - because exploration and development mean nothing, a strict
interpretation of oceans and its is the only way to limit a realistically unmanageable
topic.
2 - Ground the resolution says its for a reason all private exploration and
development is core negative ground on this topic that their interpretation deprives
us of

3
Next off is the pirates kritik

Destroying the ocean floor to get natural gas constructs the ocean as a commodity
external to societythis makes it impossible for us to connect with it, creating a
profit-based relationship with the ocean
Steinberg 08Phillip, Professor, Department of Geography, Florida State University, Its so Easy
Being Green: Overuse, Underexposure, and the Marine Environmentalist Consensus, Geography
Compass 2(6): 2080-2096, http://mailer.fsu.edu/~psteinbe/garnet-psteinbe/EasyGreen.pdf
Contemporary concern

for the marine environment typically is grounded in worries about the increasing rate at
which humanity is using the ocean's resources. For instance, the Pew Oceans Commission, another high-level panel that
recently studied US oceans policy, notes in its 2003 report that ocean management regulations to date have been based on a frontier mentality
that holds that marine resources are inexhaustible and that encourages users to extract as much as they can from the ocean, as quickly as
possible (Pew Oceans Commission 2003, viiviii). The

Pew Commission report asserts that this mentality and the patchwork of
to be replaced with a management system
based on principles of ecosystem health and integrity, sustainability, and precaution (Pew Oceans Commission
species-specific, allocation-oriented regulations associated with it need

2003, x). Similarly, An Ocean Blueprint argues for a new era in which management boundaries correspond with ecosystem regions and policies
consider interactions among all ecosystem components (United States Commission on Ocean Policy 2004a, xxxiv). This

would require
abandonment of the current management paradigm in which, through inattention, lack of information,
and irresponsibility, we have depleted fisheries, despoiled recreation areas, degraded water quality, drained
wetlands, endangered our own health, and deprived many of our citizens of jobs (United States Commission on Ocean Polity 2004a, x).
These sentiments echo similar proclamations from the 1990s - in documents surrounding the 1998 United Nations International
Year of the Ocean and in popular magazines including Time, Natiotial Geographic, and The Economist that argued for a switch
from thinking of the ocean as a frontier to be exploited to thinking of it as a space of finite economical
assets that need to be stewarded through purposive and integrated management (Steinberg 1999, 2001, 176180). At one level, this story of marine environmental degradation - what I am calling the Overuse Narrative - cannot and
should not be questioned: few would disagree that the oceans nature is being transformed with a new
intensity, with lasting impacts on human society. Nor should we necessarily reject the normative principles that are
associated with this narrative: that the ocean should be rationally stewarded and managed in an attempt
to stabilize the relationship between humans and their marine environment. As an explanation, however, the
Overuse Narrative falls short. An explanation derived solely from observation of a current condition seldom
forms a reliable basis for interpreting environmental history, especially when that condition is identified as a crisis
because of deviation from a supposedly stable-norm. And a poor understanding of environmental
history, in turn, can lead to ill-conceived environmental policy (Roc 1994, 1995). Specifically, the Overuse Narrative falls
short in two respects. One area of shortfall is that when one derives an explanation of environmental change from a
current crisis, there is a tendency to privilege causes that are proximate in time and space, ignoring or
underplaying the role of more distant factors. For instance, a crisis-based analysis of land degradation in Africa is likely to
focus on the cattle-rearing practices of local agropastoralists and not on the activities of commodity speculators in Chicago or historic colonial
land management policies (Blaikie 1985; Watts 1983). In the case of the ocean, recent

environmental changes, such as

declines in fish stocks, cannot simply be explained with reference to a 'tragedy of the commons scenario. Instead,
they must be placed within the context of broader societal dynamics, such as the increased intensity of
global economic exchanges and the rise of neoliberal national development policies, as well as the complex
(and not necessarily equilibrium-seeking) dynamics of marine ecology (Mansfield 2004a,b; Steinberg 1999). Additionally, just as the Overuse
Narrative fails to adequately explain the cause of a crisis, it similarly fails to adequately explain societys response.

Recognition of an environmental crisis, and even explanation of its cause, does not necessarily translate into public
concern or public policy. Thus, the Overuse Narrative alone cannot explain why a consensus has emerged
around developing a national, and ideally global, regime to steward the oceans resources while no
similar consensus has emerged, for instance, for decommissioning nuclear reactors. To understand not just
what we have done to the marine environment but also udiy we care about it (and why we - and perhaps even the Bush
administration - may actually do something to ameliorate those conditions), we need a theoretical
framework richer than the Overuse Narrative. It seems likely that, in part at least, the embrace of the Overuse Narrative that is driving
President Bushs support for marine environment initiatives is a result of Americans fascination with marine biota. Consider the astounding
success of marine theme parks, entities that tbse the voyeurism of the zoo, the educational component of the museum, the spectacle of the
theatre, and the activity-oriented excitement of the amusement park. After Disneys and Universal Studios Florida and California properties,
two of the next three most popular amusement parks in the United States in 2007 were the Sea World parks in Florida (5.8 million attendance)
and California (4.3 million attendance) (Themed Entertainment Association 2008). To some extent, the popularity of marine theme parks may
be due to their rides and non-nature-oriented attractions, but there also appears to be an underlying fascination with marine animals. Average
annual attendance at aquaria in the United States in 2006 was 13.4% higher than die average annual attendance at zoos, despite the average
admission fee at an aquarium being 51% higher than that of a zoo (Morey and Associates 2007).5 Combining the figures for marine theme parks
and aquaria, it has been estimated that in the United States more than 50 million people visited facilities featuring sea animals in 2003,
spending at least US$1 billion (Kestin 2004). While this

fascination with marine biota (and, in particular, megafauna like dolphins

and whales) is especially strong, it carries over to a lesser extent to human uses of the marine environment.
Attendance at the United States' leading maritime-themed living history museum, Mystic Seaport, is reported as being more than 300,000',
with some years reaching close to 600,000 (Mystic Seaport no datc-a,b), figures that are well above average for US museums (Morey and
Associates 2007). In Japan, 12.4 million visitors flocked to Tokyo Disneysea in 2007, where the visitor experience, while certainly less explicitly
educational than that found at Mystic Seaport, nonetheless revolves around the evocation of the worlds ports and maritime activities. This
attendance figure was the second highest for any amusement park in Asia, with only Tokyo Disneyland being more popular (13.9 million
attendees) (Themed Entertainment Association 2008). In this article, I am proposing that the

fascination with the ocean,

expressed in arenas as diverse as aquarium attendance and White House environmental policy, is so
pervasive because a concern for overuse of the ocean has emerged in tandem with a complementary (if
superficially contradictory) trend: underexposure. Increased extraction of the oceans resources has
been accompanied by decreased integration of the oceans material nature into everyday lives. Until
relatively recently, there likely was a high correlation between ones level of consciousness of the ocean and the degree to which one
encountered it as a space that provided daily sustenance. For members of households in coastal communities or on small islands that earned
their livings from the ocean (whether as fishers, sailors, or harvesters of non-fish resources, or by providing land-based support to these
industries), the ocean was a crucial space of their everyday lives. Others, who lived inland or who lived land-bound lives in spite of their
proximity to the sea/ were relatively ignorant of the oceans existence. In

recent decades, however, there has arisen around

the world a large population for whom the sea is crucial for their livelihoods but for whom it is removed
from the experiences of their everyday lives. Today, 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast or an estuary
(Greenpeace no date) and, within the United States, 10 of the 15 largest cities and 53% of the nations population arc located in coastal
counties (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 2004). Residents of these burgeoning port cities likely are aware that their
cities owe their existence to historic and, in many cases, continuing economic complexes based on maritime transportation (and often marine
resource extraction as well). However, for the majority of these city dwellers, the

ocean, although ever present, is

encountered only as a virtual space: a space of history and potentialities, an abstract surface to be gazed
at and reflected upon or learned about as a source of civic pride, but not a material space of
contemporary social life (Steinberg 2001). In short, even as the ocean maintains its role in national (and local)
economies, its materiality is encountered only by a select and marginal few. This process began several centuries
ago with the denigration of sailors as wild misfits beyond civilization and it continues to this day with the relocation of container ports to
inaccessible districts on the edges of cities. As a space whose significance is acknowledged but whose underlying processes and structures arc
poorly understood, the

ocean has emerged as a site of fetishization. In 19th-century Europe, the marine other was
a favored space of romantic writers and artists - different, but proximate enough that one could gaze at
its expanse from the safety of an urban harbor or a beachside villa. The ocean was idealized as beyond
society, where a pure nature could be imagined and recovered and where a foreign exoticism could
be apprehended (Raban 1992). Since the 19th century, this romanticization of the ocean has developed further, in a number of
directions. For some, the ocean is perceived as an empty surface across which one can take escapist

imaginary journeys to distant horizons. Others perceive it as a space across which goods arrive from
foreign civilizations. And still others perceive it as an arena of benign but mystically intelligent mammals
(Konvitz 1979; Lencek & Boskcr 1988; Sekula 1995; Urban 2003). In all of these instances, however, the ocean is perceived as
fundamentally external to society (Steinberg forthcoming). Amid this externalization, the coastal waters, the
material space of interaction between terrestrial society and marine nature, disappears as a concept. For
the urbanite gazing at the horizon from the shore (or from the deck of a cruise ship), there are no coastal waters whose
meanings come from their nature or through encounters with their nature. There is just vast,
undifferentiated ocean. To borrow a phrase applied by Beck in a different context, the ocean has come to be
constructed as a space of second-hand non-experience', a space in which the experiential logic of
everyday thought is reversed, as it were, (where) one no longer ascends merely from personal
experience to general judgments, but rather general knowledge devoid of personal experience becomes
the central determinant of personal experience' (Beck 1992, 72). As Barthes notes, for those whose interactions with the
ocean are restricted to casual, escapist encounters, the ocean is a non-signifying field that bears no message (Barthes 1972, 112). As a nonsignifying field, the oceans meanings and messages must be derived from external sources. In this context, a

range of popular
practices have emerged wherein affective meanings that arise from beyond the ocean are mobilized to
construct the ocean as an object to be observed and preserved. These mechanisms for inserting
meaning into an otherwise nonsignifying ocean include the seaside resort, the cruise ship, the harborside
festival marketplace, the marine theme park, and - when combined with the Overuse Narrative - the marine protected
area. Humanitys alienation from the sea as a space of social processes has been particularly thorough for a number of reasons. First, the
vision of a non-social ocean ironically is quite compatible with the marine imaginary of those who
historically have gained the most economic value from the ocean: shippers and military planners. The
oceans greatest resource (in terms of economic benefit to global society) is that it provides a surface for movement,'
and movement is unique in that, as a resource, it is most valuable when it is invisible and most obtainable
when it is empty. The ideal shipping surface is one with no social markers or borders. Indeed, celestial
navigational systems (including the global positioning system satellites that presently guide ships at sea) and modern maritime law
assume that a ship is navigating across an empty, placcless, asocial surface (Steinberg 2001). Thus, the distanced
consumers ideal of the ocean as empty and without social relations is unwittingly promoted by two of
the main groups producing the ocean: global shippers and military planners. Additionally, whether the
ocean is marketed as a romantic space of escape, a paradise of pure nature, or an empty space of movement, it
requires management by a rational authority that is guided by concerns other than short-term profit. Those
seeking to gaze across the sea as a pristine space of nature require a regime that prohibits the introduction of human artifacts (oil platforms,
pollution, etc.) at sea and on the shoreline (Urban 2003). Shippers

and navies similarly require a rational management

regime that restricts social entities from drawing boundaries or leaving their mark at sea, because these
social interventions could interfere with the oceans boundary-free cliaracter (Gold 1981). Thus, some of
the forces most involved in the discursive construction of the ocean as an external space beyond society
also, somewhat contradictorily, have an interest in the ocean being actively governed, an agenda that can
potentially be aligned with those seeking to preserve the oceans fragile environment. Governance for all of
these ends is then promoted through recitation of the Overuse Narrative, even by actors such as military leaders who are not typically
associated with the promotion of environmental sustainability. Underexposure contributes to the traction of the Overuse Narrative in another
way as well. The Overuse Narrative

can be interpreted as a reaction to the alienation experienced by

individuals when they seek connection with a romanticized image to which they are proximate as
consumers (as more and more people live near the sea and consume its resources, either by enjoying its vistas or digesting its
fish) but disconnected as producers (as fishing itself becomes a more capital-intensive, centralized industry
in which fewer people directly engage the ocean, and as heavily capitalized shipping ports become
spatially separated from the residential and production areas frequented by those who consume and

produce the goods being shipped) (Sekula 1995). Like the consumer of fairtrade products who seeks to overcome alienation from
the commodity by intervening in production relations, the alienated consumer of ocean space seeks to forge
connections by being party to a rational governance regime dedicated to stewardship and sustainability.
To summarize, in industrial and, to an even greater extent, postindustrial societies, the ocean has emerged as a
space beyond society for which one feels longing. This longing can produce a desire both to internalize
the external space as a space of society (in which case its resources should be commodified and treated
as assets) and to preserve its status as a special space beyond the ravages of society (which, as a
practical policy matter, involves stewardship of these assets through mechanisms like marine
protected areas). In Deleuze and Guattaris (1988) analysis of capitalism, this tension between internalization and
externalization underlies the instability of modern society. In the case of the ocean, at least for the present, these two
tendencies combine to produce a conservation ethos that has lent a unique level of support to the stewardship principles suggested by the
Overuse Narrative.

When the state become bound up with market ideology, the result is environmental
collapse and extinctiontech and reforms fails because the system is unsustainable
Clark and Clausen 08Brett, assistant professor of sociology and sustainability studies at the
University of Utah and Rebecca, Professor of Sociology at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. The
Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystem, 60(3): online
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marineecosystem
Turning the Ocean into a Watery Grave The world is at a crossroads in regard to the ecological crisis.
Ecological degradation under global capitalism extends to the entire biosphere. Oceans that were
teeming with abundance are being decimated by the continual intrusion of exploitive economic
operations. At the same time that scientists are documenting the complexity and interdependency of
marine species, we are witnessing an oceanic crisis as natural conditions, ecological processes, and
nutrient cycles are being undermined through overfishing and transformed due to global warming. The
expansion of the accumulation system, along with technological advances in fishing, have intensified the exploitation
of the world ocean; facilitated the enormous capture of fishes (both target and bycatch); extended the spatial
reach of fishing operations; broadened the species deemed valuable on the market; and disrupted
metabolic and reproductive processes of the ocean. The quick-fix solution of aquaculture enhances capitals
control over production without resolving ecological contradictions. It is wise to recognize, as Paul Burkett has
stated, that short of human extinction, there is no sense in which capitalism can be relied upon to
permanently break down under the weight of its depletion and degradation of natural wealth.44
Capital is driven by the competition for the accumulation of wealth, and short-term profits provide the
immediate pulse of capitalism. It cannot operate under conditions that require reinvestment in the
reproduction of nature, which may entail time scales of a hundred or more years. Such requirements stand opposed to the
immediate interests of profit. The qualitative relation between humans and nature is subsumed under the drive to accumulate capital on an ever-larger scale. Marx lamented that to capital,
Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at the most, times carcase. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything.45 Productive relations are concerned with production
time, labor costs, and the circulation of capitalnot the diminishing conditions of existence. Capital subjects natural cycles and processes (via controlled feeding and the use of growth
hormones) to its economic cycle. The maintenance of natural conditions is not a concern. The bounty of nature is taken for granted and appropriated as a free gift. As a result, the system is
inherently caught in a fundamental crisis arising from the transformation and destruction of nature. Istvn Mszros elaborates this point, stating: For today it is impossible to think of anything
at all concerning the elementary conditions of social metabolic reproduction which is not lethally threatened by the way in which capital relates to themthe only way in which it can. This is
true not only of humanitys energy requirements, or of the management of the planets mineral resources and chemical potentials, but of every facet of the global agriculture, including the
devastation caused by large scale de-forestation, and even the most irresponsible way of dealing with the element without which no human being can survive: water itself.In the absence of
miraculous solutions, capitals arbitrarily self-asserting attitude to the objective determinations of causality and time in the end inevitably brings a bitter harvest, at the expense of humanity
[and nature itself].46 An analysis of the oceanic crisis confirms the destructive qualities of private for-profit operations. Dire conditions are being generated as the resiliency of marine
ecosystems in general is being undermined. To make matters worse, sewage from feedlots and fertilizer runoff from farms are transported by rivers to gulfs and bays, overloading marine
ecosystems with excess nutrients, which contribute to an expansion of algal production. This leads to oxygen-poor water and the formation of hypoxic zonesotherwise known as dead
zones because crabs and fishes suffocate within these areas. It also compromises natural processes that remove nutrients from the waterways. Around 150 dead zones have been identified
around the world. A dead zone is the end result of unsustainable practices of food production on land. At the same time, it contributes to the loss of marine life in the seas, furthering the
ecological crisis of the world ocean. Coupled with industrialized capitalist fisheries and aquaculture, the oceans are experiencing ecological degradation and constant pressures of extraction

that are severely depleting the populations of fishes and other marine life. The severity of the situation is that if current practices and rates of fish capture continue marine ecosystems and
fisheries around the world could collapse by the year 2050.47 To advert turning the seas into a watery grave, what is needed is nothing less than a worldwide revolution in our relation to
nature, and thus of global society itself.

The alternative is to mutiny against the 1ACs exploitation of the oceanusing the
pirate as a symbol for anti-statism and anti-neoliberalism solves because it creates a
new space for people to challenge the neoliberal policies of the state.
Kuhn 97 (Gabriel Kuhn, independent author and translator in Stockholm, Sweden, Philosophy PhD.
from the University of Innsbruck, Life Under Deaths Head, Anarchism and Piracy)
After the last sections we can say with some confidence that pirate

crews were a type of primitive society: no state, no

power, no modern economy. Primitive societies are not backwards or underdeveloped, but are characterized
through a consistently anti statist and anti authoritarian character. Quite apart from any period of
history, they are the societies of society without the state (as the title of Pierre Clastres brilliant book directly
conveys). We have already seen that statist organization is the only true enemy of the pirate; an enemy hat
is fought with all force and mercilessness. Nowhere else is the thesis of the nomadic machinery of war,
directed against the State by anti-statist societies, as manifest as it is in piracy. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri,
the first to recognize the nomadic war machine, basically argue as follows: as stateless societies, primitive societies face
permanent threat from State units. The clan is always nomadic in the broadest sense of permanent mobility. Attacks from
without, as well as the molar tendencies that tend to appear from within, subject it constant danger.
Meaning that the nomadic war machine acts against the state, including potential states, whose rise needs to be hindered, and to an even
greater extent against existing states, the destruction of which is made into a goal. The consequence: From

the States perspective

the originality of the warrior, [its] eccentricity necessarily appears to be negative, a stupidity,
deformation, madness, impropriety, usurpation, sin. Dumezil analyses the three sense of the warrior in Indo European
tradition: [it] is against the King, against the priests, and against the laws issued by the State. The state and its enemies are at
war, unavoidably and in every way. It is thus no cause for wonder when historians determine that the
golden age of piracy thousands and thousands of pirates were waging de facto war on all the sea
routes of the world. Primitive society could not ever survive if it did not have institutions for dealing with a state of war. A nomadic war
machine is a necessary element of an anti-statist society. The war machine was a nomadic invention, for it was the
essential element constitutive for smooth space. Its full force is directed exclusively against everything
rigid, limiting, dividing, ordering, and molar, in short: the State. Since this war is waged on all fronts,
the highest priority of the nomadic war machine is not war as slaughter and/or even combat, but the
preservation of smooth space as the space of freedom: just that is its only and genuinely positive
goal. If war necessarily arises from that, then it is because the war machine runs into states and cities, meaning the forces *of enclosure]
arrayed against the positive goal. From that moment the state, the city, and the statist of city phenomenon become the enemy of the war
machine which sets out to destroy them. Here is where the War begins to destroy the forces of the state, to destroy the statist form.

Nomadic war machinery functions molecularly, no arrangement, no uniformity; no command no

regulations, no supervision. No rigidity, not of language or of thinking, or of body or play, or of living and
working together. In short: a defense of singularities, events, and nomadic (as opposed to despotic)
unity, without compromises using all available mechanisms. We need now only compare this picture of
the anti-statist war machine to that we have so far drawn of the pirates. WE have seen that pirates are
aptly described as nomads of the sea; that they are consistent enemies of the State; that they must
attack merchant and war ships because it is a matter of You or us! Despotism or freedom! The entire
organization of their common life is oriented to wars preventing power. They were anti-economists so as to allow no room
for class society. If the pirates do not represent a nomadic war machine, whoever did? Everything fits,
for one might say that every time that someone defends themselves against the state (by resisting

discipline, through revolt, guerrilla war, or revolution) a war machine is revive; a new nomadic potential
arises; and thus the reconstitution of a smooth space or the life form of the smooth space.

4
Next off is the counterplan

The United States federal government should auction off parts of its Exclusive
Economic Zone to private actors for the purposes of natural gas drilling in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Ocean private zoning works
Andrews 08 (Katherine Andrews, July 2008, Governing the Exclusive Economic Zone: The Ocean Commons, Cumulative Impacts and
Potential Strategies for Improved Governance
http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/pictures/World%20Ocean%20Summit%20%20Governance%20within%20EEZs%20working%20group%20-%20suggested%20reading%201.pdf)
Ocean Zoning with Property Interests This section discusses ocean

zoning as a privatisation regime for improving

governance. The primary distinction between the government mechanism and the market mechanism is
that a property interest vests with the market mechanism. Ocean zoning in a privatised framework does not mean alienation,
and does not entail government selling the ocean.215 It grants some exclusive, alienable rights to private parties, be they individuals, sectors,
or groups. The closest land-based analogy would be a long-term lease in real estate. The

first step to privatisation of a

commons resource such as the EEZ is that government must create the market. Since the EEZ is currently a
common pool resource where very limited spatial property rights exist, the government would have to create the market of
property rights. To design a new system of property rights, fundamental design issues must be addressed.216 These include:
flexibility/divisibility: whether rights holder can lease part or all of the rights; exclusivity: whether
rights holder can exclude others; quality of title: whether it is a right to all the resources or a
proportional share; duration: life term of the right and whether a preference exists for renewal; and
transferability: basis for initial vesting; whether there are limits on transferability.217 How Would Zoning with
Property Interests Work? A private property zoning regime could be created pursuant to these five property characteristics. This report will
focus on two general types of zones: dominant (including exclusive)-use zones and multiple use zones. The choice of the type of zone for a
particular area would ideally be accomplished by government development of a comprehensive plan. Under this plan, conservation and cultural
zones would need to be created and set aside first because non-use values are not adequately protected in a market-based regime.218
Dominant use zones would be used primarily to protect existing uses or to encourage development of particular resources in specific areas.

Multiple use zones would allow for the market to determine what would be the most economically
efficient use of the zone. For both types of zones, the interests would probably have to be of long-term duration, i.e. a minimum of 20
years, to provide enough certainty for the buyer. Dominant use zones could be vested in one individual, sector or group. For example, the
government could decide to designate four types of dominant use zones: commercial fishing, oil and gas, seabed minerals, and conservation
zones. The government could then decide whether the zone would be granted to the sector as a whole or auctioned to individuals. Given the
existing ITQ market for fisheries and the mobility of these resources, it is most appropriate for the fishing dominant zones to vest in the entire
fishing sector. For

nonmobile resources such as minerals and oil and gas, it would be more appropriate to
auction those zones to the highest bidder and have the property interest vest in one entity. Control over
conservation zones could be granted to the environmental sector, i.e. a consortium of environmental
NGOs. A series of multiple use zones could also be created by auctioning off with no particular use set as the dominant use. An auction would
be held for the zones and the winner of the auction would have the rights to that zone, subject to other laws and regulations. This regime
would not necessarily mean that all EEZ space would be auctioned. Government could choose to do that but given the
uncertainties of a new market it would be prudent for most of the EEZ to remain unzoned. If, however, someone wanted to
propose a use for an unzoned area then the government could choose to expand the zoned area via an
open auction for that area, or decline to put additional zones in the market. If the government did not
proceed this way, the market would be undermined because new users could go to the government
instead of the marketplace. It should be noted that under a private property regime Maori rights would need to be accounted for and
respected. Given their legal rights and cultural interests, Maori would likely have a claim to at least a portion EEZ resources and the government
income derived from them. The

zone rights holder would have the right to develop, exclude, and to sell. In a

dominant use, the zone rights holder would be limited to developing that zone for the dominant use. Any development would also be subject
to the relevant laws regulating that use. With some limited exceptions, such as rights to navigation and submarine cables, the zone rights
holder would have the right to exclude other users.219 The dominant zone rights holder could sell their right to another user but the zone
would still be subject to the dominant use. For a multiple use zone, the zone rights holder could develop the zone subject to the law and
regulations for whichever use was pursued. A multiple use zone would permit but not require the rights holder to allow for multiple uses. If the
uses conflict, the users recourse would be to the zone rights holder (not the government) under whatever agreement the parties had signed
amongst themselves. The government could deny application for a use that did not comply with existing laws. The risk involved in the chance of
government approval would ostensibly be addressed by the parties in their negotiations and reflected in the price. If there was a violation
within the zone, the government could pursue both the user and the zone rights holder, and could revoke the zone rights. This means the zone
holder would have an incentive to ensure user compliance. After the initial auction, the government would collect no rents or royalties; they
would go to the rights holder.
The ITQ system of fishery management would stay in place, but the quota holders would have to respect the property rights of zone holders.
There would be a layering of the ITQ system with the spatial rights of the zoning regime. If the fishing industry believed it did not have enough
fishing dominant zones, it could purchase more rights in multiple use zones, either by purchasing the zone rights or by entering into agreements
with the zone right holders. The zones create an interest in real property and would have value in the marketplace. It is not clear, however, that
anyone buy zones at a price that resulted in a fair return to the public. There would probably be a limited number of bidders, and the high
level of uncertainty as to the benefits of purchase means the prices could initially be low. This woud leave the risk of valuation in a new market
on the government, which means the public good could suffer. This

zoning regime would probably achieve greater

market efficiency. By allowing zone holders to buy and sell their rights and enter into agreement about
the use of the zones, the rights of use would end up in the hands of those who valued it most. It is doubtful,
however, that this sort of zoning regime would promote nonuse values, such as conservation goals or cultural values. For nonrenewable
resources, the zone rights holder will have incentive to remove all the valuable resources if it can be done in a cost effective manner. The issue
becomes how the resource is extracted and what the long and short-term effects are of the extraction. For example, the rights holder in a
mineral rich zone such as a seamount may not be at all concerned with detrimental effects on biodiversity or on fish stocks. In the realm of
renewable resources, the primary resource at issue for the foreseeable future is fishing stocks, and the ITQ system manages these resources.
This zoning regime would not create any new incentives for sustainability that do not already exist.

Economy
Turn - Expanding gas reliance locks in catastrophic warming- methane
Joe Romm 12, Fellow at American Progress and editor of Climate Progress, Natural Gas Is A Bridge To
Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage, 4/9/12,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/09/460384/natural-gas-is-a-bridge-to-nowhere-absent-acarbon-price-and-strong-standards-to-reduce-methane-leakage/
A new journal article finds that methane leakage greatly undercuts or eliminates entirely the climate benefit of a
switch to natural gas. The authors of Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure conclude that it
appears that current leakage rates are higher than previously thought and Reductions in CH4 Leakage Are
Needed to Maximize the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas. Natural gas is mostly methane a very potent
greenhouse gas, though with a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than CO2, which is emitted by burning
fossil fuels like natural gas. Recent studies suggest a very high global warming potential (GWP) for CH4 vs CO2, particularly over a 20-year time
frame. The new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study introduces the idea of technology warming potentials (TWPs) to
reveal reveal time-dependent tradeoffs inherent in a choice between alternative technologies. In this new approach the potent

warming effect of methane emissions undercuts the value of fuel switching in the next few decades,
exactly the timeframe we need to reverse the warming trend if we are to have any chance at triggering amplifying
feedbacks and preventing multiple catastrophes. For instance, the new study finds that a big switch from coal to
gas would only reduce TWP by about 25% over the first three decades far different than the typical statement that
you get a 50% drop in CO2 emissions from the switch. Note that the conclusion above is based on EPAs latest estimate of the amount of CH4
released because of leaks and venting in the natural gas network between production wells and the local distribution network of 2.4%. Many

experts believe the leakage rate is higher than 2.4%, particularly for the fastest growing new source of
gas hydraulic fracturing. Also, recent air sampling by NOAA over Colorado found 4% methane leakage, more than double industry claims.
The study notes: We emphasize that our calculations assume an average leakage rate for the entire U.S. natural gas supply (as well for coal
mining). Much work needs to be done to determine actual emis- sions with certainty and to accurately characterize the site-to-site variability in
emissions. However, given limited current evidence, it is likely that

leakage at individual natural gas well sites is high

enough, when combined with leakage from downstream operations, to make the total leakage exceed
the 3.2% threshold beyond which gas becomes worse for the climate than coal for at least some period
of time. In short until we have far more actual data showing low leakage rates or regulations to ensure
low leakage rates it is hard to claim that switching from coal to gas plants has a substantial warming
benefit in the near-term (that is especially true for reasons Ill touch on below). Its even harder to claim that simply shoving
massive amounts of natural gas into the energy supply system is a good idea at all, given that some of it
would inevitably replace new renewables and if even a small fraction of new gas plants replace
renewables, that eliminates any warming benefit that switching from coal to gas might have.

Warming causes extinction

Mazo 10 (Jeffrey Mazo PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security
and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens
security and what to do about it, pg. 122)

The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels,
depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst
'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C
(O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the
effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for
the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate

change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond
the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And
although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated
climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is
certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes

Plan kills the US economy

Glaeser,7-11-12(Edward, Harvard Econ professor, What the U.S. Can Learn From Australias Coal Mines,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-australia-s-coal-mines.html,)

A recent paper I co-wrote with William Kerr and Sari Pekkala Kerr examined the long-run impact of mining across
the U.S. Fifty years ago, the economist Benjamin Chinitz noted that New York appeared even then to be more
resilient than Pittsburgh. He argued that New Yorks garment industry, with its small setup costs, had
engendered a culture of entrepreneurship that spilled over into new industries. Pittsburgh, because of
its coal mines, had the huge U.S. Steel Corp. (X), which trained company [people] men with neither the
ability nor the inclination to start some new venture. A body of healthy literature now documents the
connection between economic success and measures of local entrepreneurship, such as the share of
employment in startups and an abundance of smaller companies. Our new paper documents Chinitzs
insight that mineral wealth historically led to big companies, not entrepreneurial clusters. In Australia,
iron ore and coal are mined by giant corporations such as Rio Tinto Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd., and giant enterprises
typically work best with other big companies. Across U.S. metropolitan areas, we found that historical
mining cities had fewer small companies and fewer startups, even today in sectors unrelated to mining
or manufacturing, and even in the Sunbelt. These mining cities were also experiencing less new
economic activity. Low Taxes Australias economic future depends on using its mineral wealth wisely, following the example of Iowa
farmers who once used their corn profits to fund high schools. Yet Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, was ousted in a backdoor
political coup in 2010 partially because of his support for an extra mining tax. Im against almost all industry-specific taxes, but the share of
miners resource profits returned to the Australian government in the form of taxes and royalties fell from about 40 percent in 2001 to less
than 20 percent seven years later. It

is a fiction that U.S. economic woes could be solved if only the nation
adopted a drill, baby, drill attitude toward natural resources. Less than 0.6 percent of American jobs
are in natural-resource extraction. Even a vast increase in drilling employment would have a trivial
impact on U.S. jobs. Oil prices are set in the world market, so American production can do little to
radically decrease the global price of petroleum. The wealth that comes out of the ground is a shortterm windfall, not a long-term source of economic growth. The U.S. and Australia should both recognize
that their futures depend on training smart, innovative entrepreneurs and reducing the barriers that
limit their success. *Gender Modified

The DOE says exports increase prices and hurts our domestic economy
Markey 4/18/12 (Ed, Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Exporting Gas = Exporting Jobs
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-should-us-policy-be-on-en.php)
Right now, Americas

natural gas is about six times as cheap as it is in Asia and four times as cheap as Europe. That
is a competitive advantage for U.S. companies, leading to an American manufacturing renaissance. Nearly
500,000 manufacturing jobs have returned to the U.S. in the last two years and cheap natural gas is a major reason why. Whats the
number one way this progress could be stopped? By exporting Americas natural gas. The Department of
Energy has already approved one export terminal, and has eight more under consideration. If all of these
export terminals were approved and full export capacity utilized, the Energy Department says natural gas prices

could rise by up to 54 percent. And those price increases are just the result of approving the first eight
terminals. If subsequent export applications are approved, natural gas prices in the U.S. could go even
higher. Right now, major oil companies are also nearing agreement on a plan to send American natural gas from
Alaska to China. So in addition to cheaper Chinese labor and predatory Chinese trade practices that put
American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage, Chinese companies would also have low-cost
American energy. If China wont give us their rare earths to put into our solar panels and cars, why should we send them our cheap
natural gas? That would be a one-way ticket to manufacturing oblivion.

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data

Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt 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.37 Whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global
economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The aggregate

data suggests otherwise ,

however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from
the 2012 report is that The

average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.38

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 ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers
Brubaker concludes, the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion
that might have been expected.40 None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains
unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily
due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of
other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great
Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard V-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One
financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of contained depression.41 The key word is contained, however.

Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great
Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff
concluded in This Time is Different: that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II and
not even worse must be regarded as fortunate.42

US shale deposits are sufficient ensures US price dominance, solves manufacturing,

and the free market will fill in.
Bryce, 11/14/2013 (Robert, senior fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute, NYT,
OPEC Is Yesterdays News http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363900/opec-yesterdays-news-robert-bryce/page/0/1)
While we continue to hear rhetoric about Americas lack of a comprehensive energy policy, the

fact remains that other countries would

love to be in Americas position. In 2012, the U.S. produced more natural gas an average of nearly 66
billion cubic feet per day than it has at any time in its history. The flood of natural gas now being
produced from shale deposits has driven down prices (theyre now at about $3.60 per million BTU) and has given the U.S.
a price advantage over nearly every other country on the planet, with the possible exception of Qatar. That cheap
gas is fueling a resurgence in American manufacturing in everything from steel to fertilizer. The surge in natural-gas
production has occurred alongside huge increases in oil output. Last year, U.S. oil production rose by about

800,000 barrels per day, the biggest annual increase since 1859. And it is expected to rise by another 600,000 barrels
per day this year. That increased oil production has led to a huge increase in U.S. oil exports. In July, the U.S.
exported an average of nearly 3.9 million barrels of refined products per day. Back in 1973, those exports were a paltry 211,000 barrels per day. Shultz and Smith

want readers to believe that over the last four decades, OPEC members have been dining out on Americas credit card. Heres the reality: Since
1973, the OPEC countries have largely stayed poor while we got richer. OPEC member countries have a combined population of some 429
million. Their combined GDP is some $3.3 trillion, or about a fourth that of the U.S. The per capita GDP for all the member countries is $7,800.
Thats about 62 percent of the world-average per capita GDP and less than one-sixth of the per capita GDP in the U.S., which is nearly $50,000.
In short, theres

a near-total disconnect between the reality of todays global energy market and the
OPEC-centric worldview thats being promoted by Shultz, Smith, and their alarmist allies. The depth of the
disconnect can be seen in their promotion of electric cars. The two are advocating electric vehicles even though the history of the electric car is
a century-plus of failure tailgating failure. How much more in the way of subsidies do Shultz and Smith want? The Obama administration has
already provided about $6.5 billion in handouts for what is clearly a failed concept. Its worth mentioning that Smith, as the head of FedEx, has
an economic interest in getting the government to support the development of alternative fuels because his company uses enormous
quantities of petroleum in its airplanes and trucks. Last year, Smith predicted that biofuel produced from algae would become a big deal. My
prediction: Dont count on it. If

the U.S. wants to reduce the amount of oil it uses domestically (and thereby
increase its exports), the best course is to simply let the free market work. Indeed, its already working.
Proof of that can be seen by looking at the soaring popularity of NGVs. All over the world, consumers and
fleet owners are using more natural gas to fuel their vehicles because the fuel reduces emissions and, in
many cases, its cheaper than refined oil products. In June, the International Energy Agency estimated that global demand for natural gas
in the transportation sector will nearly double, to about 9.6 billion cubic feet per day, by 2018. The agency also revealed a remarkable fact:
The

expansion of gas as a transport fuel has a bigger impact on reducing the medium-term growth of
oil demand than both biofuels and electric cars combined. In July, Simmons & Co., a Houston-based investmentbanking firm, projected that by 2020 the number of heavy trucks in the U.S. fueled by natural gas will increase sixfold to some 170,000
vehicles. In October, UPS

announced it would spend $50 million on new liquefied-natural-gas refueling

stations that will be used to fuel 1,000 of the logistics companys long-haul trucks. Doing so will save the
company about 24 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. Depending on where you are in the U.S., a natural-gas gallon-of-diesel equivalent is
$1.00 to $2.00 cheaper than diesel fuel. If we assume a $1.00 differential, UPS could recover its capital investment in about two years. And
heres the most important part: UPS

is making the switch not because of government mandates or subsidies, but

because doing so saves money. The takeaways here are obvious: First, the worlds consumers are
diversifying away from oil because they have an economic incentive to do so. Second, the energy
superpower of today is the United States, not OPEC. Third, providing more subsidies and mandates for inefficient and
uneconomic oil substitutes will only result in a waste of taxpayer dollars.

US manufacturing is on a sustainable rise most recent data proves

Tradeonlinetoday, 6/20/2014 (Online News source citing the Commerce Department report, Bloomberbusinessweek, and
the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors, Report says U.S. manufacturing is bouncing back
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2014/06/report-u-s-manufacturing-bouncing/)

A new Commerce Department report says the U.S. manufacturing sector has turned a corner, with
outputs and exports surpassing pre-recession peaks and employment growing for the first time since 1998. For
the first time in more than 10 years, output and employment are growing steadily, the departments economics and
statistics administration reported. Manufacturing output has grown by 38 percent since the end of the Great Recession and the
sector accounts for 19 percent of the rise in real gross domestic product since then. Through May, the sector has added 646,000 jobs and
manufacturers are actively recruiting to fill another 243,000 positions. The steady growth across all three of these
areas might have seemed like wishful thinking just a few years ago, when manufacturing was hit especially hard, the report stated. Yet
manufacturing output and exports have surpassed their pre-recession peaks and employment has begun to grow again for the first time since
1998. The news comes as some studies

show that the United States is becoming increasingly competitive as a

manufacturing ground. Several reports, such as a Bloomberg Businessweek report that ran in April, make the case that
the United States is just as cheap for manufacturers as China. Analysis by the Presidents Council of
Economic Advisors indicates that this is more than a cyclical rebound. The United States has gained about four

times as many manufacturing jobs since 2009 as would be expected from cyclical factors alone. Nonetheless,
although the manufacturing expansion is robust, some industries and U.S. states have fared better than others. About 87 percent of the job
gains in manufacturing have been in three durable goods industries: transportation equipment, fabricated metal products and machinery. Job
gains in manufacturing have occurred throughout the country. More than half of the jobs added were in five states: Michigan, Texas, Indiana,
Ohio and Wisconsin. Foreign investors also are helping to build the U.S. manufacturing sector. As of 2012, total
direct investment in the United States from abroad totaled $2.7 trillion, of which $899 billion (34 percent) was placed in the manufacturing
sector.

Plan kills the manufacturing industry before it solves.

Holland, 6-7-12 (Andrew, Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate Policy at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank
based in Washington, DC, Will Dutch Disease Follow-on the American Energy Boom?,
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/06/07/will-dutch-disease-follow-on-the-american-energy-boom/)

An ongoing discussion among some of us analysts at Consumer Energy Report has been about whether
having natural resources like oil or coal is actually beneficial to a country (see Are Countries With Vast Oil Resources
Blessed or Cursed?, Oil Dependence Tom Friedmans False Narrative, and Oil Easy to Produce, But Not Easy to Buy). The argument which
Ive made is that a

boom in natural resources production can cover up some short-sighted economic policies;
in effect, the earnings from producing oil mean that countries do not have to invest in their education or
produce their own manufactured goods. The other side of the argument is that it can only be a good thing for new resources to
be found. Leaving aside the question of whether natural resource wealth undermines institutions or causes corruption (and there is good
evidence of a resource curse among developing countries) there

is one thing that increased production of oil does, once

it gets to be a big enough sector of the economy: it pushes up the value of that countrys currency. All
else equal (as economists always have to say), new production of natural resources strengthens the domestic
currency. Thats because those resources are either exported or are used to replace imports. Dutch Disease
Phenomenon Now I should mention that I like a strong dollar, personally: it means I can afford to travel abroad more, and buy more when I
get there. It also means that French wine (for example) becomes cheaper relative to Californian wine. I like French wine, and would welcome
being able to buy more. However, that shows the

problem with having a strong currency it undermines domestic

manufacturing and production (of Californian wine, in this example) by driving up prices of American-made goods
and services. This phenomenon is called Dutch Disease. Coined by The Economist in 1977 to describe how finding
natural gas in the North Sea in 1959 affected the Netherlands economy over the ensuing decades. The symptoms of the disease
are when commodity exports push up the value of a nations currency, making other parts of the
economy less competitive. This leads to a current-account deficit, which makes the economy even more
dependent upon the commodity. The disease is especially pernicious for commodities like oil, coal, and
natural gas because these industries are very capital-intensive, and actually do not generate that many
jobs. There are two major industrialized countries that have undergone commodities booms over the
past decade: Canada and Australia. They are both showing signs of suffering from Dutch Disease, with
the Canadian dollar increasing in value vs. the American dollar (Canadas #1 trading partner by far) by over 50% in
the last ten years, and the Australian dollar increased in value compared to world currency rates by
almost 70% in the past decade. Exports vs. Domestic Manufacturing Canadas boom, related to the exploitation and exports of
Albertas Oil Sands, has brought boom times to the resource-rich areas of Western Canada. However, an article in the Global Post highlights
how the

boom is dividing Canada: Western politicians are pushing for more oil-centered exports, while
politicians in Ontario and Quebec, Canadas traditional manufacturing heartland, are saying that
increased oil exports have undercut their ability to manufacture. The article says: The debate was reignited last month
by Tom Mulcair, leader of the federal New Democratic Party, the main opposition to the ruling Conservative government. The high dollar,
he said, has hollowed out the manufacturing sector and cost a half-million jobs. Australia too, is having
problems with its currency. Steve LeVine writes in EnergyWire that A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Energy
Policy Unfolds in the Land Down Under (paywalled). While Australias boom is not related to oil, it is
exports of coal and iron ore much of it exported to fuel Chinas dramatic economic expansion as well as becoming an

important new exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Levine writes: Australias dollar has surged 69 percent in
value in the past decade, cutting into tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured
products. Its manufacturing base has shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years, according
to government figures.

No risk of a bioterror attack, and there wont be retaliation - their evidence is hype
MATISHAK 10 (Martin, Global Security Newswire, U.S. Unlikely to Respond to Biological Threat With
Nuclear Strike, Experts Say, 4-29,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100429_7133.php)
WASHINGTON -- The

United States is not likely to use nuclear force to respond to a biological weapons

threat, even though the Obama administration left open that option in its recent update to the nation's nuclear weapons policy, experts say
(See GSN, April 22). "The notion that we are in imminent danger of confronting a scenario in which hundreds of
thousands of people are dying in the streets of New York as a consequence of a biological weapons attack is
fanciful," said Michael Moodie, a consultant who served as assistant director for multilateral affairs in the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency during the George H.W. Bush administration. Scenarios in which the United States suffers mass
casualties as a result of such an event seem "to be taking the discussion out of the realm of reality and into one
that is hypothetical and that has no meaning in the real world where this kind of exchange is just not going to happen,"
Moodie said this week in a telephone interview. "There are a lot of threat mongers who talk about devastating
biological attacks that could kill tens of thousands, if not millions of Americans," according to Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow with the
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "But in fact, no country out there today has anything close to what
the Soviet Union had in terms of mass-casualty biological warfare capability. Advances in biotechnology are unlikely to
change that situation, at least for the foreseeable future." No terrorist group would be capable of pulling
off a massive biological attack, nor would it be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation, he added. The biological threat
provision was addressed in the Defense Department-led Nuclear Posture Review, a restructuring of U.S. nuclear strategy, forces and readiness.
The Obama administration pledged in the review that the United States would not conduct nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states that are in
compliance with global nonproliferation regimes. However, the 72-page document contains a caveat that would allow Washington to set aside
that policy, dubbed "negative security assurance," if it appeared that biological weapons had been made dangerous enough to cause major
harm to the United States. "Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the
United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the
biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat," the posture review report says. The caveat was included in the document
because "in theory, biological weapons could kill millions of people," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD counterterrorism
and arms control, said last week after an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Asked if the White House had identified a
particular technological threshold that could provoke a nuclear strike, Samore replied: "No, and if we did we obviously would not be willing to
put it out because countries would say, 'Oh, we can go right up to this level and it won't change policy.'" "It's deliberately ambiguous," he told
Global Security Newswire. The document's key qualifications have become a lightning rod for criticism by Republican lawmakers who argue
they eliminate the country's previous policy of "calculated ambiguity," in which U.S. leaders left open the possibility of executing a nuclear
strike in response to virtually any hostile action against the United States or its allies (see GSN, April 15). Yet experts

say there are a

number of reasons why the United States is not likely to use a nuclear weapon to eliminate a nonnuclear threat. It could prove difficult for U.S. leaders to come up with a list of appropriate targets to strike
with a nuclear warhead following a biological or chemical event, former Defense Undersecretary for Policy Walter Slocombe said during a
recent panel discussion at the Hudson Institute. "I don't think nuclear weapons are necessary to deter these kinds of attacks given U.S.
dominance in conventional military force," according to Gregory Koblentz, deputy director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at George
Mason University in Northern Virginia. "There's a bigger downside to the nuclear nonproliferation side of the ledger for threatening to use
nuclear weapons in those circumstances than there is the benefit of actually deterring a chemical or biological attack," Koblentz said during a
recent panel discussion at the James Martin Center. The

nonproliferation benefits for restricting the role of strategic

weapons to deterring nuclear attacks outweigh the "marginal" reduction in the country's ability to stem
the use of biological weapons, he said. In addition, the United States has efforts in place to defend against chemical and biological
attacks such as vaccines and other medical countermeasures, he argued. "We have ways to mitigate the consequences of
these attacks," Koblentz told the audience. "There's no way to mitigate the effects of a nuclear weapon." Regardless

of the declaratory policy, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will always provide a "residual deterrent" against mass-casualty biological or chemical attacks,
according to Tucker. "If a biological or chemical attack against the United States was of such a magnitude as to potentially warrant a nuclear
response, no attacker could be confident that the U.S. -- in the heat of the moment -- would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, even if its
declaratory policy is not to do so," he told GSN this week during a telephone interview. Political Benefits Experts are unsure what, if any,
political benefit the country or President Barack Obama's sweeping nuclear nonproliferation agenda will gain from the posture review's
biological weapons caveat. The report's reservation "was an unnecessary dilution of the strengthened negative security and a
counterproductive elevation of biological weapons to the same strategic domain as nuclear weapons," Koblentz told GSN by e-mail this week.
"The

United States has nothing to gain by promoting the concept of the biological weapons as 'the poor
man's atomic bomb,'" he added.

Alliance
Alliance resilient --- Japan is scared of China and North Korea
Harlan 11 (1/13/10, John Pomfret and Chico Harlan, Staff Writers , The Washington Post, Japanese military seeks greater cooperation with U.S.,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011302297.html?sid=ST2011011302805)

Worried about North Korean belligerence and an increasingly aggressive China, Japan's military
wants to cooperate in unprecedented ways with the United States and is even considering putting its military in the line of fire in areas outside
Japan, Japanese defense officials said Thursday. In an interview, Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said Japan was studying ways to
provide U.S. forces with logistical support in case of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Japan is also interested, he said,
TOKYO -

in determining how it can launch missions to evacuate civilians from the peninsula as part of efforts to support a U.S. mission. In subsequent briefings Thursday, Japanese defense officials
acknowledged that such maneuvers could put Japanese troops in harm's way. If attacked, they said, Japanese forces would fight back, which would necessitate more and deeper training with
the United States and perhaps South Korea to ensure against casualties from friendly fire. "The basic principle of Japan is to pursue peace," Kitazawa said, referring to Japan's constitution,

Kitazawa's statements, made during a visit by Secretary of

underscore a significant improvement in relations between the United States and Japan
since the last time Gates visited this country - in October 2009. They also highlight a significant risk that Japan is taking, moving to bolster its military profile in a region with strong
memories of World War II. In October 2009, Gates was gruff with his hosts, telling them to it was "time to move on" with a
controversial plan to build a new facility on Okinawa in exchange for the Marine Corps vacating the
Futenma air base located in the middle of a city of 80,000. But Thursday, Gates described ties with Tokyo as "very healthy and on
a positive track," and he went so far as to acknowledge that the multibillion-dollar base relocation scheme is "politically a complex matter" as he pledged to
"follow the lead of the Japanese government" in solving the problem. Gates came to Japan from China, where he had an eventful three-day visit
which limits its military to the defense of Japan. "But we also need to have measures to avoid being left behind."
Defense Robert M. Gates to Japan,

punctuated by the first test flight of China's stealth fighter. Chinese officials told Gates that the test was not meant to reflect insensitivity toward his visit, which was aimed at restoring highlevel military ties with Beijing. But the test flight was seen as an unprecedented statement nonetheless. Starting in August 2009, U.S. relations with Japan faced an enormous challenge with the
election of an opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan. It ousted the Liberal Democratic Party, which had run Japan almost without interruption since the 1950s. The DPJ came into
office with new ideas about moving closer to China and wanting to be a more equal partner with the United States. First on the DPJ's agenda with Washington was the Futenma air base
program - a multibillion-dollar scheme that involved relocating the Marine Corps air station to a more isolated spot on the island of Okinawa while simultaneously moving thousands of
Marines to Guam. The prime minister at the time, Yukio Hatoyama, had run on a platform of opposing the base deal, which U.S. and Japanese negotiators had been working on since 1996.

Hatoyama, after intense U.S. pressure, pledged on May 28 to carry out the Futenma deal, although he provided no timetable. Soon after, he
was replaced as prime minister by the generally more pro-American Naoto Kan. At the same time, thanks to increasingly
aggressive moves by China and continued provocations by North Korea, the DPJ's strategic thinking shifted back toward Washington. In the space
Hatoyama demanded an investigation. But
quit and

of several months, China dispatched a naval convoy through Japanese waters and buzzed two Japanese warships with its helicopters. A Chinese fishing vessel rammed Japanese coast guard
cutters off the shores of a disputed island chain. When Japan arrested the Chinese fishing captain, China erupted in a paroxysm of anger that essentially forced Japan to release him.
Significantly at the time, U.S. officials put China on notice that the United States viewed the Chinese-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku or Diaoyu island chain as covered by the Article 5
military assistance clause of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. North Korea, meanwhile, was widely believed to have been responsible for sinking a South Korean
warship in March, killing 46 sailors. North Korea also shelled a South Korean island in November, killing two civilians and two soldiers, in one of the most serious attacks on the South since the

"Concerns about China and North Korea have made us realize that this relationship with
the U.S. cannot go ragged," said Koichiro Katsumata, a rising star in the DPJ and a member of Japan's House of
Representatives. In his five months as foreign minister, Seiji Maehara, an advocate for closer ties with Washington, has met four times with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
end of the Korean War in 1953.

Clinton. Meanwhile, responding to U.S. pressure, Japan has also moved to improve military relations with South Korea. During a visit to Japan and South Korea in December, Adm. Mike Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed the two countries to accelerate security cooperation. He urged them not to be "hung up on what's happened in the past," a reference to the 100th
anniversary of Japan's annexation of Korea. On Monday, Kitazawa and his South Korean counterpart, Kim Kwan-jin, met in Seoul and agreed to work toward two accords - to pool intelligence
and to support each other's operations with logistical help. Kitazawa also said he expected more changes in Japan as well. Given China's recent test flight of what appears to be a fifthgeneration stealth fighter, Japan, too, is interested in obtaining such technology, he said, either by purchasing it from the United States or by helping to produce it. He also intimated that the
government would drop its regulations banning the export of weapons or weapons-related hardware. If Japan worked with the United States on developing a new system, it would have to be
prepared to sell it around the world. Still, Kitazawa added, Japan was not interested in "becoming a country that exports lots of military equipment, thereby becoming a merchant of death."
Kitazawa said Japan's government is already studying a plan to allow for the export of SM-3 [Standard Missile-3] Block IIA missiles to Europe as part of the Obama administration's plans to
deploy a missile defense shield there. And Japan, press reports here said, is also considering becoming the first non-NATO nation to build a separate military facility in the Horn of Africa nation

"With the help from China and [North Korea], the DPJ has
stopped daydreaming, and its security policy seems to be getting more realistic," said Kuni Miyake, a
former Japanese diplomat and now the research director for the Canon Institute for Global Studies.
of Djibouti as part of its efforts in the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden.

SCS conflict wont escalate to involve the US or China

Piper 12 (David, writer for Fox News, David against Goliath on the South China Sea, 5/10,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/10/david-against-goliath-on-south-chinasea/#ixzz20W2KsqZ3)

China has been watching the growing presence of the U.S military in the region and analysts suggests
this latest dispute is linked to the joint exercise, which involves dealing with terrorists who have taken
over an oil rig in the South China Sea. But the Philippines should be not expect help from the U.S. if it
turns into a shooting war, says Subramaniam. Given this capability gap, the Philippines knows it has a
lot to gain through alliance with the U.S. But any hope that the U.S. would provide 'cover' from China
over disputed maritime borders in the South China Sea, in case of a military conflict, is unlikely to be
met, as there is little for Washington to gain by openly siding with Manila in any dispute with Beijing.
China has been prepared to support its claims in the South China Sea with military action in the past. In
1974, China and Vietnam fought a short battle over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, a battle
that China won. Despite the rhetoric coming out of China at the moment of backing up its territorial
claims by force, it's still questionable if it wants to cause an international crisis now while it continues to
grow economically and militarily.

Turn moving towards to unilateral action in the arctic destroys multilateral coop that
is effective in the squo
Huebert 08 Rob Huebert, 2008, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
Canadian International Council Research Fellow, Multilateral versus Unilateral Actions: Balancing the
needs for International Governance in the New Arctic.
http://www.rha.is/static/files/NRF/OpenAssemblies/Anchorage2008/huebert_5thnrf_position_paper_s
ession1-2-.pdf
In May 2008 representative of five arctic states meet in Greenland. Each of these states has the potential to claim an extended Arctic continental shelf in the Arctic. These included Russia, Canada, United States, Denmark (for
Greenland) and Norway. At the end of the meeting the heads of the Danish delegation who had hosted the meeting stated that it had been a tremendous success and that it had shown how the existing multilateral framework
worked. He then went on to state that there was not a need for an arctic treaty and that the five arctic nations can work out any differences between themselves. However, this perspective has not been universally accepted by all.
Rather some observers have suggested that the Arctic is headed to an increasingly free for all based on the unilateral actions of the interested states. Thus there is a growing debate as to whether or not the exiting international

if the arctic states are increasingly turning to unilateral action. If indeed the latter is occurring, there is a fear that such
action will lead to increasing tension and disputes in the north. This discussion paper will consider whether or not the existing multilateral framework is
regime is sufficient, or

sufficient or if there is a need for new arrangements. Creating the Situation: The Arctic has remained the least developed international region in the world. Prior to the Second World War it was only the northern indigenous
populations with their long history of thriving in north that were able to live in the region. Individuals from more southern locations could survive only with the greatest of efforts (and in many instances did not survive!) As a result
the entire area tended to be ignored and avoided by the rest of the world. However, by the end of the Second World War technological advances had allowed for southerners to start to enter and stay longer in the region.
Unfortunately, the onset of the Cold War ended any opportunity for the development of an international cooperative regime as this activity increased. Instead the Arctic remained divided into one of the most dangerous areas in

efforts to develop international institutions and arrangements began in earnest. Of particular

note were the creation of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) and its successor the Arctic
Council. However, while these organizations have had some success, most notably the production of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, these efforts have not created a viable multi-lateral arctic body. Instead, the
the world. When the Cold War ended

existing regime can best be thought of Position paper for the 5th NRF open Assembly, September 24th 27th 2008 2 as a immature and fragmented and stunted region-system. In all likelihood, this would have been remained the

events are now developing that are refocusing the attention of the world on the
arctic. The twin forces of climate change and increased resource demand are combining to make the arctic an increasingly important section of the world. As the ice recedes and the price of oil and gas expand, both arctic
and non-arctic states are now examining how the Arctic region can be used to their benefit. The question however that is now developing is the manner in
which this increased attention will be managed. Will the arctic be developed through the use of
multilateral tools or will it be left to the action of the individual states to act in a unilateral manner? The
circumstances well into the future. However

Existing Nature of the Arctic Regime: As just mentioned the arctic has not developed a robust multilateral framework. There are almost no treaties that are specific to the Arctic. The one exception is the 1973 Polar Bear Treaty
(Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears). Nominally dealing with the protection of the Polar Bear population in Canada, the US, the USSR, Norway and Denmark, the real rationale of the treaty was to provide for a

what
has developed is a series of international agreements (soft international law), and several general international
treaties/conventions that have an impact on the Arctic but are not specific to the region. The AEPS and Arctic Council: The main
confidence measurement for the superpowers in a time when NATO and the USSR were attempting to improve relations through detente. Since that time there have been no other arctic specific treaties. Instead

international multilateral body that was created for the arctic is the Arctic Council. An initiative of the Canadian Government, it was first proposed as a means of improving relationships between the arctic nations as the Cold War
ended. While the original proposal put forward by the Canadian Government in 1989, it did not receive much support. However, the idea of a multilateral arctic based organization resonated with the Finnish Government. It
pursued a related initiative that focussed on providing environmental protection for the Arctic. Working closely with Canadian officials, Finnish officials

were successful in gaining the

support of all eight arctic states - (Russia, US, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark for Greenland) for the creation of a new agreement to protect the arctic environment.
This body was called the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). The AEPS represents the first multilateral effort directed at the Arctic in the post-Cold
War era. It focussed on examining and remedying transboundary environmental issues in the north. It included several innovative elements. It placed an emphasis on achieving a shared understanding of the problems. Even in the
early 1990s there had been very limited understanding to either the magnitude or cause of the environmental problems that threatened the north.

The AEPS established a series of

working groups that brought together governmental experts from the eight arctic nations to achieve a
common understanding of trans-boundary pollution in the Arctic.

Conflict goes nuclear

Wallace and Staples 10 (Michael, is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia;
Steven, is President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task
Long Overdue, March 2010, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf,
Accessed: 7/10, SD)
the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has
the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir
Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russias submarine
fleet would increase its operational radius.55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off
the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years.56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obamas inauguration, President Bush
issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the
preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the
Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic.57 The Bush administrations
The fact is,

announced

disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar
station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled
back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems,
particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The

Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty
claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year
Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a
dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship-based
helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because
of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers
from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs.59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia
which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000
troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved.60Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because
of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers
from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs.59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia
which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000
troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved.60Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for

those in the international peace and security sector,

deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states the United States
and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world
converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries
Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use
of nuclear weapons.61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear
powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is
nebulous and low for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, *the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic
states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic
disarmament affairs,

summarized the situation bluntly: From

because of climate change. 62