BKS Week 1 Aff File

1AC
Note: you will probably not be able to read all 3 advantages without highlighting some sections down or taking out an impact scenario. You can also read just 2 of the 3 advantages.

Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should implement sections of H.R. 1613 that constitute economic engagement with Mexico.

Mexico Advantage
THA is critical to revive Mexicos flagging economy- only way to get PEMEX reforms to happen- failure to ratify quickly collapses US-Mexican energy relations. There is no opposition and key Republicans have come out in favor of the bill Rampton 13
Roberta Rampton, Reuters, Apr 29, 2013, UPDATE 1-U.S.-Mexico deal on expanded Gulf oil drilling still in limbo, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/usa-mexico-oilidUKL2N0DG1MR20130429 WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - More than a year after the United States and Mexico signed a much-lauded deal that would remove obstacles to expanding deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, nited tates. The delay, for which people close to the administration blame Congress while Republicans in Congress blame the administration, is certain to be discussed when President Barack Obama visits Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City on Thursday. Mexico immediately ratified the pact in April 2012, but the United States has so far been unable to pass a simply worded, one-page law to put the agreement into force. The deal, formally

the agreement has still not been finalized by the U

the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, provides legal guidelines for deepwater drilling in the 1.5 million acres (600,000 hectares) of the Gulf that straddle the U.S.is seen as the key to opening a new era of cooperation on oil production between the two countries. Mexico's state-owned oil company Pemex needs technology and investment to boost its stagnant production, and U.S. companies are
known as Mexico boundary. It

eager to help . "The U.S. has a real opportunity now to put energy back on the agenda with Mexico in a way that it really hasn't been able to be on the agenda for the last several years," said Neil Brown, who worked on the issue during the last Congress as lead Republican international energy aide in the Senate. But the final step of implementing the deal has languished . " I'm not aware of strong opposition to it . I think it's been a little more inertia," said Jason Bordoff, a top energy official at the White House until January who now runs Columbia
University's Center on Global Energy Policy. In the past several weeks, there have been some signs that the implementing legislation may move forward, but there also could be new complications related to disclosure requirements. DEAL COULD OPEN THE DOOR

Oil is critical for the Mexican economy , paying for a

third of the government's budget. But production peaked in 2004 at 3.4 million barrels per day and has slipped below 2.6 million bpd. PEMEX says it can revive production with deepwater wells in the Gulf, but needs technical and financial help. The cross-border agreement would be the first step toward joint projects for reservoirs that cross the boundary, providing a way for PEMEX and other oil companies to share production and creating a framework to solve disputes that could arise. "Without the agreement, it creates a barrier to investment," said Erik Melito, a director at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's lobby group. The agreement could help calm Mexico's fears about what is termed the "popote" or drinking-straw effect - fears that U.S. oil companies are going to drain reservoirs that extend into Mexico's side of the border, robbing Mexico of its share, said David Goldwyn, a former State Department official who helped launch negotiations. "This has been an urban myth in Mexico for decades," said Goldwyn, now president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, a consulting firm. Pena Nieto is working toward reforms for PEMEX that would allow for more production and cooperation in projects generally - a delicate issue in a country where PEMEX and oil are symbols of national pride. "If they can see some success here (with the transboundary deal), that's going to change the political conversation in Mexico ," Goldwyn said. Failing to implement the

deal , though, would be a major setback for U.S.-Mexico energy relations , former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar warned in
December, in one of his final reports

as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before he left Congress.

Cant delay- slowdowns will tank drilling deals and make future cooperation impossible Rampton 13
Roberta Rampton, Reuters, Apr 29, 2013, UPDATE 1-U.S.-Mexico deal on expanded Gulf oil drilling still in limbo, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/usa-mexico-oilidUKL2N0DG1MR20130429

the administration wants to work with the House on details of the bill so that the deal can be in place in time for the next sale of drilling leases for the Gulf, expected to be held in
Interior and State Department officials did not directly comment on the provision at a hearing last week, saying only that

August . Bingaman said the exemption "complicates things significantly" for quick passage of the bill. "They've added in some things that are going to make it difficult to pass in that
form," he said, referring to the exemption. Last week, the Senate energy committee quietly filed a one-page bill reflecting the administration's suggested language, word for word, with no

It would really be unfortunate if that process proved to be a protracted one," said Michael Bromwich, Obama's former U.S. offshore drilling regulator, who helped negotiate the deal. " There's no purpose that's
mention of the disclosure exemption. The timing of next steps is unclear. "

served by further delaying ."

Drilling along the border is inevitable- cooperative engagement is critical to Mexican development Urdaneta 10 associate at Grau Garcia Hernandez & Monaco (Law Firm)
(Karla, TRANSBOUNDARY PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS: A RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO IN THE DEEPWATERS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, Houston Journal of International Law, Volume 32, Number 2, Spring 2010)
In view of this,

Mexico is primarily

concerned with reservoirs located outside the Western Gap, and more

specifically, those located in the Perdido fold belt. Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time until the Western Gap is made available for exploitation and production by both countries, which will create the same issues for the Western Gap faced by other areas of the GOM . The principal challenges that Pemex faces with regard to deep-water production include: (i) human resources;
(ii) exploration; (iii) exploitation; (iv) technology; and (v) financing. (85) These challenges will have to be assumed in the short term because Mexico's oil production is decreasing, and Pemex

Mexico cannot compete with the United States with regard to the development of the resources in the GOM, for it has not yet progressed beyond the stage of exploration. In order to strengthen Pemex's financial and technical capacities and provide it with more flexibility for the
has estimated that fifty-five percent of the country's 54 billion barrels of equivalent oil from prospective resources (86) is located in deep-waters. (87) Currently, performance of its functions, Mexico began reforming its energy legislation. (88) This process ended in November 2008. However, the last legislative reform does not endow Pemex with the

The issue of transboundary reservoirs has attracted the attention of Mexican lawmakers, politicians, and economists, among others. (90) Most of them advise taking prompt action to protect Mexico's rights to its resources. (91) Moreover, the exploitation of the resources located in the GOM will be a way for Mexico to increase its levels of petroleum production. To summarize,
capital and technology necessary to undertake the activities of exploration and production of deep-waters in the GOM. (89) in the GOM (i) there are formations, like the Perdido fold belt, that cross the maritime boundary of Mexico and the United States, and that will enable production as early as 2010, (ii)

substantial exploration activity has already been conducted by the United States, (iii) large areas have been leased by the United States for exploitation, while others are currently being exploited, (iv) Mexico has not achieved the levels of resource development that the United States has achieved , and (v) both countries need to take advantage of the production of their hydrocarbons in the short term. (92) In light of these circumstances, with the aim of protecting the rights of both countries and optimizing the use of resources, it would be appropriate for Mexico and the United States to cooperate in the development of their transboundary reservoirs. This cooperation will maximize economic benefits, avoid physical waste, increase energy security, and avoid international disputes likely to arise

if the United States initiates production of the transboundary reservoirs. Cooperation has led to
beneficial results among other countries that have faced similar dilemmas.

Production along the Western Gap is key to PEMEX Iliff 12

(Laurence, Pemex Makes Its First Big Oil Find in Deep Gulf, The Wall Street Journal, 8 -29-2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619712736497598.html)

Mexican state-owned oil firm Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, has made its first big crude-oil discovery in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, near the Mexico-U.S. maritime boundary , President Felipe Calderon said Wednesday. Mr. Calderon said the initial estimate of a deposit in the Perdido area on Mexico's side of the Gulf was between 250 million and 400 million barrels of light crude, using the industry's broadest measurement of "proven, probable and possible," or 3P, reserves. The exploratory well was drilled in 2,500 meters (8,250 feet) of water. "We estimate

that this deposit could belong to one of the most important regions of the deep-water Gulf, " he said.
The larger "petroleum system" of additional fields, Mr. Calderon added, "could have from four billion to 10 billion barrels of crude, which bolsters our reserves and will allow Mexico to maintain and increase petroleum production in the medium- and long-term." The new well, dubbed "Trion I," was drilled 39 kilometers (24 miles) south of the U.S.-Mexico maritime border, and 180 kilometers east of Gulf state of Tamaulipas, which also borders the U.S. On the
U.S. side of the Gulf, Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN -0.11% PLC operates its Perdido oil-and-gas platform in the region. The platform has a peak production capacity of 100,000 barrels per day, according to Shell's website. Prior to Pemex's discovery of crude oil at Trion, the oil monopoly had found only natural gas during the recent increase of its deep-water exploratory efforts. Carlos Morales, head of Pemex's exploration-and-production division, said in a radio interview that Trion I could be among the top 10 crude-oil discoveries on either side of the Gulf. He said typically a deposit of its type would take seven years to get to the production phase, but that Pemex is going to try to do that in five years. Mr. Morales said Pemex began committing more resources to Gulf oil exploration in 2007 with the construction of special drilling platforms and said he foresees a Tamaulipas oil port to service Pemex's future operations in the Gulf. Mr. Morales said pushing

aggressively into deep waters could raise Pemex's crude-oil production to four million barrels a day from the current 2.55 million barrels a day. The deep waters of the Gulf are seen by analysts as one of Pemex's best bets to

have another surge of oil production after eight years of steady declines . Pemex has traditionally drilled in the
shallow waters of the southern Gulf, where the discovery of the supergiant Cantarell complex in the late 1970s launched Mexico as an oil power. Cantarell's output peaked at more than two million barrels of oil per day in 2004 and is now around 400,000 barrels a day. Mr. Calderon, who held up a sample of crude oil taken from

barrels of oil equivalent as of Jan. 1. Its 3P reserves were 43.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Under current law, Mexico doesn't allow foreign companies to drill in its territory except under contract to Pemex, with strict rules that
the well, said half of Pemex's petroleum reserves could be in the deep waters of the Gulf. Pemex reported proven hydrocarbon reserves of 13.8 billion ban the sharing of risk or of oil. Oil majors have expressed interest in drilling with Pemex on the Mexican side of the Gulf, but only under shared-risk contracts.

PEMEX is critical to the Mexican economy ---- THA reforms key to solve Samples and Vittor 12 associate and partners at Hogan Lovells US LLP
(Tim R. and Jose Luis, Energy Reform and the Future of Mexicos Oil Industry: The Pemex Bidding Rounds and Integrated Service Contracts, Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, 621-2012, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Samples-Formatted_Final_June13.pdf) In recent years, Latin America has seen an uptick in interest as a destination for companies seeking new opportunities in the exploration and

production of oil and gas. 1 From the discovery of massive pre-salt oil fields off the coast of Brazil to unconventional plays in Argentina and Colombia, the region is generating renewed interest for the international energy industry. Four countries in particularBrazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peruare moving forward with bidding rounds for significant exploration and production contracts with hopes of attracting technology, expertise, and capital from the private sector. The case of Petrleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and Mexico is especially compelling. As a state-controlled monopoly, Pemex is the sole producer of crude oil, natural gas, and refined

products in Mexico. 2 Pemex,

the most important company in Mexico, is simultaneously referred to as

the cash cow and a sacred cow of Mexico. 3 As Mexicos cash cow, Pemex provides over a third of the federal governments revenues. 4 As
Mexicos sacred cow, Pemex has immense and symbolic national importance, which is deeply rooted in Mexicos sense of sovereignty and independence. 5 Increasingly, these two roles are in tension as Pemex struggles to remain a cash cow while subject to the legal and political constraints of a sacred national treasure. 6 For most of the 20 th century, Mexico figured among t he worlds largest oil producers and has been a major exporter for much of that time. 7 Currently, however, Mexico is facing the prospect of becoming a net importer of petroleum within a decade. 8 Pemex has recently undergone transformations in response to declining production, but reversing the tide will require a dramatic

departure from the norm . 9 Politically sensitive reforms to the energy sector and a major shift in the traditional Pemex paradigm are needed. 10 Together, Mexico and Pemex are entering unfamiliar territory. 11 While a restrictive legal framework has barred competition within Mexicos borders, Pemex is subject to rigid constraints under Mexican law with respect to finance and budgeting, contracting, procurement, and corporate governance. 12 The collective weight of these restrictions has limited Pemexs ability to address lagging production. 13 In response, under the administration of President Felipe Caldern, legislation designed to modernize Pemex and allow greater private participation in the
Mexican oil industry was passed in November 2008 (the Energy Reforms). 14\

Mexican collapse tanks the global economy Moran 9

Michael Moran, vice president and executive editor of Roubini Global Economics and RGE's senior expert on geostrategic and political risk. From 2005-2009, Michael served as executive editor of CFR.org,. Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics Could Upset Global Recovery. Roubini Global Economics Monitor. July 31, 2009. http://fbkfinanzwirtschaft.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/six-crises-2009-a-half-dozen-ways-geopolitics-could-upset-global-recovery/ A story receiving more attention in the American media than Iraq these days is the horrific drug-related violence across the northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed the national army to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised the national police beyond redemption. The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people were killed in a 48 hour period last week in Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located directly across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas. So far, the impact on the United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isnt much sign that the army is winning, either, and that raises a disturbing question: What if Calderon loses? The CIAs worst nightmare during the Cold War (outside of an administration which forced transparency on it, of course) was the radicalization or collapse of Mexico. The template then was communism, but narco-capitalism doesnt look much better. The prospect of a wholesale collapse that sent millions upon millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the northern border so far seems remote. But Mexicos army has its own problems with corruption, and a sizeable number of Mexicans regard Calderons razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a leftist rival as illegitimate. With Mexicos economy reeling and the traditional safety valve of illegal immigration to America dwindling, the potential for serious trouble exists. Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia and Canada as the three suppliers of oil the United States could not do without. Should things come unglued there and Pemex production shut down even temporarily, the shock on oil markets could be profound , again, sending its waves throughout the global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding anyway, thanks to oil fields well-beyond their peak and restrictions on foreign investment.

Nuclear war, terrorism, democratic backsliding

Harris and Burrows 9 - *PhD in Euro History, **member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit
Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of th e NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many

history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within thei r reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will
possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct

become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulti es in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neomercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will
sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development

If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
of blue water naval capabilities.

PEMEX decline will trigger instability throughout Mexico timeframe is 10 years Kohl 11-27-12 (Keith, Crisis of Consumption, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/mexican-oil-crisis/2833) JH
Of course, we all know the story behind the Cantarell field's downfall. Once production started to decline, Pemex began injecting nitrogen to boost output. But this strategy was short-lived, and

production at the field has been dropping sharply since roughly 14% each year for the last six years. Cantarell's decline marked the beginning of the end for Mexican oil production. The country's new finds have also

proven underwhelming . The recent discovery by Pemex in Southern Mexico is a perfect example. According to Pemex, the new field holds up to 500 million barrels of
these days, Mexico will take whatever it can get... and pray it can hold off the decline. Crisis of Consumption Mexico's declining oil production means there's less oil available for export. Those 2.5 million barrels flowing from Pemex's wells daily are crucial to the country's stability. When almost 40% of your government budget is paid from oil revenue, exporting less oil is not an option but that's exactly
crude oil, a trifle compared to the billions of barrels Cantarell once held. But what's happening (click charts to enlarge): During the first eight months of 2012, Mexican oil exports to the United States were slightly above one million barrels per day. Last May oil exports fell below one million barrels per day for the first time in 27 years.

Barring some miracle taking place in Mexico's oil industry, I believe

the country will be a net oil importer within ten years.

Mexican stability is critical to U.S. power Kaplan 12 chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor
(Robert D., With the Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns, Stratfor, 3-28-2012, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns) While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related

Mexico will affect America's destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut
violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border,
moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but

Mexico ultimately matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these subjects. I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater consequences . For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south
of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet,

the fate

of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States'

cultural and demographic

future rests. U.S. foreign policy

emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will affect its society more than the
dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing
demographic and economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example). In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's

If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes
32 states, mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). back to cutting deals with the cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north, with concrete implications for the southwestern United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but will advance in the more backward society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of course, in full cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of China as a rising great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine what kind of society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest. The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any other individual bilateral

If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the United States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.
relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world, especially in the economically crucial Pacific.

Solves global nuclear war Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13 (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G.
Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College Dont Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment, International S ecurity, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 751) A core premise of as noted above, the

deep engagement

is that it

prevents the emergence

of a far more

dangerous global security environment. For one thing,

United States overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action.

alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention
Perhaps more important, its core that engaged

U.S. power dampens the

baleful

effects of anarchy

is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest

Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this
portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the American Pacifier is provided in the works of John benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happe n to Eurasias security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of the se responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasias major states could manage regio nal multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkagesare either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no
consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European

Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars),
governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a

lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by

Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabiamight take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the regions prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only
Washington notably constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realisms sanguin e portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realisms optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular and highly restrictiveassumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. social and other

Burgeoning research across the

sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of
many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the worlds
key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that

the withdrawal of

the

America n pacifier

will yield

either a competitive regional

multipolarity complete with

associated insecurity, arms racing,

crisis instability, nuclear

proliferation, and

the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely

competitive behavior, possibly including regional

great power war ). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted
one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a

above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the worlds core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that t he United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, higher likelihood of competitive regional

proxy wars and arming of client states all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a

Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors
faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the

the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferationincluding the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forcesseem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of unforeseen crisis dynamics that could spin out of
security problem. 79 Usuallycarried out in dyadic terms,

control

is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security

competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offsho re balancing: stay over the horizon and pass the buck to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Ja pan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that Chinas rise puts the

The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves. 81 Therefore, unless Chinas rise stalls, the United States is likely to act toward China
possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum,

the argument that U.S.

security

commitments are unnecessary

for peace

is countered by a lot of scholarship , including highly influential realist scholarship. In the case for retrenchment misses the
underlying

addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which

logic of

the

the United States lowers security competition in the worlds key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade
strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the Un ited States formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the focused enmity of the United States. 84 Al l o f the worlds most modern militaries are U.S. allies (Americas alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85

deep engagement

Bilateral Cooperation Advantage

Nieto is trying to reorient the relationship to focus on economic cooperation- now is critical point in the relationship Stratfor 13
Stratfor, MAY 2, 2013, Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit

Obama travels to Mexico on May 2, he will arrive amid a period of sweeping transformation in the country. Embroiled in myriad political battles and seeking to implement an extensive slate of national reforms, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration has been focused almost solely on internal affairs . Meanwhile, after years of delay, the U.S. Congress has been debating gun control and immigration reform -- two issues of serious interest to the Mexican government . U.S.-Mexican relations are strategically important to both countries, and Mexico's period of transition has created opportunities for each to reshape the partnership. And although U.S. media attention has focused primarily on bilateral security issues ahead of Obama's visit -namely cooperation in Mexico's drug war -- the Pena Nieto administration is working with Washington to re-orient the cross-border conversation to one centered primarily on mutual economic possibility .
When U.S. President Barack

New administration means now is key to establish cooperation and credibility of bilateral agreements- the THA solves Martin and Wood 13
Jeremy Martin, director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and professor for 17 years in Mexico and previously was director of the International Relat ions Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, U.S. Should Act Quickly on Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement With Mexico, 03 May 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12923/u-s-should-act-quickly-ontransboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-with-mexico

the agreement merits an expeditious approval in the coming approval of the deal in the U.S. would be an important sign of bilateral concord , particularly at the outset of a new administration in Mexico and a second term for Obama . This is important, as it underscores the two nations' increasing ability to work together and conclude complicated agreements and cooperationon binational issues unrelated to immigration or crime and drugs.
As the U.S. Congress debates the deal, it is worth revisiting the four key reasons weeks. First,

Closer bilateral cooperation is critical to combat organized crime- ability to close new bilateral agreements is paramount Wilson 12
Eric L. Olson, Wilson Center Mexico Institute, Considering New Strategies for Confronting Organized Crime in Mexico, March 2012 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/consideringnew-strategies-for-confronting-organized-crime-mexico

Mexico has experienced an unprecedented rise in crime and violence over the past five years with over 47,000 people killed in crime related
violence during this period. For some, the increase in violence is a tragic by-product of President Calderns full frontal assault on criminal organizations. For others, the governments actions,

both Mexico and the United States are entering a critical period where decisions about the future of security cooperation and crime fighting strategies come more sharply into focus. Both countries will hold presidential and congressional elections in 2012 giving policy- makers and the public an opportunity to take stock of the bi-national security strategies pursued thus far, and debate the best strategies going forward. While it is unlikely that the framework of shared responsibility and close bilateral collaboration will be upended, rega rdless of the election results, 2012 represents an important opportunity to assess the strategies to date and refine our understanding of the security threats posed by organized crime, violence, illegal drug use and trafficking in both Mexico and the United States. To this end, the Mexico Institute brought together a number of leading scholars and experts to discuss and analyze the nature of security threats the U.S. and Mexico face from organized crime. The result has been
while well intended, have only marginally impacted trafficking while exacerbating the violence. Whatever the reasons, the compilation herein of cutting edge analysis and innovative approaches reflecting some of the latest research and information available about drug trafficking, organized crime and violence in

suggest important new strategic directions for both countries that build on what has already been tried, while redirecting current strategies to prioritize reducing the violence associated with trafficking and organized crime.
Mexico. Together these ideas challenge much of the conventional wisdom and commonly held assumptions about Mexico. They

Organized crime leads to global instability UNODC 9

February, Preventing organized crime from spoiling peace, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/preventing-organized-crime-from-spoiling-peace.html

Look at almost any conflict zone in the world, and you'll find spoilers with links to criminal groups. Conflict creates
cover for illicit enrichment - whether it be drugs, natural resources, or the trafficking of weapons and people. It also creates profitable new markets for smuggled goods. In the absence

Since they profit from instability they have few incentives for peace. Organized crime is therefore a major threat to keeping and building peace, and - because of its transnational nature - has an impact on regional security. As a result, conflicts which may seem tractable drag on for years. "Peacekeepers, peacemakers, and peace-builders are starting to wake up to the impact of crime on conflict, and UNODC has a unique skill set that can address
of the rule of law and licit competition, criminal groups fill a lucrative vacuum. this urgent problem", says UNODC Spokesman Walter Kemp, "The establishment of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, an ever-expanding number of peacekeeping operations that include a rule of law component, an increased emphasis on conflict prevention, and greater attention to the political economy of conflict all demonstrate the need for expertise in dealing with organized crime in fragile situations", says Mark Shaw, Chief of UNODC's Integrated Programming Unit. Yet expertise is relatively limited. As the Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa has pointed out, "we need more specialists to fight organized crime. Under the UN flag, there are more than 130,000 soldiers and 10,000 police. Yet, the UN has less than a dozen experts on organized crime. How can we answer the calls for help when we have few people to send?" UNODC is taking steps to rectify this problem, both within the UN system and among Member States. "UNODC is well-positioned to play a key role in this area since we are the guardian of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the developer of a number of key tools to strengthen criminal justice in post-conflict settings", says UNODC Director of Operations Francis Maertens. One such tool was launched in New York on 11 February - Model Codes for Post-Conflict Criminal Justice which was produced in partnership with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the US Institute for Peace, and the Irish Centre for Human Rights. "Blue helmets get most of the attention when people think about building peace

long-term security depends first and foremost on the creation or restoration of the rule of law, and that is what this Model Code is for".
and security", said Mr. Costa at the launch, "but

This violence escalates Bosco 6

David, sr. editor @ FP magazine, July 23, pg. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-bosco23jul23,0,6188365.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary IT WAS LATE JUNE in Sarajevo when Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. After emptying his revolver, the young Serb nationalist jumped into the shallow river that runs through the city and was quickly seized. But the events he set in motion could not be so easily restrained. Two months later, Europe was at war. The understanding that

small but violent acts can spark global conflagration is etched into the world's consciousness. The reverberations from Princip's shots in the summer of 1914 ultimately took the lives of more than 10 million people, shattered four empires and dragged more than two dozen countries into war. This hot summer,
as the world watches the violence in the Middle East, the awareness of peace's fragility is particularly acute. The bloodshed in Lebanon appears to be part of a broader upsurge in unrest. Iraq is suffering through one of its bloodiest months since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Taliban militants are burning schools and attacking villages in southern Afghanistan as the United States and NATO struggle to defend that country's fragile government.
Nuclear-armed India is still cleaning up the wreckage from a large terrorist attack in which it suspects militants from rival Pakistan. The world is awash in weapons, North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear capabilities, and long-range missile technology is spreading like

virus. Some see the start of a global conflict. "We're in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said last week. Certain religious websites are abuzz with talk of Armageddon. There may be as much
a

hyperbole as prophecy in the forecasts for world war. But it's not hard to conjure ways that today's hot spots could ignite.

Independently, plan sets a precedent -- solves resilient US-Mexico energy cooperation Wood 12 senior associate in the Americas program at CSIS
(Duncan, also director of the international relations program at Mexicos Autonomous Institute of Technology, Global Insider : U.S.-Mexico Energy Deal Sets Important Precedent, World Politics Review, 4-24-2012, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/11880/global-insider-u-s-mexico-energy-deal-sets-important-precedent)

the history of energy cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico? Duncan Wood: Since the nationalization of Mexican has been sensitive, to put it mildly. Whereas Mexico has been one of the United States largest crude oil suppliers, and the U.S. in turn i s far and away Mexico's largest market for oil, open collaboration between the NAFTA partners beyond exports has been restricted. This is largely due to Mexican sensitivities over sovereignty, the contentious history of U.S. oil firms' involvement in Mexico prior to nationalization and the constitutionally mandated monopoly in oil production in Mexico granted to the state-owned energy company Pemex. Any public statement by a United States government official or oil executive has traditionally been greeted with charges of foreign interference
WPR: What is oil in 1938, the relationship between the two countries in energy matters

by Mexican leftists and nationalists. There have, however, been a number of examples of cooperation over the years. In the 1990s, Pemex and Shell went into business together i n the United States, sharing the ownership and operation of a refinery in Deer Park, Texas. This boosted Pemex's refining capacity and enabled it to collaborate with a large international oil company (IOC) outside of Mexican territory. Within Mexico, Pemex has long used important contractors such as Halliburton and Schlumberger to help discover and extract oil without surrendering ownership. In gas, Mexico is an important supplier of natural gas to the United States through crossborder pipelines. In the 1990s and 2000s, close cooperation among the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. research labs and the Mexican government led to progress in renewable energy development in Mexico, and there is currently a bilateral working group negotiating the question of crossborder electricity transmission. During the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Mexico, the United States and Canada discussed energy issues in the North American Energy Working Group, but this initiative fizzled out with the demise of the partnership. WPR: What brought about the recent agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to cooperate on energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico? Wood: The history of this agreement goes back to the 1970s. After negotiations in the United Nations over the International Law of the Sea, the two countries came together to determine ownership of resources found in the border region of the Gulf of Mexico that wer e beyond their respective 200-mile exclusion zones but entirely surrounded by them (thereby not qualifying as international waters). In the late1990s the two countries agreed to a 10-year moratorium on exploration and drilling in order to allow the negotiation of a settlement. Mexico's 2008 energy reform legislation called on the Calderon administration to seek a solution to the issue, and when the 10-year deal expired in 2009 the two governments agreed to work toward a binding deal. In the first year of the talks, the parties engaged in a process of information exchange, discussing standards, emergency-management procedures and existing seismic data. This data exchange, it is vital to recognize, was not aimed at

. In 2010, Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon committed to a negotiated transboundary agreement, and both sides agreed on an extension of the 1999 moratorium for four more years. Official negotiations were concluded in December, and the treaty was signed on Feb. 20, 2012. WPR: What is the likely political and economic impact of increased U.S.-Mexico energy cooperation? Wood: The transboundary agreement is an exciting new departure for Pemex and for
establishing what resources might exist in the region, but rather what geological structures might exist, thereby giving clues to potential oil fields

U.S.-Mexico cooperation . First, it gives Pemex access to much-needed oil reserves in the border region that were previously restricted. These reserves are estimated to be upward of 9 billion barrels. Second, it allows Pemex to work directly in partnership with the private sector, foreign firms and particularly IOCs to extract the oil -- arrangements prohibited to date. Third, the agreement sets a precedent for further transboundary talks with Cuba

in the eastern section of the gulf, where Mexico again shares potential reserves. For U.S.-Mexico cooperation, the deal is highly significant, less for the oil involved than for the precedent it sets . Rather than rivals , in this area the United States and Mexico are partners in oil exploration and production. The

lack of

political opposition to the deal within Mexico demonstrates that the traditionally inflammatory
nationalistic rhetoric of political forces on the Mexican left has diminished in recent years, as a consensus emerges over the pressing need to reform the oil sector.

Thats key to move U.S. companies away from corn ethanol to Mexican biofuels Wood 10 senior associate in the Americas program at CSIS
(Duncan, also director of the international relations program at Mexicos Autonomous Institute of Technology, Environment, De velopment and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, December 2010, http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf)

there has been only minor cooperation between the United States and Mexico at the governmental level. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has worked with SAGARPA on a number of technical issues, and prepared a report on the Mexican biofuels sector in 2009 that
To date, however, pointed to the potential for growth in the market and to the changing regulatory landscape for biofuels in Mexico. This report highlighted the prospect of higher levels of demand for biodiesel

the main interest has come from the U.S. private sector, which is looking to invest in biofuels production in Mexico with an eye to exporting the product either back to the United States or to Europe. With small-scale projects popping up across the country, U.S. firms have begun to evaluate the potential for large-scale production of biofuels. Global Clean Energy (GCE), a Los Angeles-based firm that specializes in feedstocks for the production of biofuels, has recently invested in two jatropha farms in Mexico and one in Belize. Jatropha, a hardy shrub that produces a nut with very high oil content that can be processed into biodiesel, is seen by many as a perfect biofuel feedstock for Mexico. Native to the Mesoamerican region, the plant grows on marginal land, is not edible either for humans or animals, and thus does not generate a foodvs.-fuel controversy, and can be planted on land that is also used for grazing goats or sheep. In addition to being a feedstock for biofuels, the harvest can be used as a source of biomass for producing energy and the nuts themselves can be detoxified and processed for animal feed after their oil has been expressed . GCE
thanks to the setting of a national goal to introduce at least 5 percent of biodiesel in the transportation sector by 2012. But has 5,000 acres under cultivation in Yucatan, and has adopted a sustainable business model that has resulted in jobs, fair wages and community development in the local area. 52 This is one of

It is increasingly common for businesses focusing on biofuels production to develop a model that emphasizes both profitability and sustainable development. Pioneer Global Renewables, a U.S. firm from San Francisco that has already invested in jatropha plantations in the Dominican Republic, is also looking to expand into Mexico and has a similar model to GCE, focusing on local community development, fair prices for harvests, and minimal negative impact on the environment. Jatropha, however, is only one of a multitude of biofuels that has potential in Mexico. Sugar, a long depressed industry in the country, could receive a significant boost if large scale ethanol production were contemplated. A large number of sugar mills are currently lying dormant, and could be retrofitted relatively cheaply to produce ethanol. For example: According to the Mexican Sugarcane Producers Association, only two mills have the capability of producing ethanol with the technical requirements specified by PEMEX, equating to about 10 million liters per year. If these mills upgraded their facilities and operated at full capacity and efficiency, it is calculated that total production capacity for ethanol could reach 170 million liters per year . 53 The sugarcane-to-ethanol industry will also have to overcome labor and taxation
the dimensions of the biofuels industry that is only infrequently mentioned but that is important to note. issues if it is to become commercially viable in Mexico. At present ethanol is subject to a luxury tax of 50 percent, which makes the production of ethanol for fuel uncompetitive at the moment.

Another option exists in the incipient algae to ethanol industry , which is receiving considerable attention because of the potential for using algae cultivations as a way to capture carbon dioxide, and can be located in almost any climate. U.S. firms that possess the technology to increase efficiency in this field, such as Phyco2, a California-based firm, are already looking into the possibility of bringing their product to market in Mexico. 54 Biofuels innovations indigenous to Mexico will also be of interest to U.S. firms. Recent research into the potential of succulents and, in particular, agave show enormous promise. The agave plant has very high concentrations of sugar and produces more sugar per acre planted than
sugarcane. A research team working at the Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo has esti mated that the variety Agave tequilana weber can yield up to 2,000 gallons of distilled ethanol per acre

Corn ethanol, for example, has an energy balance ratio of 1.3 and produces approximately 300-400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Soybean biodiesel, with an energy balance of 2.5, typically can yield 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre while an acre of sugarcane can produce 600-800 gallons of ethanol with an energy balance of 8.0. An acre of poplar trees can yield
per year and from 12,000-18,000 gallons per acre per year if their cellulose is included, whereas: more than 1,500 gallons of cellulosic ethanol with an energy balance of 12.0, according to a National Geographic study published in October 2007. 55 In addition to the impressive potential for producing ethanol, agave is an attractive crop as it can grow in harsh environments, requires relatively little water, can be used to produce a wide variety of products, such as paper, textiles, and rope, and is common across Mexico.

Biofuel production using corn is the largest cause of global food price increases

Boston Herald 8
(UN expert faults US, EU biofuel use in food crisis http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/europe/view.bg?articleid=1118150) A United Nations expert said Wednesday that recent studies indicate that U.S. and European Union targets for biofuel production by their grain farmers have been the biggest cause of the world food crisis. Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian professor, also said an international monitor may be needed to supervise the production of energy sources such as ethanol, which may end up being less beneficial to the environment than expected, even as they cause global food prices to rise. Citing various reports, he said biofuel production targets outlined by the United States and European Union have led to increased speculation on agricultural land and commodities, and diverted cropland and feed away from food production . He said the International Monetary Fund estimated that 70 percent of the rise in corn prices was due to biofuels, with 40 percent for soybeans. The World Bank, de Schutter added, concluded that biofuels from grains and oilseed in the U.S. and EU were responsible for up to 75 percent of changes in commodity prices. "There is a consensus that these initiatives have had a significant impact," said de Schutter, who reports to the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council. His message to Washington and Brussels: "They should without further delay revise their policies."

That causes extinction Trudell 5 (Robert H., Fall, Trudell, J.D. Candidate 2006, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33
Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Lexis) 2. But, Is It Really an Emergency? In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of

Rwanda illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when food insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices. 103 Furthermore, as Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can contribute to a breakdown of society itself . 104 Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles
widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This may be so. However, as the events in those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g., environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the problem long before any calamity sets in. 106 This wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today,

the very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure. 107 Genocide, anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose problems threaten global security and challenge all of humanity . 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary general of the World Social Summit, said: "We've replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part of the fuse burning to set that bomb off. It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late .
with up to 300,000 child soldiers fighting in conflicts or wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts,

Spills Advantage
Gulfs ecosystems on the brinkplan key to solve another accident Craig 11 Attorneys Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at Florida State University
(Robin Kundis, Legal Remedies for Deep Marine Oil Spills and Long -Term Ecological Resilience: A Match Made in Hell, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, http://lawreview.byu.edu/articles/1326405133_03craig.fin.pdf) These results suggest that we should be very concerned for the Gulf ecosystems affected by the Macondo well blowout. First, and as this Article has emphasized throughout, unlike the Exxon Valdez spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred at great depth, and the oil behaved unusually compared to oil released on the surface. Second, considerably more toxic dispersants were used in connection with the Gulf oil spill than the Alaska oil spill. 164 Third, humans could intervene almost immediately to begin cleaning the rocky substrate in Prince William Sound, but human intervention for many of the important affected Gulf ecosystems, especially the deepwater ones (but even for shallower coral reefs), remains impossible. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Prince William Sound was and remains a far less stressed ecosystem than the Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, for example, NOAA stated that [d]espite the remaining impacts of the [still then] largest oil spill in U.S. history, Prince William Sound remains a relatively pristine, productive and biologically rich ecosystem. 165 To be sure, the S ound was not completely unstressed, and [w]hen the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in March 1989, the Prince William Sound ecosystem w as also responding to at least three notable events in its past: an unusually cold winter in 198889; growing populations of reintroduced sea otters; and a 1964 earthquake. 166 Nevertheless, the Gulf of Mexico is besieged by environmental stressors at

another

to disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As the Deepwater Horizon Commission detailed at length, the Gulf faces an array of long-term threats, from the loss of protective and productive wetlands along the coast to hurricanes to a growing dead zone (hypoxic zone) to sediment starvation to sealevel rise to damaging channeling to continual (if smaller) oil releases from the thousands of drilling operations. 167 In the face of this plethora of stressors, even the Commission championed a kind of resilience thinking, recognizing that responding to the oil spill alone was not enough. It equated restoration of the Gulf to restored resilience, arguing that it represents an effort to sustain thes e diverse, interdependent activities [fisheries, energy, and tourism] and the environment on which they depend for future gen erations. 168 A number of commentators have catalogued the failure of the legal and regulatory systems governing the Deepwater Horizon platform and the Macondo well operations. 169 The Deepwater Horizon Commission similarly noted that the Deepwater Horizons demise signals the conflicted evolutionand severe shortcomings of federal regulation of offshore oil drilling in the United States. 170 In its opinion, [t]he Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, and oil spill did not have to happen. 171 The Commissions overall conclusion was two -fold. First, [t]he

order of magnitude (or two), reducing its resilience

record shows that without effective government oversight , the offshore oil and gas industry will not adequately reduce the risk of accidents, nor prepare effectively to respond in
emergencies. 172 Second, government oversight, alone, cannot reduce those risks to the full extent possible. Government oversight . . . must be accompanied by the oil and gas industrys internal reinvention: sweeping reforms that accomplish no less than

a fundamental transformation of its safety culture. 173

The plan solves ------ the THA leads to safety coordination between the U.S. and Mexico Broder and Krauss 12 business correspondents at the New York Times
(John M. and Clifford, U.S. in Accord With Mexico on Drilling, The New York Times, 2 -20-2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/world/americas/mexico-and-us-agree-on-oil-and-gasdevelopment-in-gulf.html?_r=1&ref=americas) WASHINGTON The United States and Mexico reached agreement on Monday on regulating oil and gas development along their maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico, ending years of negotiations and potentially opening more than a million acres to deepwater drilling. The agreement, if ratified by Mexican and American lawmakers, would for the first time provide for joint

countries rigs in the gulf. Until now, neither was authorized to oversee the environmental and safety practices of the other, even though oil spills do not respect international borders. Each of the nations will maintain sovereignty and their own regulatory systems, Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, said from Los Cabos, Mexico, where the agreement was completed. But what this signifies, and what may be the most significant part of the agreement, is that were moving forward jointly with Mexico to ensure we have a common set of safety protocols. As the Mexicans move into deepwater development, Mr. Salazar said, we want to make sure its done in a way that protects the environment and is as safe as possible. The Transboundary Agreement, as it is called, will make up to 1.5 million acres of offshore territory
inspection of the two claimed by the United States available for leasing as early as June, though the leases will not become active until a pact is ratified. The Interior Department estimates that the area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 300 billion cubic feet of natural gas, relatively modest amounts by the oil-rich gulfs standards. Mexicos oil production has been a major source for the United States for more than 25 years, and it is the single most important revenue-raiser for the Mexican government. But its output has been in sharp decline in the last decade, as energy demand by its growing middle class has risen, forcing a decline in exports and raising the possibility that Mexico could become a ne t oil importer by the end of the decade. In response, Mexicos national oil company, Petrleos Mexicanos, known as Pemex, has started a deepwater drilling program in recent years despite concerns that it is not sufficiently experienced for the task. Under the Mexican Constitution, Pemex cannot bring in a foreign partner like Royal Dutch Shell or Exxon Mobil to develop the gulf reserves, even though those companies have much

Pemex has drilled more than a dozen exploratory deepwater wells since 2002, but the results have been mixed. It plans to drill six more wells this year, including two at depths of more than 6,000 feet, where well pressure is customarily high and the possibility of a blowout is greater than in shallower wells. The program has been controversial in Mexico , especially after the BP accident two years ago. Juan Carlos Zepeda, Mexicos chief oil regulator, has warned that Pemex is not prepared to control a possible leak from the two deepest wells it is planning this year and that the National Hydrocarbons Commission, the three-year-old agency Mr. Zepeda oversees, may be overmatched when it comes to regulating deepwater drilling. With a staff of 60, little logistical capability and a budget of only $7 million, it has
more expertise in drilling in challenging waters.
had minimal say in how Pemex operates. In 1979, a blowout at one of Pemexs shallow-water wells called Ixtoc I in the Bay of Campeche resulted in the largest oil spill ever in the gulf until the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. The issue of sharing oil and gas reserves in gulf border waters dates from the 1970s. The two countries negotiated a treaty that would define their exploratory rights in border zones, but the United States Senate declined to ratify it in 1980. Presidents Obama and Felipe Caldern agreed to extend a drilling moratorium in the area until they

. Mexico doesnt have the resources to combat a major oil spill, and the United States does, said Jorge Pion, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and a current research fellow at the University of Texas. Coordination and sharing communications, training, personnel, equipment and technology are essential for safe and productive drilling. Gasoline prices
could negotiate a final accord. The zones are near areas being drilled successfully, but they are in water depths reaching 10,000 feet and are considered vulnerable to hurricanes

are on the rise, and Republicans have blamed the administration for being slow to approve more domestic drilling. With the new agreement, coming at a time when the White House is moving closer to approving drilling in Alaskan Arctic waters, Mr. Obama was expected to argue that his policies have led to a surge in domestic production.

Joint inspection solves oversight --- key to safety even if theres no Western Gap development Padilla 12 managing director at IPD Latin America
(John D. Padilla, Q&A: Is Mexico Prepared for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf?, Inter -American Dialogues Latin American Energy Advisor, 2/20/2012, http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/20477/Is%20Mexico%20Prepared%20for%20Deepwater%20Drilling%20in%20the%20Gulf.pdf?sequence=1) "The plan at issue is Pemex's intent to drill in the Perdido Foldbelt area, which abuts the U.S.- Mexico maritime border. Although the bulk of Pemex's offshore infrastructure is located in the southern Gulf of Mexico (i.e. near Cantarell and Ku-Maloob-Zaap), Perdido represents the company's most promising near-term commercial crude oil prospect. The 18 other deepwater wells Pemex has drilled have either been principally natural gas or heavy oil; those that will be brought online still await commercialization. Complicating the equation, Pemex is saddled with four latest- generation semisubmersible rigs that cost $500,000 per day. Because the company has been unable to drill in Perdido's ultra-deepwater, the rigs have been relegated to drilling in shallower

. Ongoing concerns over deepwater drilling in the wake of the Macondo incident, combined with memories of Pemex's less-than-aggressive response to its 1979 Ixtoc spill, have given authorities on both sides of the U.S. Mexico border pause. An archaic constitutional ban that prevents the company from providing the proper balance of risk-reward incentives, coupled with declining production, leave Pemex few large-scale, near-term alternativesother than forging into Perdido on its own. The accord signed by U.S. and Mexican authorities on Monday offers an elegant way to calm fears on both sides of the border. Whether joint ventures materialize or not, the accord would permit joint inspection teams the right to ensure compliance with safety and environmental laws. Will Mexico's Senate approve the accord?"
waterwork that less sophisticated technology could accomplish

Plan spills over past the border to environmental standardization in the entire Gulf of Mexico Velarde 12 attorney and counselor-at-law
(Rogelio Lopez, held various positions at Pemex during 1988-1993, including that of Financial Advisor to the Finance Department, In-House Counsel in Houston, Texas, In-House Counsel in New York, and Head of the International Legal Department of Pemex. He was honored with the Most Distinguished Attorney Award of Pemex for the period 1990-1991, former Chairman of the Energy Committee of the Mexican Bar Association, and currently he is the President for the Latin America Chapter of the Association of the International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN), as Visiting Professor of Judicial Process on the Mexican Legal Studies Program at the University of Houston Law Center, and he is currently the director of the Energy Law Seminar organized between the Universidad Iberoamericana and the Mexican Bar Association. US -Mexican treaty on Gulf of Mexico transboundary reservoirs, International Law Office, 3 -19-2012, http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=b9326bf8-f27f-43ff-b45a-1b2b70ccb217&redir=1)

Pemex has indicated that it has no information to confirm the existence of a transboundary field. However, it is unlikely that both countries would take the step of concluding such a treaty without having geological information to suggest the existence of such a field. One of the covenants included in the treaty is particularly significant in this context. It requires the two federal governments to adopt common norms and standards concerning safety and environmental protection for the "activity contemplated under this agreement". Effectively, this means a harmonised system of offshore technical standards for exploration and production in the Gulf Of Mexico - it seems highly unlikely that the relevant authorities in the United States(1) and Mexico(2) would agree to harmonise applicable standards only in respect of transboundary reservoirs.

Redundant inspection teams solve ---- US doesnt need enviro regs Baker 12 publisher of Mexico Energy Intelligence
(George, Q&A: Is Mexico Prepared for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf?, Inter -American Dialogues Latin American Energy Advisor, 2/20/2012, http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/20477/Is%20Mexico%20Prepared%20for%20Deepwater%20Drilling%20in%20the%20Gulf.pdf?sequence=1)

"The

serious issues of corporate governance and regulation in the shadow of the Macondo incident have not yet been addressed in the many post-accident studies that have been released. On April 20, 2010, a joint BP-Transocean safety audit team boarded the Deepwater Horizon for an inspection of the safety practices of the crew and the condition of the facilities. The nominal objective of the inspection was to identify issues and conditions that could result in damage to lives, facilities and the environment. Within hours after the safety audit team flew off by helicopter, the Macondo well blew out. How is it that this team of senior safety auditors missed all the evidence that a catastrophe was unfolding beneath their feet? This is a question on the level of seriousness as that of the integrity of the cement that failed. The facile answer to the question is that safety, as a discipline and a concern, is divided into two parts: occupational safety, dealing with the slips and falls of employees, and process, or industrial, safety, dealing with conditions that could put the entire crew and facilities at risk. What happened on the Deepwater Horizon is that members of the safety audit team
focused their attention on the feelgood issues of occupational safety, chit-chatting with crew members, while they ignored the fact that a cement bond log had not been

One measure to avoid a repetition of his situation would be to order, as a matter of regulation, safety audits of industrial safety and occupational safety to be carried out
run, and that proof of cement integrity was problematic at best.

separately, by different teams."

Gulf ecosystems are critical biodiversity hotspots and have a key effect on the worlds oceans Brenner 8
(Jorge Brenner, Guarding the Gulf of Mexicos valuable resources, SciDevNet, 3 -14-2008, http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/guarding-the-gulf-of-mexico-s-valuable-resources.html)

The Gulf Of Mexico is rich in biodiversity and unique habitats, and hosts the only known nesting beach of Kemp's Ridley, the world's most endangered sea turtle. The Gulf's circulation pattern gives it biological and socioeconomic importance: water from the Caribbean enters from the south through the Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico and, after warming in the basin, leaves through the northern Florida Strait between the United States and Cuba to form the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic that helps to regulate the climate of western Europe.

Ocean biod key to survival Craig 3 - Attorneys Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at Florida State University
(Robin Kundis Craig, ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii, McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155) Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function

"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef

maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon
system. n860 Thus, Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI

hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can -

coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and especially when the United States has within its territory relatively

pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.

Solvency
The plan solves bestleadership from Congress and State is key to effective cooperation with Mexico Brown and Meacham 12 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senior Staff Members
(Neil and Carl, OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PRE PARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE, 12-21-2012)

U.S.-Mexico bilateral cooperation has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. Mexican sensitivities regarding their sovereignty are still present in government dealings. But today they dont prevent bilateral cooperation, as they did in the recent past. As evidence in this regard, we have seen a significant increase in Mexicos efforts to institutionalize and even expand cooperation among both civilian and military officials. The willingness to improve Mexican cooperation with the United States is partly due to the trust developed through the successful partnership the U.S. and Mexican governments have built while working against drug trafficking organizations. The $1.9 billion Merida Initiative through which the United States provides equipment, training, and technical assistance to support the Mexican governments battle against the narcotics trade and transnational crime has created a platform for greater bilateral cooperation. Today, our two nations work closer than ever before. Yet, there are still new areas in which the bilateral relationship should improve. Interlocutors both from the then-existing Calderon administration and senior advisers to then-incoming Pen a Nieto administration expressed a similar desire to expand cooperation in the bilateral relationship. One senior member of the then-incoming Pen a Nieto administration expressed that it is time to move beyond tourism and drugs, issues which are so prominent in the bilateral agen da today.11 Of course, the development of a contemporary, comprehensive immigration policy ranks high when broadening the agenda is discussed. The U.S. is well positioned to increase dialogue and cooperation on energy security with Mexico (included in renewable power and efficiency, which were not part of this review, but which are areas where cooperation can move forward without significant political obstacles from the Mexican side). Key recommendations include: 1. The U.S. should approve the Transboundary Agreement. The Obama administration should formally submit to

Congress proposed implementing legislation and/or resolution of ratification for the Transboundary Agreement and request Congressional review through regular order. Congress should then quickly establish a timetable for consideration of that proposal and approval of the TBA. 2. The State Department should integrate oil and natural gas development into the bilateral agenda. U.S. Embassy officials are wellversed in energy concerns. The commercial service is already active in promoting business relationships, and some agencies are building technical relationships. The newly established Energy and Natural Resources Bureau at the State Department is ably led by a former Ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual, and the bureau is well-equipped to lead broad U.S.G. cooperation in areas such as shale gas, transparency, trade, supply emergency coordination, demand management, and infrastructure integration should the Government of Mexico wish to work with the United States.

Advantage 1 Extensions

PEMEX I/L
Agreement is key to PEMEX joint ventures- key to offshore drilling. Martin and Wood 13
Jeremy Martin, director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and professor for 17 years in Mexico and previously was director of the International Relat ions Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, U.S. Should Act Quickly on Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement With Mexico, 03 May 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12923/u-s-should-act-quickly-ontransboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-with-mexico

The agreement provides the possibility for U.S. firms to join with Mexicos national oil company, Pemex, to exploit deepwater oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico along the countries' maritime boundaries . This could provide important opportunities for U.S. companies, including exciting joint venture opportunities with Pemex long thought impossible.
Third, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was correct to emphasize the commercial opportunity and energy security element of the accord when it was first announced.

PEMEX Reforms Solve Dependence

Allowing U.S. investment in PEMEX would reduce US. Foreign oil dependence and boost the Mexican economy. Alberro 5
Jos Luis Alberro, Director with LECG. He specializes in merger and antitrust matters before the Mexican Federal Competition Commission, as well as strategy, regulatory, and performance improvements in the energy sector (electricity and hydrocarbons), and manufacturing. A US -Mexico Partnership in Energy: A Policy of Convenience. U.S. -Mexico Policy Burden. Issue 4. April 2005. http://205.201.242.80/topics/pubs/MexicoPolicyBulletin.Energy.April.pdf Two thirds of the way into the Fox administration, it is clearer than ever that per capita GDP will not grow long-term because structural changes have not been implemented. Stagnation translates into weak job creation and migration to the United States. Turning the Mexican economy around will require considerable will and political imagination to carry out profound institutional reforms, but it also calls for debottlenecking physical infrastructure, as well as human capital and technological development. Such expensive investments are a prerequisite for job creation and poverty alleviation and will not be carried out by the private sector on its own: the Mexican government needs to take the lead, while eliminating the obstacles to private investment . Given Mexicos weak public revenues, financing such projects can only come from leveraging Mexicos large hydrocarbon resource base. Mexico and the United States can help each other while pursuing their own interests: a quid pro quo in which the U nited States helps finance the development of Mexicos hydrocarbon reserves so that it can double its exports, has the dual effect of decreasing the U nited States dependence on Middle East oil and provide Mexico with additional revenues to fuel a productivity- based growth strategy. Faster economic growth could lead to job creation, poverty alleviation, slowing down undocumented migration, strengthening the middle class and consolidating democracy.4

Allowing private investment in PEMEX would boost output, which would reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East and boost the Mexican economy. Alberro 5
Jos Luis Alberro, Director with LECG. He specializes in merger and antitrust matters before the Mexican Federal Competition Commission, as well as strategy, regulatory, and performance improvements in the energy sector (electricity and hydrocarbons), and manufacturing. A US -Mexico Partnership in Energy: A Policy of Co nvenience. U.S.-Mexico Policy Burden. Issue 4. April 2005. http://205.201.242.80/topics/pubs/MexicoPolicyBulletin.Energy.April.pdf Instability in the Middle East has created an opportunity born out of convenience for a two step strategy that would benefit both countries. In a first step, the United States fosters the creation of a North American Energy Fund (NAEF) which issues 75 billion dollars of securities backed by oil revenues (not the oil itself) to finance Pemexs investments in the development and production of oil and natural gas. This additional output will lessen the U nited States dependence on Middle East oil. In the second step, the net revenues from this added production would be used to finance the Mexican Development Fund (MDF), which would in turn invest in human and physical capital to increase productivity .

Global Econ I/L EXT

Collapses the economy Shirk 11
David, director of the Trans-Border Institute and assistant professor of political science at the University of San Diego. He conducts research on Mexican politics, U.S.-Mexico relations, and law enforcement and security along the U.S.-Mexican border. Dr. Shirk received his PhD in political science at the University of California, San Diego, and was a fellow at the Center for U.S.r International Scholars in Washington, DC. He is currently the principal investigator for the Justice in Mexico project, March, CFR, The Drug War in Mexico, Google Scholar

economically, Mexico is an important market for the United States. As a member of the North American Free Trade it is one of only seventeen states with which the United States has a free trade pact, outside of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). The United States has placed nearly $100 billion of foreign direct investment in Mexico. Mexico is also the United States third-largest trade partner, the third-largest source of U.S. imports, and the secondlargest exporter of U.S. goods and serviceswith potential for further market growth as the country develops. Trade with Mexico benefits the U.S. economy, and the market collapse that would likely accompany a deteriorated security situation could hamper American economic recovery.
Second, Agreement (NAFTA),

Heg Collapse I/L XTN

Mexican state collapse would collapse U.S. hegemony. Haddick 8
Rober Haddick, University of Illinois, managing editor of the Small Wars Journal. Now that would change everything. December 21, 2008. Westhawk Blog. http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html On November 25th, United States Joint Forces Command released to the public The Joint Operating Environment, the commands historically informed, forward-looking effort to discern most accurately the challenges we will face at the operational level of war, and to determine their inherent implicat ions. The report discusses demographic, economic, environmental, technological, and regional trends and their implications for military planning. USJFCOM insists that the report is neither a forecast of the future, nor a statement of official U.S. government policy. But in order to be the slightest bit useful, the report would have to be a little provocative. Thus, on page 35 we get to a section titled Weak and Failing states from which I extract this excerpt: There is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little attention, namely the phenomenon of rapid collapse. For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons. That perfect storm of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the rapid collapse of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government , indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects emanating from south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican

collapse.

Bioterror Mod
Mexican economic decline causes a flood of refugees, resulting in terrorism.
Michael Brown, Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Department of Homeland Security, Border Control: Collapse of Mexico Is A Homeland Security & National Security Issue, 1/14/ 2009, http://michaelbrowntoday.com/journal/2009/1/15/border-controlcollapse-of-mexico-is-a-homeland-security-nat.html By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened ourselves up to a frightening scenario. The United States could face a flood of refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse, overwhelming state and local governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic duress, the costs would be overwhelming and would simply add to the already burgeoning costs at the federal level. Immigration and border control never was nor should it ever be about racism. Immigration and border control are national security and homeland security issues. Sleeper cells from numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have, infiltrated the United States, just laying in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.

US-Mexican border terrorism results in bioterror attacks.

Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, FBI Director Mueller: Al-Qaida Still Wants Nuclear Bomb, 3/18/2010, http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/mueller-fbi-alqaida-nuclear/2010/03/18/id/353169 FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the United States , Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. Further, al-Qaidas continued efforts to access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to the United States. To accomplish its goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry, Mueller said. In February, Sheikh Abdullah alNasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexicos border with the United States was the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America . Four pounds of anthrax in a suitcase this big carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there, al-Nasifi said.

Extinction Steinbruner 97 Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security

(John D. Steinbruner, Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security, vice chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences, Winter 1997, Foreign Policy, Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses, n10 9 p85(12), infotrac) Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

Advantage 2 Extesions

Plan Key to Relations

The plans demonstration of commitment is key Brown and Meacham 12 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senior Staff Members
(Neil and Carl, OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITT EE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE, 12-21-2012)

Finally, passage of the TBA would boost U.S.-Mexico relations on energy issues, which have traditionally lagged. Mexican officials roundly expressed support for the TBA and expectation for U.S. ratification in conversation with the authors. The political impact of not approving and implementing the TBA

would set back U.S.- Mexican relations on energy specifically and more broadly. Each of our
countries has hot button domestic political issues that take courage for political leaders to address. In Mexico, oil is one such issue, and members of both the PAN and PRI put their political weight behind ratification in Mexico. The U.S. not fulfilling its side of the agreement would, therefore, be seen as a

violation of trust and could erode confidence. In the extreme, although unlikely, if Mexico proceeds with domestic energy reforms, U.S. companies could be shut out of certain opportunities until the TBA is ratified. However, bilateral benefits of approving the agreement do not require immediate passage ; U.S. commitment can be demonstrated by the Obama administration formally submitting the TBA for Congressional approval and commencement of Congressional hearings.

Relations Solve Orgo Crime

US-Mexico cooperation is critical to solve organized crime and border security unilateral U.S. efforts are doomed to fail. Mares and Cnovas 10
David R. Mares, University of California, San Diego, and Gustavo Vega Cnovas, El Colegio de Mxico. The U.S. -Mexico Relationship: Towards a New Era?. The project is co-sponsored by the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and El Colegio de Mxico. January 1, 2010. http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/024/11646.pdf

In other words, the US and Mexico are in this struggle against crime together. The public in both countries demand that the border be better secured in both directions against the drugs, money, weapons and individuals feeding this crime. Despite the frustrations many on the US side feel as they read sensationalist press accounts, there is no way of fixing the border that can provide security f or the US without also providing it for Mexico. The expectation by some that the US can seal the border against illicit entry of goods and individuals is simply impossible. Even making significant progress toward it would impose economic and social costs on Mexico that would create an even more desperate situation south of the border, thereby producing even greater threats to US national security. The two countries can either address these demands for security in a more effective manner (and that means doing many things differently) or divert significant human and capital resources from meeting the economic challenges of globalization into an ineffective search for security from crime. Although the levels of violence have declined in 2009 their continuation at historically high levels indicates that the level of trans-national cooperation between the Mexican and the United States governments is not optimal in this area.

Latin American Stability Mod

Relations solve Latin American instability and wars
Baeza and Langevin 9
Gonzalo Baeza and Mark Langevin, Ph.D, The Convergence We Need? March 31, 2009, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2009/0103/comm/baezalangevin_convergence.html

Aside from the structure of consultations and coordination, all the documents under review advocate special attention to Mexico and Brazil. The Inter-American Dialogue predicts that Mexico poses the toughest challenges and greatest opportunities for productive cooperation in the hemisphere, while the CFR report observes that Security cooperation is becoming increasingly central to U.S.-Mexico relations. The CFR report, WOLA, the Brookings commission, and the Dialogue all confirm that Mexico is pivotal for resolving the immigration debacle, confronting the rising problems of drugs and violence in the region , and pushing forward economic development initiatives.

Latin American wars go global even absent escalation, they collapse hegemony and encourage counterbalancing
Rochin, Professor of Political Science, 94
James, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, pp. 130-131

While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time

worried that in a worst-case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena a concern expressed by the director of research for Canadas Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war . This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution,
such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the next chapter.

Drug Trafficking Mod

Cooperation is crucial to stop drug trafficking Bowman 10
Laurel Bowman, VOA News, July 20, 2010, Experts Say US and Mexico Must Work Together to Battle Mexican Drug Cartels , http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/americas/Experts-SayUS-and-Mexico-Must-Work-Together-to-Battle-Mexican-Drug-Cartels-98880554.html

"Unfortunately, these drug

cartels, they have enormous amount of resources at their disposal ," said P.J. Crowley. "They can buy any kind of capability they want. But we are determined, working with Mexico, to do everything in our power to reduce this violence." In Washington Tuesday, experts gathered to discuss steps the United States and Mexico should take moving forward. Matt Bennett is Vice President of Third Way, a self-described moderate think tank. It hosted the event. "It is not just a Mexican problem," said Matt Bennett. "Guns and money are flowing from the United States south and fueling this problem and drugs are traveling north" "It's a mutual responsibility between the U.S. and Mexico," said Henry Cuellar. "We cannot let Mexico fail."

Narco-terrorism causes major environmental havoc- causes species loss Ministro del Ambiente 3
Ministro del Ambiente, Republico de Colombia, Environment, 2003, www.embcol.or.at/Colombia/otros/environment.pdf

For each hectare of coca planted, three hectares of tropical forest or rainforest are destroyed; for each hectare of poppy 2.5 hectares of forest are cut down. Over the last 10 years, 2.2 million hectares of tropical forest have been destroyed to plant illegal crops. The damage done to water sources by chemical precursors dumped by narco-terrorists is incalculable. Each pipeline that has been blown up generates irreparable damage to the surrounding ecosystems due to oil spills. The construction of an illegal airstrip requires considerable deforestation. Each energy tower that is blown up destroys the vegetation in the surrounding area and the blast causes damage in more extensive areas, which include species on the brink of extinction .

Deforestation leads to extinction Watson 6 Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, The Politics of Extinction. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html
The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated . Sixty-five million years ago, a
natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact

zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-away train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of

extinction.

The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and

animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower.

Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon . It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary
programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being

it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price
kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command,

of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.

Groundwater contamination causes extinction

Miller 4, Prof of Geology, 04 (http://www.geosun.sjsu.edu/~jmiller/Geo1_Lecture12_SurfaceProcesses.html, 08-Dec-2004 EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES II: GROUNDWATER) Groundwater is extremely important because it is a source of clean drinkable water for human survival. In arid areas especially (like the western U.S.) it has allowed humans to flourish and in the early part of the colonization of the west it was vital to the establishiment of agriculture because we tapped the groundwater by digging wells and then used it to irrigate our crops.
It is still important today for this reason (although we also now impond water in dams and divert it for agriculture using aqueducts). As the population of the west has grown, the demands put on groundwater to provide for human well-being have been increasing, and their is great concern today about how long our groundwater will last, and whether or not we can make sure that it is clean and drinkaable over the long term. It is for this reason, one of the most pressing environmental issues faced by citizens the world over.

Advantage 3 Extensions

Florida BioD Internal Link Mod

Florida Straits ecosystems are on the brinkcollapse would crush the coastline and Caribbean coral reefs Hoffman 12 environment and science writer for numerous publications
(Karen, Cubas Gulf of Mexico Oil Exploration Makes Strange Bedfellows, Earth Island Journal, 3 -15-2012, http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/cubas_gulf_of_mexico_oil_exploration_makes_strange_bedfellows /)
Floridas 800 miles of coast are far from as unspoiled as Cubas, but they still contain invaluable ecological treasures. Kay ak in Florida Bay, part of the iconic Everglades National Park, and

The sea grass beds of Biscayne Bay support manatees, sea turtles, and sharks. Because Floridas ecosystems are already stressed from the pressures of six million people and their sewage, the effects of a massive oil spill, not to mention the chemical dispersant, would be disastrous , says Matthew Schwartz, executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association. The region is also home to the only mangroves in the continental United States. A study
dolphins will frolic alongside you. (pdf) by the USGS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that

there is no way of cleaning up an oil spill in

mangroves. Since mangroves take in salt water and release it through their leaves, it would suck up the oil and dispersant would and then die of suffocation. If you kill off the coastal mangroves, says Schwartz, you lose

the coastline. (The pristine Cuban waters have arguably even more to lose. Ive been diving for nearly 40 years and Ive
never seen coral reefs healthy as Ive seen here, says Guggenheim, referring to the reefs at Cubas Gardens of the Queen marine reserve. Many of them are probably nearly as healthy as they were 500 years ago when Columbus first came. Theyre a living laboratory from which we could

learn to restore coral reefs elsewhere.

conservation issues.)

Guggenheim has been working hard to get the US, Cuba and Mexico to collaborate more on marine science and

Endangered species live in the Florida Straits Boom 12 director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program
(Brian M., Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, Biodiversity Without Borders, Science & Diplomacy at AAS Center for Science Diplomacy, 8-14-2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversitywithout-borders)

Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the worlds plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.
Endangered Species:

Critical migratory species live in the Florida Straits Boom 12 director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program
(Brian M., Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, Biodiversity Without Borders, Science & Diplomacy at AAS Center for Science Diplomacy, 8-14-2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversitywithout-borders)

Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also swim between U.S. and Cuban waters.
Migratory Species:

Specifically, blue-fin tuna gets to extinction VOA 10 (Voice of America News, Bluefin Tuna Endangered by Overfishing, 12/1, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Bluefin-Tuna-Endangered-by-Overfishing-111159869.html)

Predatory fish are at the top of the ocean food chain. They help keep the balance of marine life in check. Without their eating habits, an overabundance of smaller organisms might affect the entire underwater ecosystem. Some scientists say such a shift could lead to a total collapse of the oceans. Yet so far, those in charge of regulating international
fisheries have done little to protect at least one endangered species. Scientists say this species is on the brink of extin ction and it is all our fault. "Nobody's free of blame in this game," said

when a top predator like bluefin or another big fish is depleted, that will affect the entire ecosystem," she said. "Scientists say you better get used to eating jellyfish sashimi and algae burgers if you let these large fish become depleted - because they anchor the ecosystem." Ecosystems are how living things interact
Kate Wilson. Kate Willson is an investigative journalist who recently exposed what she says is a $4-billion, black market trade in the sale of bluefin tuna. "Scientists tell us that with their environments and each other. Scientists agree they can change dramatically if a link disappears from the food chain. Government officials and members of environmental groups met in Paris in mid-November to discuss Environment Group: a Washington-based, non-profit agency. She says "The fish is in worse shape than we thought, and that's why we're calling for the meeting of this commission to suspend this fishery ... to put on the brakes and say, 'let's stop," said Sue Lieberman. "Let's stop mismanaging and start managing the right way to ensure a

fishing regulations that may affect all life on Earth. the bluefin is in jeopardy.

Sue Lieberman is Director of International Policy with the Pew

The quotas are designed to let fish recover, but quotas are more than scientists recommend, but even within quotas, there's consistent lack of enforcement, fraud, fish being traded
future for this species.'" Both Lieberman and Willson say that greed, corruption and poor management of fishing quotas brought us to this point. "
without documents to the point where it's a multibillion dollar business that will cause the depletion of an incredible species," said Lieberman. Willson says that fishing the bluefin to near-extinction followed increased Japanese demand for fresh sushi - starting in the 1970s and 80s. And - fishing practices that target the two primary regions in which blue fin spawn: the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea. "You don't need a PhD in fisheries to know that's really not very smart," said Sue Lieberman. "If you want the species to continue into the future, you don't take them when they come to breed." And that practice shines light on a bigger problem. "Ninety per cent of all large fish - it's estimated - have been depleted," said Kate Wilson. "Bluefin is just a bellwether for what's happening to what's left of the world's large fish." "We're not saying there should be no fishing, but we are saying there should be no fishing like that," said Lieberman. "This isn't single individuals with a pole and a line; this isn't recreational fishermen; this is massive, industrial scale fishing. Governments can change this; this isn't an environmental threat that we throw up our hands and there's nothing to do about it." "If countries really want to protect the remaining stocks of bluefin, they have to get serious about enforcing the rules and listening to their scientists when they set catch limits,"

Management of fish species on the high seas isn't just about making sure people have nice seafood when they go to a restaurant; it's about the very future of our planet," continued Lieberman. "And we have to get management of the oceans correct and we can't keep and governments can't keep acting like
said Wilson. "

we'll take care of that next year. We'll worry about making money in the short term, we'll listen to the fishing industry; we'll worry about the ocean & the environment later. We don't have that luxury."

Spills/Envt I/L
THA increasing drilling standards- blocks major oil spills Martin and Wood 13
Jeremy Martin, director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and professor for 17 years in Mexico and previously was director of the International Relat ions Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, U.S. Should Act Quickly on Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement With Mexico, 03 May 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12923/u -s-should-act-quickly-ontransboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-with-mexico

this agreement makes clear that both nations are keenly aware of the energy potential of the Gulf, particularly along the maritime border. But it also firmly establishes the issue of increased regulation and standards for drilling in a bilateral agreement. Since the April 2010 Macondo accident, the largest oil spill in U.S. history, the U.S. has been more concerned with drilling safety not just in the U.S. but also in neighboring countries around the Gulf such as Cuba and Mexico. This agreement formalizes interaction in terms of regulation and any responses to incidents along the maritime border.
Second,

Gas Advantage
Gas reserves are being depleted now- need new access Qineqt 12
Team of investment professionals including former hedge fund manager, trader and analyst at top tier $10 billion hedge fund. Members include investment professionals who oversaw research and trading organization of 50+, How To Play A Rebound In Natural Gas Prices, 5/27, http://seekingalpha.com/article/687671-how-to-play-a-rebound-in-natural-gasprices?source=google_news

The U.S. Energy Department released its latest estimate of gas reserves, in its Annual Energy Outlook, stating that approximately 482 trillion cubic feet can be produced from shale basins across the U.S., down 42% from 827 trillion reported in last year's outlook. This reduction in estimates is due to the new reserve estimates from the Marcellus Shale, which have been reduced by 66% from previous estimates. Natural gas reserves in the U.S. have witnessed a dramatic
increase from an estimated 163 trillion cubic feet in 1993 to the latest reported 482 trillion cubic feet in January 2012.

Increases United States energy pipelines key to sustain US gas boom Handley 13 (Meg Handley, Reporter for U.S. News & World Report, Infrastructure Upgrades Needed to Fuel Domestic Energy Boom, February 22, 2013)
In this June 27, 2012 file photo, ships bringing oil drilling equipment to Alaska, left, pass through Seattle's Elliott Bay as a Washington State Ferry passes on its way into Seattle. Ships bring oil

The lack of infrastructure in the U.S. is leading some oil companies to ship products by rail, but experts say a pipeline is the most efficient way to transport oil and gas. Much has been said of the potential for the United States to become energy independent thanks to the recent boom in domestic energy production. But according to experts, growth in the industry could be stunted without serious expansion
drilling equipment to Alaska.

in the nation's network of pipelines and other energy infrastructure . While Quinn Kiley, senior portfolio manager at FAMCO MLP,
the nation needs to bring additional pipeline capacity online to keep up with the growing domestic production and potential imports flowing from Canada and Mexico . "If you have new and growing production, you need additional infrastructure whether it's from the oil sands or the Bakken Shale," says Kiley, whose firm specializes in energy infrastructure investing. "Today you have a lot of that crude [oil] coming at a very disjointed, nonlinear path to get to where it needs to go." "There's going to be a time where supply is going to outstrip the existing
a division of Advisory Research Inc., characterizes advances in the country's infrastructure as "industry and global leading," he says

infrastructure and you're going to have to fill that in," Kiley adds. According to Darren Schuringa, the price tag for all the infrastructure
improvements needed for the United States to achieve energy independence amounts to around $300 billion over the next decade or so, no small sum considering the still-shaky ground on which the U.S. economy sits.

Still, they are key investments to make, argues Schuringa, founder of investment firm Yorkville Capital, especially if the

United States wants to free itself of its dependence on unfriendly countries for crucial energy supplies.
Proposed pipeline projects such as the Keystone XL could potentially help expedite that process, proponents argue, but construction of the pipeline has been held up for several years due to environmental concerns. Right now, the lack of infrastructure is leading some oil companies to ship product by rail . While that's solved the short-term transportation issues and given U.S. and Canadian railway companies a boost , a longer term solution is needed, experts argue, and a pipeline is the most efficient way to transport oil and gas. [RELATED: New Offshore Leases in U.S. Could Yield 1B Barrels of Oil] "Rail is part of the long-term solution but
it's always more efficient to pipe than it is to rail," Kiley says, adding that a type of asset such as the Keystone XL is crucial because it helps connect burgeoning centers of supply with existing and potentially future demand centers. "It's part of a system of pipelines that allows you and I, in different parts of the country, to get access to the same commodities, the same petrochemical products, and natural gas," Kiley says. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, several new pipeline projects already in the works are designed to better regulate the flow of oil through Cushing, Okla., which historically has been the distribution hub for both imported and West Texas oil. In just the past three years, pipeline capacity for getting crude oil to Cushing increased by about 815,000 barrels per day, the EIA reported, mostly thanks to the construction of the southern leg of TransCanada's Keystone pipeline that originates in Alberta, Canada. A slew of other projects to transport crude from Cushing to Gulf Coast refineries are being planned, too. With crude oil output expected to rise 815,000 barrels a day in 2013 to more than 7 million

experts say the expanded pipeline capacity will help ease bottlenecks in the system and even help ease some of the pain consumers have been feeling at the gas pump.
barrels a day,

Plan gaurentees access to natural gas reserves- only the THA ensures a predictable investment framework PennEnergy 13
PennEnergy Editorial Staff , April 18, 2013, Bill introduced to approve transboundary hydrocarbon agreement with Mexico, http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/04/billintroduced-to-approve-transboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-w.html Congressman Jeff Duncan (SC-03), House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04), and House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Chairman Matt Salmon (AZ-05) today introduced H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act. The bill would approve and implement the terms of the

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Agreement to govern the development of shared oil and natural gas resources between the United States and Mexico maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and provide the legal certainty needed for greater energy exploration and development for resources that extend across our maritime border with Mexico. The Agreement was signed in 2012 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Minister Castellano at the G-20 summit in Los Cabos. It lifts the current moratorium on drilling along a section of the boundary, and provides a framework for the safe management of transboundary hydrocarbons along the whole maritime border. This bill is another step towards embracing an all-of-the-above approach to energy that safely develops our natural resources to help achieve North American energy independence. This bill will help lower energy costs while creating American jobs by safely opening up more areas in the
U.S.-Mexico Gulf of Mexico for exploration and production. This is a common sense approach to work with our partners south of the border to make both countries more energy secure, while protecting our sovereignty. Were choosing to act instead of allowing the Administration to continue dragging its feet on energy development, said Rep. Jeff Duncan.

Congressional approval of this agreement will provide much-needed certainty to U.S. energy companies that are interested in leasing and developing these areas but up until now have been unable. It will create new opportunities for expanded American energy production and enable job creation and economic growth, said Natural Resources Committee Chairman
Doc Hastings.

Approval and implementation of this agreement is unquestionably in the national interests of the U.S as a step towards energy security and job creation in the United States, as well as much needed energy reform in Mexico, and Western Hemisphere energy independence. We can achieve energy independence and better energy cooperation with our neighbor and this is an important step
in that direction, said Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Chairman Matt Salmon.

Energy infrastructure and US investment are the key issues- the plan builds pipleines Wood 13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of
the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico Energy Cooperation, January 2013)

Beyond exploration and production, the pressing need for infrastructure stands out as an area with

high potential for bilateral collaboration . First, it is vital that large scale construction of gas pipelines occurs , both within Mexico and across the border. Within Mexico, the Calderon administration identified the need for multi - billion dollar investments in the creation of a truly national gas pipeline network: at the present time the majority of western portion of the country lacks access to natural gas. Secondly, as was made painfully clear to a number of private sector industrial consumers duri ng 2012, during times of short supply, the country lacks the capacity to import extra supplies of gas from the United States due to the limitations of the cross - border pipeline network. In
companies that they were unable to secure stable and sufficient supplies of gas for their manufacturing processes. The second deficit in energy infrastructure can be found in the refining sector. The much - publicized efforts of the Calderon administration,
2012 this led to complaints from announced in January 2009, to buil d a new refinery at Tula in the state of Hidalgo that was designed to process up to 300,000 barrels a day of Mexican heavy crude have thus far come to nothing. The project has been repeatedly delayed, first due to problems in securing the land, then due to bureaucratic proble ms and political wrangling. At the same time, Mexicos dependence on imported gasoline has increased in line with rising demand. Mexico therefore needs to find a solution to this issue in the near future, and one option that presents it self is the example of the Deer Park refinery complex in Texas where since 1993 Pemex and Shell have worked together in a joint venture to refine 340,000 barrels a day of crude oil. Part of the production of the refinery heads

Lastly, Mexicos petrochemical sector is in urgent need of investment . For many years now the industry has languished
back to Mexico and has become an important source of income for Pemex as well as helping to satisfy the countrys need for r efined products.

due to a lack of funds and a lack of direction from the government. Despite encouraging signs of new
investment interest in recent months, the major Mexican petrochemicals project of the last few years, Ethylene XXI, has suffered repeated delays . When completed in 2015, the project will be a private petrochemical complex for the production of polyethylene, producing up to one million tons of polyethylene, and replace up to $2 billion worth of imports resulting in the creation of thousands of jobs. But the prospect of huge supplies of cheap gas from Mexico and the U.S. shale gas industry offers the tantalizing prospect of turning Mexico into a production and export base for these products, and there will be a major opportunity for joint ventures with foreign firms. The prospect of huge supplies of cheap gas from Mexico and the U.S. shale gas industry offers the tantalizing prospect of turning Mexico into a petrochemical production and export platform.

Iran Mod
US gas supply curbs Iranian gas leverage contributes to international cooperation to prevent a nuclear Iran Medlock et al. 11 - Dr. Kenneth B. Medlock, Ph.D. in economics, fellow in Energy and Resource Economics at the Baker Institute, and former advisor to the U.S.
Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, AND*** Amy Myers Jaffe, graduate from Princeton University, fellow of Energy Studies and director of the Energy Forum at the Baker Institute, and associate director of the Rice Energy Program, AND*** Dr. Peter R. Hartley, Ph.D in economics at Rice University, July 2011, "Shale Gas and U.S. National Security, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-DOEShaleGas-07192011.pdf At the present time, economic sanctions against Tehran have been inhibiting natural gas export project development in Iran. This includes both its previously planned South Pars LNG export projects and a proposed pipeline to Pakistan and India. With no signs of conflict resolution between Iran and the West in sight, it is assumed that the development of Iranian

Greater shale gas production in the United States, and eventually Europe, will also make it more difficult for Iran to profit from exporting natural gas. Since Iran is currently hampered by Western sanctions against investment in its energy sector , by the time it can get its natural gas ready for export, the marketing window to Europe will likely be closed by the availability of shale gas. This reality may give the United States and its allies more leverage over Iran for a longer period of time, helping to shape outcomes in the Middle East more positive for U.S. and allied interests. Iran is more likely to become a much larger exporter in the case in which no new shale is developed (Scenario Two), primarily because of greater LNG demand from the United States. In the Reference Case, Iran only emerges as an LNG exporter in the late 2020s and its market position is more limited. However, in the constrained shale case (Scenario Two), Iranian LNG exports grow more quickly and, by 2040, they are about 75 percent higher than in the Reference Case. Thus, shale gas plays an instrumental role in delaying the opening for Iran to sell its natural gas, thwarting its ability in the near term to use natural gas exports as a means to develop bilateral relations with major gas consuming countries and limiting its opportunity to use energy diplomacy to strengthen its regional position29 or buttress its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Although there are many complex factors that influence Irans political leverage globally, the circumstance of lower requirements for Iranian natural gas could make it easier for the United States to achieve buy-in for continued economic sanctions against Iran. Lower interest in Iranian gas reduces the chances that Iran can use its energy resources to drive a wedge in the international coalition against it. By delaying the need for Iranian gas by over a decade, the United States buys time to find a better solution to the Iranian nuclear problem and leaves open the possibility that political change will take place in Iran before its influence as a major global natural gas supplier grows. In addition, the long delay in the commerciality of Iranian gas means that Tehran will have trouble getting Asian pipelines to India or Pakistan off the ground with mutually acceptable terms, thereby reducingfor at least the time beinga potential source of tension between the United States and India.30
export projects could not begin until 2020 at the earliest.

Emboldened Iran miscalculatesnuclear war Ben-Meir 7

(Alon professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs, Ending iranian defiance, United Press International, p. lexis) That Iran stands today able to challenge or even defy the United States in every sphere of American influence in the Middle East attests to the dismal failure of the Bush

Feeling emboldened and unrestrained, Tehran may, however, miscalculate the consequences of its own actions, which could precipitate a catastrophic regional war.
administration's policy toward it during the last six years. The Bush administration has less than a year to rein in Iran's reckless behavior if it hopes to prevent such an ominous outcome and achieve, at least, a modicum of regional stability. By all assessments, Iran has reaped the greatest benefits from the Iraq war. The war's consequences and the American preoccupation with it have provided Iran with an historic opportunity to establish Shiite dominance in the region while aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapon program to deter any challenge to its strategy. Tehran is fully cognizant that the successful pursuit of its regional hegemony has now become intertwined with the clout that a nuclear program bestows. Therefore, it is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions at this juncture, unless it concludes that the price will be too high to bear. That is, whereas before the Iraq war Washington could deal with Iran's nuclear program by itself, now the Bush administration must also disabuse Iran of the belief that it can achieve its regional objectives with impunity. Thus, while the administration attempts to stem the SunniShiite violence in Iraq to prevent it from engulfing other states in the region, Washington must also take a clear stand in Lebanon. Under no circumstances should Iranian-backed Hezbollah be allowed to topple the secular Lebanese government. If this were to occur, it would trigger not only a devastating civil war in Lebanon but a wider Sunni-Shiite bloody conflict. The Arab Sunni states, especially, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, are terrified of this possible outcome. For them Lebanon may well provide the litmus test of the administration's resolve to inhibit Tehran's adventurism but they must be prepared to directly support U.S. efforts. In this regard, the Bush administration must wean Syria from Iran. This move is of paramount importance because not only could Syria end its political and logistical support for Hezbollah, but it could return Syria, which is predominantly Sunni, to the Arab-Sunni fold. President Bush must realize that Damascus' strategic interests are not compatible with Tehran's and the Assad regime knows only too well its future political stability and economic prosperity depends on peace with Israel and normal relations with the United States. President Bashar Assad may talk tough and embrace militancy as a policy tool; he is, however, the same president who called, more than once, for unconditional resumption of peace negotiation with Israel and was rebuffed. The stakes for the United States and its allies in the region are too high to preclude testing Syria's real intentions which can be ascertained only through direct talks. It is high time for the administration to reassess its policy toward Syria and begin by abandoning its schemes of regime change in Damascus. Syria simply matters; the administration must end its efforts to marginalize a country that can play such a pivotal role in changing the political dynamic for the better throughout the region. Although ideally direct negotiations between the United States and Iran should be the first resort to resolve the nuclear issue, as long as Tehran does not feel seriously threatened, it seems unlikely that the clergy will at this stage end the nuclear program. In possession of nuclear weapons Iran will intimidate the larger Sunni Arab states in the region, bully smaller states into submission, threaten Israel's very existence, use oil as a political

if unchecked, Iran could plunge the Middle East into a deliberate or inadvertent nuclear conflagration. If we take the administration at its word that it would not tolerate a nuclear
weapon to blackmail the West and instigate regional proliferation of nuclear weapons' programs. In short, Iran and considering these regional implications, Washington is left with no choice but to warn Iran of the severe consequences of not halting its nuclear program.

Navy Mod
Low prices are key to the steel industry IHS 11
(IHS Global Insight - leading economic analysis and forecasting firm, December 2011, "The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States," anga.us/media/235626/shale-gas-economic-impact-dec-2011.pdf)

Energy from electricity or natural gas makes up a higher proportion of the value of iron ore processed from taconite in the Great Lakes region. Given that the price for iron ore is essentially a global price, domestic producers of iron ore pellets are benefitting from higher margins due to lower electricity and natural gas prices. With these incrementally higher margins, domestic iron ore pellet production is likely higher than it would otherwise be. The steel industry is expected to be reactivated with the improvement of auto manufacturing and an increase in construction activity. Moreover , the development of shale gas has given a considerable boost to the steel industry by increasing the demand for steel pipes . Used for drilling, production, transportation, and distribution, steel pipes are essential to the natural gas industry, and the large infrastructure investments already announced could have quite a significant impact on the steel industry.

Thats key to aircraft carriers and the navy Gibson 11

Thomas J. Gibson received his law degree from Georgetown University where he graduated magna cum laude. He holds a Master of Marine Affairs degree from the University of Rhode Island and a B.S. in Naval Architecture from the United States Naval Academy. Gibson served as Senior Vice President of Advocacy for the American Chemistry Council. Previously, Gibson served as the Senior Vice President, Government Affairs for the Portland Cement Association. Prior to joining PCA in 2004, Gibson served as Chief of Staff for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011, "Profile of the American Iron and Steel Institute 2010-2011"www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/About AISI/Profile Brochure F-singles_CX.pdf

Military uses for steel are extensive. Thousands of skilled men and women of the American steel industry work to produce high-quality, cost-competitive products that are used by the military in various applications ranging from aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines to Patriot and Stinger missiles, armor plate for tanks and field artillery pieces, as well as every major military aircraft in production today. Some examples of steel use in defense applications are: The USS New York
was built with 24 tons of scrap steel reclaimed and recycled from the World Trade Center. The USS George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier named after the 41st President, contains

All segments of the domestic steel industry contribute directly or indirectly to the defense industrial base. Whether it is missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, helicopters, Humvees or munitions, American-made steels and specialty metals are crucial components of U.S. military strength. Steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval fleet. The control cables on virtually all military aircraft, including fighter jets and military transport planes, are produced from steel wire rope. In addition, land-based vehicles such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank and
47,000 tons of structural steel and serves as home to 6,000 Navy personnel. Steel is a strategic material needed to strengthen existing U.S. infrastructure and installations. mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles use significant amounts of steel.

Carriers prevent rogue generals from using Pakistani nuclear weapons Gordon et al. 6
John Gordon, Senior Policy Analyst At RAND Corporation, Ph.D. in public policy, George Mason University; M.A. in international relations, St. Mary's University; M.B.A., Marymount University; B.A. in history, The Citadel, May 9th, 2006, John Gordon IV, Peter A. Wilson, John Birkler, Steven Boraz, Gordon T. Lee, Leveraging Americas Aircr aft Carrier Capabilities, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf

a radical group within the Pakistani military attempts to overthrow the government in Islamabad. Although the coup attempt fails, the rebels seize one or more nuclear-weapons storage sites and a number of missile launchers. The Pakistani government asks the United States for assistance in the form of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), precision
This vignette examined the possibility that strike, and Special Operations Forces liaison personnel to assist in its attempts to quickly retake the storage facilities and prevent the launch or removal of nuclear weapons.

Strike and reconnaissance aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from carriers operating in the Indian Ocean are a key U.S. capability that can assist the Pakistanis. The vignette highlights the need for the United States to quickly establish liaison with both Pakistani and Indian authorities. In this situation,
U.S. forces would provide detailed, real-time, persistent, all-weather ISR support to Pakistani forces, as well as precision-strike assets that the Pakistani military would lack. It should be pointed out that support by current and projected long-endurance UAVs or manned ISR aircraft cannot be provided unless those systems operate below any cloud layers, which thus makes them subject to attack by man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and other air defenses.

Pakistan use of nuclear weapons escalates into East Asian nuclear holocaust Caldicott 2
Helen Caldicott, Founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility, THE NEW NUCLEAR DANGER, 2002, p. xii.

The use of Pakistani nuclear weapons could trigger a chain reaction. Nuclear-armed India, an ancient enemy, could respond in kind. China, India's hated foe, could react if India used her nuclear weapons, triggering a nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent. If any of either Russia or America's 2, 250 strategic weapons on hair-trigger alert were launched either accidentally or purposefully in response, nuclear winter would ensue, meaning the end of most life on earth.

Naval power independently solves great power war Conway et al 7

James T., General, U.S. Marine Corps, Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, October, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf

No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nations comparative seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of
maritime forcesour lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent

We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces. Win our Nations wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power projection enable extended campaigns ashore.
options.

Offcase Answers

Politics Answers

2AC/1AR Push Now

Obama already pushing THA and Congress driving process, plus its popular and wont incite backlash Martin and Wood 13
Jeremy Martin, director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and professor for 17 years in Mexico and previously was director of the International Relat ions Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, U.S. Should Act Quickly on Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement With Mexico, 03 May 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12923/u-s-should-act-quickly-ontransboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-with-mexico

In the United States, meanwhile, progress stalled for more than a year. But just in time for yesterdays bilateral meeting, the agreement is again under discussion as legislators revive the dormant ratification process, which is good news for those eager to see its approval in the U.S. Indeed, according to the White House, Obama spoke in positive terms yesterday about the recent progress made on the agreement: Both the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs and the House Committee on Natural Resources recently held hearings focused on the challenges and opportunities that approval of the accord would present for the United States. On April 18, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that would make way for the approval and implementation of the terms of the agreement. These are all positive steps, and their progress will be monitored closely by U.S. and international observers, especially Mexico. But it bears underscoring that further delay in U.S. adoption of the agreement makes little sense. The agreement is not an overly polarizing issue domestically: in

fact, quite the opposite . Several lawmakers have described it as a win-win for both Mexico and the U.S.

Momentum high for passage- takes out politics links, plus THA is popular- any delay cracks US-Mexican relations on energy Martin and Wood 13
Jeremy Martin, director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and professor for 17 years in Mexico and previously was director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico, U.S. Should Act Quickly on Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement With Mexico, 03 May 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12923/u-s-should-act-quickly-ontransboundary-hydrocarbon-agreement-with-mexico

the agreement is relevant and worthy of attention in both the U.S. and Mexico because of the important role of Mexican oil in the U.S. energy security equation , and the importance of the U.S. market for Mexican oil exports and revenue. During her remarks at the signing ceremony, Clinton called the agreement part of a commitment to improve energy security for both countries and to ensure safe, efficient, responsible exploration of the oil and gas reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. This last point has echoed throughout the congressional hearings on the topic, while members of Congress from both parties and from across the country have focused on the importance of collaboration with our neighbors, shared technology and the opportunity to boost energy security on both sides of the border. The presidents visit to Mexico and the accompanying surge in interest in the agreement provide the necessary momentum to facilitate passage of the bill and take the critical first steps toward implementation. Waiting any longer to do so merely delays the many benefits the agreement has to offer and sends the wrong signal about the need for the U.S. and Mexico to work together in the Gulf of Mexico, and on energy issues more generally.
Finally,

2AC Oil Lobbies Turn

Oil and gas lobbies love the plan Kollipara 12 (Puneet, U.S., Mexico, reach accord on drilling below maritime border, Fuel Fix, 2-202012, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/20/449517/)
The agreement announced today also would lift a moratorium on waters in a buffer area known as the Western Gap that both nations put off limits for 10 years in a 2000 treaty. That moratorium was extended through 2014 after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It stems from a May 2010 commitment between U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Caldern. They said it would include safety insight from the 2010 spill, which started a month earlier. It wouldnt take force until both nations legislatures, the Sen ate in the case of the U.S., sign off. We ought to be able to
gather necessary political forces to get the ratification that is needed, Salazar said Mexico still faces the problem of how to get at the deepwater oil on its side of the Gulf border. Pemex lacks much of the technology needed for ultra-deep exploration and production. Also Mexicos constitution prohibits foreign companies from actually owning any of the oil t hey produce in the nations waters and on its lands, making many less eager to get involved. With this we all win, and we guarantee that our oil will be used to the benefit of Mexicans, Caldern said Monday. Tommy Beaudreau, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said the accord would respect Mexicos constitution. If Pemex and U.S. countries cant agree on how to jointly develop a boundary-straddling resource, another process would determine how each side could develop its share, Salazar said. Sean Shafer, analyst with Sugar Land-based Quest Offshore Resources, said companies will need a few years to get permits and more leases and start drilling. But he said the area holds vast promise and some infrastructure is already in the vicinity, as evidenced by Shells already-producing Perdido hub project nearby. The waters, concentrated in the western Gulf, are more oil-heavy than eastern Gulf waters, Shafer said. Right now natural gas prices are very low, so operators are more interested in the oilier stuff, Shafer said.

The oil-and-gas industry hailed the announcement, in a

rare moment of praise for the Obama administration, while using the occasion to urge the Interior Department to open new waters off the East
industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute argue his policies have hurt development offshore and on federal lands, instead crediting new technologies and rising production on state and private lands. The administrations announcement with Mexico is a positive step that demons trates the value of opening new areas to responsible and safe domestic offshore development, Reid Porter, API spokesman, said in an email. This
Coast. Although Obama has touted that U.S. oil production is at an eight-year high, shared announcement also shows the need for U.S. energy policy that emphasizes more domestic development such as areas offshore Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina to maximize U.S. jobs and investment to energy development here at home. The waters belonging to the U.S. make up an area larger than the state of Delaware, Salazar said, and contain up t o 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Turns the DA Froomkin 11 (Dan, How the Oil Lobby Greases Washingtons Wheels, Huffington Post, 4-6-2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html)
Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles -- it's about making sure that they never happen at all. The oil and gas industry has that kind of clout. Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years for most everyone else, the oil and gas industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated. Meanwhile, both parties are hunt ing feverishly for
ways to reduce the deficit. But when President Obama called on Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil earlier this year, the response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even Obama's closest congressional allies don't think the presidents proposal has a shot. "I would be surprised if it got a great deal of traction," Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the National Press Club a few days after Obama first announced his plan. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a House bill that closely resembles Obama's proposal, nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing. "It will be a challenge to get anything through the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any circumstance," he told The Huffington Post. The list goes on: "It's not on my radar," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, a lobbying firm with

Indeed, the oil and gas industry's stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats controlled both houses, repeal of the subsidies didn't stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them in his previous two budgets as well, but the Senate -- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than enough votes to block any legislation -- never even took a stab at it.
several oil and gas industry clients. "It's old news and it's never going to happen in this Congress. It couldn't even happen in the last Congress."

2AC No Controversy
No link plans not controversial Gardner 12 (Lauren, Senators Promise Balanced Energy Bill, Roll Call, 11-15-2012, http://www.rollcall.com/news/senators_promise_balanced_energy_bill-219237-1.html)
Incoming Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden held out an olive branch Thursday to feuding colleagues, signaling he is open to a deal on offshore drilling revenue sharing that could end 16 months of stalemate on the committee. In a sharp break with the current chairman, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the Oregon Democrat said at a CQ Roll Call forum that an agreement
to steer some of the royalties from offshore energy production to coastal states could be an element of transformative ener gy legislation in the next Congress that balances job creation with environmental protection. Wyden said

he and the panels ranking Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are committed to checking

the gridlock at the door so they can work to modernize domestic energy policy. The last major update to the countrys energy
Addressing those issues out of the gate seem to me ideal opportunities for bringing Democrats and Republicans together, he said.
laws was in 2007, well before the shale gas revolution that unlocked a vast amount of previously unrecoverable domestic resou rces.

2AC Bipart Link Turn

Plan builds PC its bipartisan Brown and Meacham 12 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senior Staff Members (Neil and Carl, OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE, 12-21-2012)
There is reason to believe that the TBA can receive broad bipartisan backing in Congress . It would benefit bilateral relations, promote domestic oil production, and improve environmental protections in the Gulf of Mexico. Following normal Congressional procedure to ensure the agreement is vetted and implementing legislation is reasoned will benefit each of those goals. External proponents of the TBA will need to increase communication and advocacy to improve the likelihood of Congressional leaders acting on the agreement in the 113th U.S. Congress.

2AC Winners Win

Winners win empirically proven, its true for energy, and compromises dont work Gergen 1/19 CNN Senior Political Analyst (David, Obama 2.0: Smarter but wiser?, CNN, 1-19-2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html)
Obama appears smarter, tougher and bolder than ever before. But whether he is also wiser remains It is clear that he is consciously changing his leadership style heading into the next four years. Weeks before the November elections, his top advisers were signaling that he intended to be a different kind of president in his second term. "Just watch," they said to me, in effect, "he will win re-election decisively and then he will throw down the gauntlet to the
On the eve of his second inaugural, President a key question for his new term.

Republicans , insisting they raise taxes on the wealthy. Right on the edge of the fiscal cliff, he thinks Republicans will cave." What's your Plan B, I asked. "We don't need a Plan B,"
After the president hangs tough -- no more Mr. Nice Guy -- the other side will buckle ." Sure enough, Republicans caved on taxes. Encouraged, Obama has since made clear he won't compromise with Republicans on the debt ceiling, either. Obama 2.0 stepped up this past week on yet another issue: gun control. No president in two decades has been as forceful or sweeping in challenging the nation's gun culture. Once again, he portrayed the right as the enemy of progress and showed no interest in negotiating a package up front . In his coming State of the Union address, and perhaps in his inaugural, the president will begin a
they answered. " hard push for a comprehensive reform of our tattered immigration system. Leading GOP leaders on the issue -- Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, for example -- would prefer a piecemeal approach that is bipartisan. undocumented residents -After losing out on getting Susan Rice as his next secretary of state, Obama has also shown a tougher side on personnel appointments. Rice went down after Democratic as well as Republican senators indicated a preference for Sen. John Kerry. But when Republicans also tried to kill the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, Obama was unyielding -- an "in-your-face appointment," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, called it, echoing sentiments held by some of his colleagues. Republicans would have preferred someone other than Jack Lew at Treasury, but Obama brushed them off.

Obama wants to go for broke in a single package, and on a central issue -- providing a clear path to citizenship for he is uncompromising.

Hagel and Lew -- both substantial men -- will be confirmed, absent an unexpected bombshell, and Obama will rack up two more victories over Republicans.
Strikingly, Obama has also been deft in the ways he has drawn upon Vice President Joe Biden. During much of the campaign, Biden appeared to be kept under wraps. But in the transition, he has been invaluable to Obama in negotiating a deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the fiscal cliff and in pulling together the gun package. Biden was also at his most eloquent at the ceremony announcing the gun measures. All of this has added up for Obama to one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich dividends: A CNN poll this past week pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above the doldrums he was in for much of the past two years.

Many of his long-time supporters are

rallying behind him . As the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote, Obama is in the
strongest position since early in his first year. Smarter, tougher, bolder -- his new style is paying off

politically . But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -- and for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet, there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.
to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy , the president and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections. But a growing number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they
Ultimately, did in the first term. Over the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and had to move away from extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a ruinous GOP stance. One senses that the hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now slipping away. While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance,

conservatives increasingly

believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them . They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up . News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning : At their retreat, House Republicans Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.
learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%. Conceivably,

2AC PC Wrong
Pol cap is a myth alternative explanations exist for any scenario where pol cap worked Moraes 1/8 freelance writer in politics (Frank, PhD in Atmospheric Physics, writer of political commentary and novels, Political capital is a myth, Tufts Roundtable Commons, 1-18-2013, http://www.trcommons.org/2013/01/political-capital-is-a-myth/)
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever. He cant understand this nomination given that (1) Hagel will be a hard sell and

Why waste political capital picking a fight that isnt essential to any policy goals? This brought to mind something that has been on my mind for a while, as in posts like Bipartisan Consensus Can Bite Me. Im afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of God, Political Capital is a myth . I think it is just an idea that Villagers find comforting. It is a neat narrative in which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just bullshit. Lets go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said, I earned capital in the political campaign and I intend to spend it . What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually said that political capital is some kind of mandate from th e masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the poor and kill the gays. But he used his political capital to privatize Social Security . One could say that this proves the point, but does anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have succeeded any better? The truth was that Bushs political capital didnt
(2) Obama doesnt much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting speculation, but I wouldnt have even thought about it had he not written,

exist . Lets look at more recent events: the Fiscal Cliff. Obama didnt win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won it because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president . Tax rates were going up. Boehner took the Fiscal Cliff deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He didnt fold because of some magic political capital that Obama could wave over him. There is no doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians act. Even politicians in small safe districts have to worry that larger political trends may end up making them look stupid , out of touch, or just cruel. But beyond that, they really dont care . If they did, then everyone in the House would now be a Democrat: after all, Obama won a mandate and the associated political capital. But they dont, because presidential elections have consequences for whos in the White House. They dont have much consequence for the representative from the Third District of California.

Other DA Answers

Spills DA Answers
Deepwater oil accident inevitable in the Gulf of Mexico Shields 12 independent energy consultant (David, Q&A: Is Mexico Prepared for Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf?, Inter-American Dialogues Latin American Energy Advisor, 2/20/2012, http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/20477/Is%20Mexico%20Prepared%20f or%20Deepwater%20Drilling%20in%20the%20Gulf.pdf?sequence=1)
They say that if a country does not defend its borders, then others will not respect those borders. That is probably how we should understand Pemex's decision to drill the Maximino-1 well in 3,000 meters of water in the Perdido Fold Belt, right next to the shared maritime boundary with the United States. It is a decision that does not make sense in terms of competitiveness or production goals. It is about defending the final frontier of national sovereignty and sticking the Mexican flag on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico to advise U.S. companies that they have no right to drill for oil in the ultradeep waters on the Mexican side. The recently signed deepwater agreement obliges both countries to work together and share the spoils of the development of transboundary reservoirs, if they actually exist. For now, Pemex, in line with constitutional restrictions, is going alone on the Mexican side. Safety is a major concern as Pemex and its contractors have no experience in such harsh environments. In fact, Pemex has never produced oil commercially anywhere in deep water. It does not have an insurance policy for worstcase scenarios nor does it have emergency measures in place to deal with a major spill. It does not fully abide by existing Mexican regulation of its deepwater activity, which cannot be enforced. On the U.S. side, prohibition of ultradeepwater drilling, enacted after the Deepwater Horizon spill, has come and gone. The

next disaster is just waiting to happen.

Methane/Drilling DA Answers
ANY fossil fuel production or consumption releases methane- the link to the aff is tiny WYI.eu 13
Whats Your Impact.eu, 2013, WHAT ARE THE MAIN SOURCES OF METHANE EMISSIONS? http://www.whatsyourimpact.eu.org/methane-sources.php Fossil Fuel Mining/Distribution:

Methane is always found wherever there are fossil fuels. It is released whenever fossil fuels are extracted from the earth whether it isnatural gas (which is mostly methane anyway), coal or oil. Also during any type of handling, transportation (through pipeline or truck delivery) or refinement there are additional methane emissions created for every type of fossil fuel. By simply buying/using any fossil fuel whether it is coal, natural gas or petroleum you contribute to the most important source of methane emissions worldwide.

Livestock and landfill emissions inevitable and outweigh WYI.eu 13

Whats Your Impact.eu, 2013, WHAT ARE THE MAIN SOURCES OF METHANE EMISSIONS? http://www.whatsyourimpact.eu.org/methane-sources.php Livestock:

Farm animals create methane emissions in 2 ways. Animals like cows, sheep and goats are examples of ruminant animals and during their normal digestion process they create large amounts of methane. What is called enteric fermentation occurs in the stomach of these animals and
produces methane as a by-product.

The second way that livestock create methane emissions is from theirmanure. When cows, pigs and chickens are raised in an industrial
way, there are obviously large quantities of manure that get produced by these animals everyday so farms have to have a way to manage and treat all of this manure. Livestock manure management is done by using large waste treatment systems and holding tanks. In these tanks the manure decomposes but because the tanks are closed there is no oxygen.

When organic material decomposes anaerobically(without oxygen) great quantities of methane are produced.
It's not the animals themselves that are at fault, it's the way and the amount of livestock that is raised that should be evaluated. The meat that we eat everyday contributes significantly to total methane emissions because of these 2 reasons. Landfills:

landfills and open garbage dumps are full of organic matter from our garbage (things like food scraps, newspapers, Everytime new garbage comes in it is pilled over the old garbage that was already there . The organic matter in our garbage gets trapped in conditions where there is no oxygen (anaerobic) and because of this large amounts of methane is created.
As with manure, cut grass and leaves).

Rice is the biggest source of methane emissions Reay No Date

Dave Reay, PhD in Marine Biology, NERC research fellow for GHG studies, Methane Sources - Rice Paddies, No Date

At between 50 and 100 million tonnes of methane a year, rice agriculture is a big source of atmospheric methane, possibly the biggest of man-made methane sources. The warm, waterlogged soil of rice paddies provides ideal conditions for methanogenesis, and though some of the methane produced is usually oxidized by methanotrophs in the shallow overlying water, the vast majority is
released into the atmosphere. Rice is grown very widely and rates of methane emission may vary greatly between different areas. Differences in average temperature, water depth and the length of time that the rice paddy soil is waterlogged can all result in big regional variations. However, in recent year.

methane emission from worldwide rice agriculture has been well studied years and fairly reliable estimates of global emissions now exist. Emissions from rice paddies can vary hugely during the course of a

Effect of fugitive emissions small- increased natural gas solves warming in the long term Chameides, Dean of Duke Universitys Nicholas School of the Environment, 12
(Bill, Natural Gas: A Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future or Not?, 7-20-12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/-natural-gas-a-bridge-to_b_1690857.html, accessed 9-20-12) PM Since the paper's publication, other investigators and studies have weighed in on the matter, including RealClimate's Gavin Smith; the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi;Ramn

a definitive conclusion has been elusive because the actual magnitude of these fugitive emissions remains very poorly defined.
Alvarez of Environmental Defense Fund and co-authors; and another Cornell scientist, Lawrence Cathles. But Chapter 3. Methane Leakage Exonerated? The upshot of the debate about the importance of fugitive emissions has led to a general consensus that we need a very thorough investigation into the leakage issue. In short we need to first pin down the magnitude of fugitive emissions and then cut them down by locking the methane up. (See here and here.)

Cathles argues in a new paper published last week in the journalGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems that fugitive emissions may not be that sinister after all. Or at least not if natural gas is indeed used as a bridge fuel that is first phased in as coal and some oil are phased out and then eventually is itself phased out
But now Cornell's in favor of carbon-free energy sources.

Assuming periods of 50, 100, and 200 years to make the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables, Cathles's model calculations indicate that the long-term (i.e., multiple decades to century timescales) climate impacts of the

fugitive methane emissions are relatively small . The reason is that methane has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere -- about 12 years. And so once natural gas is no longer used as a fuel, the methane in the atmosphere from fugitive emissions will be removed from the atmosphere and so the warming from those emissions will be essentially gone. CO2 on the other hand is long-lived and so, Cathles argues, over the long term using natural gas instead of coal or oil is
preferable because less CO2 will have been emitted in that scenario . Well, it's preferable provided we use natural gas as a transition fuel that
eventually gives way to even cleaner renewables and/or nuclear. And then there's the issue of the short-term climate effects from fugitive emissions.

Drilling is safe Bradley, President and CEO, Institute for Energy Research, 3/25/2013
Robert, Oil and Gas Isn't Just One Of The Richest Industries, It's Also One Of The Safest, http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2013/03/25/oil-gas-isnt-just-one-of-the-richest-industriesits-also-one-of-the-safest/

You wouldnt know it from the major media coverage, but the American oil and natural gas industry is one of the safest sectors in operation. These businesses have established smart protocols to minimize the dangers to their personnel and prevent catastrophe. Of course, there are exceptions to the industrys sterling track record. But theyre exceedingly rare and not at all indicative of the way the average energy project operates.
Visitors to an offshore drilling rig or production platform receive safety training and are outfitted with steel-toed boots, safety goggles, gloves, hearing protection, and a helmet. Once on the rig, their conduct is carefully monitored. Adherence to safe practices is mandatory, greatly reducing risk to life, property, and the environment.

Accidents do happen. Three incidents Santa Barbara (1969), Exxon Valdez (1989), and the Deepwater Horizon (2010) illustrate the oil and natural gas business is not riskfree. Unanticipated, tragic incidents have resulted in very high private and public costs

. But the industry has responded to these failures by

developing new technologies and improved safety systems .

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a most reluctant friend of oil and gas, said as much at a recent Gulf of Mexico le ase sale: People of industry stood up and said, We are going to get it right, and we are getting it right. The industry does not have to hang its head. In 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 2.3 incidents of injury and illness per 100 oil and gas workers. Thats compared with 3.5 incidents per 100 for the entire private sector. The U.S. offshore industry experienced an even lower rate of 0.8 incidents per 100 full-time workers. In oil refining, the injury and illness rate was 1.1 per 100 full-time workers versus 4.4 per 100 for the U.S. manufacturing sector overall. A comparison of U.S. pipeline transportation data versus the U.S. transportation and warehousing sector shows that precisely zero pipeline workers experienced injuries and illnesses in 2011. This accomplishment is all the more impressive given that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of gallons of oil traverse United States pipelines every year Meanwhile, the rest of the transportation sector clocked in a rate of 5.0 safety incidents per 100 full-time employees.

Federal data also show improvements in spill rates. A 2012 Interior Department report examined spill records from 1996 through 2010 (the year of the Deepwater Horizon incident). Researchers found that offshore spill frequency was actually relatively low despite the

fact that Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil production had risen sharply over that time .
Spills from oil tankers continued their precipitous decline due in part to the double-hull requirement instituted after the Valdez spill.

Unfortunately, environmental groups refuse to acknowledge the oil and gas industrys excellent safety and environmental record. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently opined: We need stronger safeguards and increased oversight to reduce
the risk of accidents. She went on to argue that we need to prioritize safer forms of energy that dont threaten the lives of our workers and foul our waters. Until then, well remain stu ck on this collision course with disaster.

Beinecke is exaggerating and forgetting . The density, scalability, and portability of oil, gas, and coal make them affordable, reliable, and flexible for
average consumers. Wind turbines and solar panels, contrarily, are expensive, intermittent, and inflexibleand have their own set of health and safety issues.

Most recent studies prove fracking doesnt have high fugitive emissionsHowarth and others dont consider flaring and green completion Pardo and Barnes 12/4
James A. Pardo and Brandon H. Barnes, McDermott Will & Emery, New research finds shale natural gas production emits less fugitive methane that previously reported, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dc62f2d5-b65b-472c-a6f9-648d0a5d7a7d Shale natural gas production emits significantly less fugitive methane than previously thought, concluded researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in a November 26, 2012, study published in Environmental Research Letters. According to the researchers, "it is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall [greenhouse gas] intensity of natural gas production." Methane has been singled out as one of the most powerful greenhouse gases (GHG) because of its "global warming potential" - or the relative heat trapped in the atmosphere by a gas - which is 20 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. Fugitive methane emissions are losses of methane gas that may occur during flowback (the return of fluids), during drill-out following fracturing, and during well-venting to alleviate well-head pressure. Fugitive emissions can also occur as a result of equipment leaks, transportation or storage losses, and processing losses, but in much smaller quantities. An earlier study by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, which garnered much media attention, reported that shale gas production had a lifetime carbon footprint greater than coal production, mainly as a result of fugitive methane emissions that Howarth had estimated to be as great as 4,638 Mg per well. In contrast, the MIT study determined that actual fugitive methane emissions average approximately 50 Mg per well after taking into account flaring and green completions technology, both of which are widely used by industry and required under most state regulatory regimes (as well as under new Environmental Protection Agency rules). The MIT researchers evaluated actual production data from approximately 4,000 horizontal shale natural gas wells, and found a potential for about 228 Mg of fugitive methane emissions per well. The researchers cautioned that estimates about fugitive methane emissions had been "inappropriately used in analyses of the GHG impact of shale gas" insofar as actual emissions are reduced by an average of 178 Mg per well by flaring and green completion technology. Hydraulic fracturing stakeholders need to understand the body of publicly available science, as a growing body of research will inform how EPA and other state and federal regulatory agencies will regulate the industry.

Green completion solves methane emissions McDonnell 12

Tim, Will Obama's New Rules Make Fracking Better for the Planet?, Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/04/fracking-rule-epa-obama-air-pollution

green completion" equipment, which catches toxic gases like benzene on its way out of the earth and into the atmosphere. But the rule does not directly limit emissions of greenhouse gases. David Doniger of the Natural
By 2015, all fracked wells will be required to implement " Resources Defense Council said the EPA's move to exclude greenhouse gases from the ruling was likely political: "If you're controlling toxic air pollutants, right-wing ideologues are back on their heels, but when the EPA goes after climate change, all the right-wing nuts come out of the woodwork." Still, Doniger stressed that while the rule could have gone further,

the mandated equipment would indirectly take a big bite out of methane emissions.

Green completion lowers emissions by almost 2 million tons a year Weeks 12 - Senior Counsel, Clean Air Task Force
Ann, New Rules for Gas: Good Policy, Delayed, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/regulating-natural-gas-whats-t.php

the standards include the first federal air pollution regulations for hydraulically fractured (fracked) natural gas wells. That, plus new regulation of other equipment in this industry, represents significant progress in combating air pollution, especially as forecasts project increasing reliance on natural gas for generating electricity. Without these rules, air pollution from new gas wells and equipment would continue to increase; now the industry must begin to clean up nationwide. Once the rule finally goes into full effect, VOC emissions, a precursor of ground-level smog, will be reduced by hundreds of
Notably, thousands of tons per year; toxic chemicals like benzene will be reduced by 12,000 20,000 tons per year. And, as a co-benefit of the pollution control measures needed to achieve the new standards, eventually

emissions of methane will be reduced by 1.0 1.7 million tons a year . This rule therefore

will provide significant air quality and climate benefits.

Shale gas production does not have the greenhouse gas impact Howarth claims- his study manipulates data, ignores modern tech, and uses inappropriate measurements to exaggerate his theory Cathles et al. 12
Lawrence M. Cathles III & Larry Brown, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University; Milton Taam, Electric Software, Inc; Andrew Hunter, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Cornell Universit y; A commentary on The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea, Climatic Change (2012) 113:525535, 1/3, Springer

Natural gas is widely considered to be an environmentally cleaner fuel than coal because it does not produce detrimental by-products such as sulfur, mercury, ash and particulates and because it provides twice the energy per unit of weight with half the carbon footprint during combustion . These points are not in dispute. However, in their recent letter to Climatic Change, Howarth et al. (2011) report that their life-cycle evaluation of shale gas drilling suggests that shale gas has a larger GHG footprint than coal. They conclude that: & During the drilling, fracturing, and delivery processes, 3.67.9% of the
methane from a shale gas well ends up, unburned, in the atmosphere. They claim that this is at least 30% and perhaps more than twice the methane emissions from a conventional gas

, they state that compared with the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal, it is 20 100% greater on the 20-year horizon and is comparable over 100 years. They close with the assertion that: "The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over the coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming." We argue here that the assumptions used by Howarth et al. are inappropriate and that their data, which the authors themselves characterize as limited, do not support their conclusions. In particular, we believe Howarth et al.s arguments fail on four critical points:
well. & The greenhouse gas footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon. In fact

1. Howarth et al.s high end (7.9%) estimate of methane leakage from well drilling to gas delivery exceeds a reasonable estimate by about a factor of three and they document nothing that indicates that shale wells vent significantly more gas than conventional wells. The data they cite to support their contention that fugitive methane emissions from unconventional gas production is significantly greater than that from conventional gas production are actually estimates of gas emissions that were captured for sale. The authors implicitly assume that capture (or even flaring) is rare, and that the gas captured in the references they cite is normally vented directly into the atmosphere.
There is nothing in their sources to support this assumption. The largest leakage rate they cite (for the Haynesville Shale) assumes, in addition, that flow tests and initial production rates provide a measure of the rate of gas release during well completion, drill out and flowback. In other words they assume that initial production statistics can be extrapolated back to the gas venting rates during the earlier periods of well completion and drill out. This is incompatible with the physics of shale gas production, the safety of drilling operations, and

While their low-end estimate of total leakages from well drilling through delivery (3.6%) is consistent with the EPA (2011) methane leakage rate of ~2.2% of production, and consistent with previous estimates in peer reviewed studies, their high end estimate of 7.9% is unreasonably large and misleading. We discuss these issues at length below. 2. Even though the authors allow that technical solutions exist to substantially reduce any leakage, many of which are rapidly being or have already been adopted by industry (EPA 2007, 2009), they seem to dismiss the importance of such technical improve- ments on the GHG footprint of shale gas. While the low end estimates they provide incorporate the potential impact of technical advances in reducing emissions from the sources common to both conventional and unconventional gas, they do not include the potential impact of green technologies on reducing losses from shale gas production. The references they cite document that the
the fate of the gas that is actually indicated in their references. methane loss rate during completion of unconventional gas wells by modern techniques is, or could be, at least 10 times lower than the 1.9% they use for both their high end and low end estimates. Downplaying ongoing efforts and the opportunity to further reduce fugitive gas emissions in the natural gas industry, while at the same time citing technical improvements in the coal industry, gives a slanted assessment which minimizes the positive greenhouse potential of natural gas. Although the Howarth et al. agree "Methane emissions during the flow- back period in theory can be reduced by up to 90% through Reduced Emission Completions technologies or REC", they qualify this possibility by saying: "However, REC technologies require that pipelines to the well are in place prior to completion." This suggests that if the pipeline is not in place the methane would be vented to the atmosphere, which is misleading. If a sales pipeline is not available, the gas captured by REC technologies could be easily be (and are) flared and the GHG footprint thereby

3. Howarth et al. justify the 20-year time horizon for their GHG comparison by simply stating that we agree with Nisbet et al. (2000) that the 20-year horizon is critical, given the need to reduce global warming in coming decades. But the point Nisbet et al. make in their meeting abstract is that adoption of 20-year GWPs would substantially increase incentives for reducing methane from tropical deforestation and biomass burning. Their concern is that the 100-year timeframe would not discourage such methane emissions enough.
minimized. Everyone would agree that discouraging methane as well as CO2 emissions is desirable, but the Nisbet et al. abstract offers no support whatever for the adoption of a 20-year GWP timeframe when considering replacing CO2 emissions with CH4 emission by swapping coal for gas, and we strongly disagree that the 20 year horizon is the appropriate choice in this

As Pierrehumbert (2011) explains, Over the long term, CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, like mercury in the body of a fish, whereas methane does not. For this reason, it is the CO2 emissions, and the CO2 emissions alone, that determine the climate that humanity will need to live with. In the context of a discussion of the benefits of swapping gas for coal, a 20 year horizon hides the critical fact that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is far longer than that of methane . Any timeframe is artificial and imperfect in
context. at least some contexts, but a 100 year timeframe at least captures some of the implications of the shorter lifetime of methane in the atmosphere that are important when considering swapping gas for coal. One could argue (although Howarth et al. do not) that the 20- year horizon is critical because of concern over triggering an irreversible tipping point such as glacial meltdown. However, if substituting gas for coal reduces (or could reduce) the GHG impact on a 20-year horizon as well as on a 100-year horizon, as we argue below is the case, substitution of gas for coal minimizes the tipping point risk as well. Most workers choose the 100 year timeframe. Hayhoe et al. (2002), for example, show that in the long, 100 year, timeframe but not on the short timeframe of 20 years or so, substitution of gas for coal reduces greenhouse warming. They consider the warming effects of decreasing SO2 and black carbon emissions as coal burning is reduced as well as the warming effects of CO2 and CH4 emissions, and they calculate greenhouse impact of various substitution scenarios over the next 100 years using a coupled atmosphere-ocean energy balance climate model. Their analysis avoids the arbitrariness of GWP factors. Although there are many

4. Howarth et al. choose an end use for comparing GHG footprints that is inappropriate in the context of evaluating shale gas as a bridging fuel. Coal is used almost entirely to generate electricity, so comparison on the basis of heat content is irrelevant. Gas that is substituted for coal will of necessity be used to generate electricity since that is coals almost sole use. The appropriate comparison of gas to coal is thus in terms of electricity generation. The "bridge" is from coal-generated electricity to a low-carbon future source of electricity such as renewables or nuclear (EIA AEO 2011). Howarth et al. treat the end use of electricity almost as a footnote. They acknowledge in their electronic supplemental
considerations regarding the transition in the short term, their analysis shows the long term benefits of swapping gas for coal are completely missed by the 20 year GWP factor. material that, if the final use is considered, the ability to increase efficiency is probably greater for natural gas than for coal (Hayhoe et al. 2002), and this suggests an additional penalty for using coal over natural gas for the generation of electricity not included in our analysis. They addres s the electrical comparison in an electronic supplement table, however they do so there on the basis of a 20 year GWP and they minimize the efficiency differential between gas and coal by citing a broad range for each rather than emphasizing the likelihood that efficient gas plants will replace inefficient coal plants. Had they used a 100 year GWP and their low-end 3.6% methane leakage rate, shale gas would have about half the impact of surface coal when used to generate electricity (assuming an electricity conversion efficiency of 60% for gas and their high 37% conversion efficiency for coal). The electric industry has a large stock of old, inefficient coal-fired electric generating plants that could be considered for replacement by natural gas (Table 1 in EIA AEO 2011). The

If total (well drilling to delivery) leakage is limited to less than 2% (which may be the current situation and, in any case, seems well within the capabilities of modern technology; EPA 2007, 2009), switching from coal to natural gas would dramatically reduce the greenhouse impact of electricity generation. Minimizing this point by stressing extreme rather than likely scenarios is perhaps the most misleading aspect of the Howarth et al. analysis.
much lower construction costs associated with gas power plants (e.g. Kaplan 2008) means modern gas technology will likely replace this old coal technology as it is retired.

Natural Gas DA Answers

No impact to natural gasmarket will adapt Persily 12 (Larry Persily, Experts say U.S. exports will push global LNG prices lower, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects: Office of the Federal Coordinator, 830-2012, http://www.arcticgas.gov/2012/experts-say-us-exports-will-push-global-lng-prices-lower)
Exporting U.S. LNG will raise domestic natural gas prices little - and maybe not at all - because the global market won't take enough to make a difference. But it could help push down LNG prices in Asia and Europe. That was the conclusion of three economists who separately studied global prospects and presented their work at an Energy Information Administration workshop Aug. 23 in Washington. Kenneth Medlock, from the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, said his

models determined the world

will not need all that much U.S. LNG.

All three experts also said the LNG business is highly competitive and other players won't stand still while the U.S.

enters the market. Philip Hanser, of The Brattle Group, said LNG requires so much up-front capital that the market for U.S. exports is small and the window is already closing. Producer nations like Canada, Russia, Qatar and Nigeria will protect their market shares and "will react even before we do anything," he said. Most of the LNG delivered to Asia and Europe is priced on contract formulas connected to oil. With high prices for crude driving up LNG in those markets, natural gas buyers are already balking and insisting on contract renegotiations. Hanser said he expects U.S. exports would push the rest of the world away from oil indexing and toward market-based prices. Medlock said U.S. LNG could exert "significant downward pressure on prices," particularly in Asia, while Dale Nesbitt, senior manager at Deloitte MarketPoint, said prices will "converge" globally with lower-priced U.S. LNG in the market.

Nat gas prices terminally low nowdemand wont be able to keep up with supply Deutch 12 (John Deutch, The U.S. Natural-Gas Boom Will Transform the World, Wall Street Journal 8-14-2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303343404577514622469426012.html)
Demand for natural gas has not kept up with the phenomenal growth in supply. That's indicated by the extremely low current price and the thousands of recently developed unconventional natural gas wells that are shut-in. Unconventional natural gas production from "dry" wells (those that don't produce useful petroleum liquid products) is at a virtual standstill. This signals that some recovery in North American natural gas prices is likelyto the range of $4 per thousand cubic feet, perhapswhich would be welcomed by producers. Consumers who heat their homes with gas, and chemical companies and other manufacturers who rely on this raw material for producing petrochemical and polymers, should enjoy several decades of abundant supply. It will take time for the demand for gas to grow, and it is uncertain how rapidly and how far it will. Incremental gas production will initially go the power sector, displacing coal-generating plants. Natural gas will offer the cheapest way to produce electricity, at six cents per kilowatt-hourmore than 20% lower than new coal, nuclear or most renewable alternatives. Because of its low price, some natural gas will also be used to extract crude from Canada's oil sands. But the main question will be how much natural gas displaces higher-priced gasoline and alcohol fuels in transportation.

China triggers their links

Medlock, 11 -- Baker Institute Energy and Resource Economics fellow (Kenneth, PhD in economics from Rice University, Rice University economics professor, Baker Institute Energy Forums natural gas program director, International Association for Energy Economics council member, United States Association for Energy Economics President for Academic Affairs, member of the American Economic Association and the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, and Peter Hartley, PhD, Rice University Economics chair, Baker Institute scholar, "The Rise of China: And its Energy Implications," 12-2-11, www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-RiseOfChinaMedlockHartley-120211-WEB.pdf, accessed 9-19-12)

The benefits extend beyond China's borders as well. This is evidenced in Figure ll through the impact that greater Chinese shale production has on prices. Asian prices are reduced by the greatest amount, but prices at both NBP and the Henry Hub are also reduced. This occurs as a result of the large reduction in LNG demand in Asia, which reduces competition for LNG imports. In fact, LNG imports to the U.S. and European nations increase (see Figure 13) in the High China Shale Case. We also see that global LNG exports are generally lower as a result of greater shale production in China, a result that reinforces the point that Asian demand is the driver of LNG growth in the Reference Case. Figure I2 indicates that in 2040 about 85 percent of the reduction in LNG exports falls on Iran, Qatar, Russia, and Venezuela. This is analogous to the point made in Medlock and Jaffe (2011) that shale resources tend to reduce the long-run market influence of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

2AC Russian Gas DA

US will never compete with Russia
Orlov, 12 -- engineer (Dmitry, "Shale Gas," 5-8-12, Club Orlov, cluborlov.blogspot.it/2012/05/shale-gas-view-from-russia.html, accessed 6-3-12) The official shale gas story goes something like this: recent technological breakthroughs by US energy companies have made it possible to tap an abundant but previously inaccessible source of clean, environmentally friendly natural gas. This has enabled the US to become the world leader in natural gas production, overtaking Russia, and getting ready to end of Russia's gas monopoly in Europe. Moreover, this new shale gas is found in many parts of the world, and will, in due course, enable the majority of the world's countries to achieve independence from traditional gas producers. Consequently, the ability of those countries with the largest natural gas reserves Russia and Iranto control the market for natural gas will be reduced, along with their overall geopolitical influence. If this were the case, then we should expect the Kremlin, along with Gazprom, to be quaking in their boots. But are they? Here is what Gazprom's chairman, Alexei Miller, recently told Sddeutsche Zeitung: Shale gas is a well-organized global PR-campaign. There are many of them: global cooling, biofuels. He pointed out that the technology for producing gas from shale is many decades old, and suggested the US turned to it out of desperation. He dismissed it as an energy alternative for Europe. Is this just the other's sides propaganda, or could Miller be simply stating the obvious? Let's explore. I will base my exploration on Russian sources, which is why all the numbers are in metric units. If you want to convert to Imperial, 1 m3 = 35 cubic feet, 1 km2 = .38 square miles, 1 tonne = 1.1 short tons). The best-developed shale gas basin is Barnett in Texas, responsible for 70% of all shale gas produced to date. By developed I mean drilled and drilled and drilled, and then drilled some more: just in 2006 there were about as many wells drilled into Barnett shale as are currently producing in all of Russia. This is because the average Barnett well yields only around 6.35 million m3 of gas, over its entire lifetime, which corresponds to the average monthly yield of a typical Russian well that continues to produce over a 15-20 year period, meaning that the yield of a typical shale gas well is at least 200 times smaller. This hectic activity cannot stop once a well has been drilled: in order to continue yielding even these meager quantities, the wells have to be regularly subjected to hydraulic fracturing, or "fracked": to produce each thousand m3 of gas, 100 kg of sand and 2 tonnes of water, combined with a proprietary chemical cocktail, have to be pumped into the well at high pressure. Half the water comes back up and has to be processed to remove the chemicals. Yearly fracking requirements for the Barnett basin run around 7.1 million tonnes of sand and 47.2 million tonnes of water, but the real numbers are probably lower, as many wells spend much of the time standing idle. In spite of the frantic drilling/fracking activity, this is all small potatoes by Russian standards. Russia's proven reserves of natural gas amount to 43.3 trillion m3, which is about a third of the world's total. At current consumption rates, that's enough to last 72 years. Russian gas production is constrained by demand, not by supply; it is currently down simply because Eurozone is in the midst of an economic crisis. Meanwhile, US production has surged ahead, for no adequately explored reason, crashing the price and making much of it unprofitable. Let's compare: Gazprom's price at the wellhead runs from US$3 to $50 per thousand m3, depending on the region. Compare that to shale gas in the US, which runs from $80 to $320 per thousand m3. At this price, the US cannot afford to sell shale gas on the European market. Moreover, the overall volume of shale gas being produced in the US, even given the feverish drilling rate of the past couple of years, if cleaned up, liquified, and shipped to Europe in LNG tankers, would not be enough to book up just the LNG terminal in Gdask, Poland , which is currently standing idle. It seems that Gazprom has little to worry about.

Market wont shift from U.S. to Russia quickly

Deutch, 11 -- MIT chemistry professor and former US Undersecretary of Energy (John, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence, "The Good News About Gas," Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2011, 90:1, ebsco, accessed 5-22-12) Nobody knows how significant this prospective shift from oil to natural gas might become. But two points deserve emphasis. First, although the explosion of shale gas production will lead to gas substituting for oil and erode the market and political power of today's major oil- and gasexporting countries, this market penetration will not be so large that the security concerns of the United States and other oil importers about dependence on foreign oil will disappear. And second, in the long run, the world will need to transition from fossil fuels to carbon-free sources of energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy. In this sense, shale gas is a way station en route to a new energy future -- not a permanent solution to the problem. None of these changes will occur rapidly. There are significant uncertainties about how much shale gas around the world can be produced economically, the environmental implications of widespread production, and the economics of substituting natural gas for other sources. The large investments required for natural gas exploration, production, and distribution depend on financing supported by long-term contracts. Established industry practices change slowly. There will continue to be fierce competition over pipeline routes, LNG projects, and supply contracts -- which means that there will continue to be difficult commercial, financing, and political negotiations between supplier and consuming nations. The countries and international oil companies that are large producers of conventional natural gas will resist delinking the price of the gas they sell from the price of oil.

No impactRussia isnt a threat

Bandow 8 (The Russian Hangover by Doug Bandowthe Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: Americas New Global Empire (Xulon Press). 10.28.2008 ) Two months ago, the United States. and Europe were jolted by a revived Russia. Flush with energy money, Moscow announced that it was back as a world power. Georgia was defeated, Ukraine was fearful, the Eastern Europeans were nervous, and the United States and Western Europeans argued over what to do. Was a new cold war imminent? They neednt have worried. Even then it was obvious that Russias offensive power was limited. Its conventional forces have improved over their nadir following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but the Russian military remains no match for that of the United States and only at great cost could Moscow defeat a state with reasonably modern armed forces. Janes Strategic Advisory Services recently pointed to weaknesses exposed by the August war, concluding: Improvements in command, training levels and the employment of flexible, modern weapons systems are required before the Russian military can face any opponents larger or better equipped than the Georgian military. Moscows nuclear force, including a substantial number of tactical warh eads, is its principal power tool. However, Russia could ill afford to use nuclear weapons as a substitute for inadequate conventional forces against any of the countries lining its border. Rather, Moscow has a deterrent that would turn any Western response into a dangerous game of geopolitical chicken. Yet relying on nuclear weapons to counter conventional intervention by other nations would be as dangerous for Moscow as for the United States or European states. Moreover, despite the nationalistic adrenaline rush following Moscows triumph, Russias long term prospects remain bleak. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has suffered not just a birth dearth, but a sharp rise in mortality rates and drop in life expectancy, what Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute calls a great leap backwards. Russias population was 145 million in 2002, but fell to 142 million this year. The United Nations figures that Russias popu lation is going to drop another 10 million by 2020. Obvi ously, demographic and health trends can change, but Moscows problems are systematic and fundamental. Any turnaround likely will take years. As Eberstadt puts it, this is not the portrait of a successfully and rap idly developing economymuch less an emerging economic superpower. A declining population will have serious geopolitical consequences as well. For instance, the relative depopulation of Siberia, adjoining far more populous China, could leave Russias expansive eastern ter ritory at risk. But we need not wait until 2020 for evidence of Russian weakness. Economic uncertainty and falling energy prices have combined to de flate Russias pretensions of being a great power again. The stock market is down 70 percent from May, with one-time billionaire oligarchs scurrying to the Kremlin begging for relief. The ruble has lost two years worth of appreciation as anxious citizens, so recently celebrating their new prosperity, change their savings into dollars and euros. Heretofore abundant foreign-exchange reserves have dissipated as oil prices have fallen by more than half and the government has attempted to prop up the ruble. Investment-rating services are threatening to downgrade Russian debt. As its economy weakens, Russia is less able to threaten its neighbors and the Westby cutting off energy shipments, for instanceshould its demands not be met. Moreover, declining revenues will crimp the Kremlins plans to sharply enhance its military. Not only wil l there be less money available overall, but more funds will have to be plowed into business investment and social programs. Economic growth has been the foundation of Vladimir Putins popularity. He will be loath to risk popular displeasure by allowing the economy to continue s inking. Indeed, Russias present financial difficulties are likely to force Moscow to accelerate economic integration with the West, which will force the Kremlin to moderate its foreign policy. Last year, thenPresident Putin issued an updated economic development strategy for 2020, which envisioned Russia as sporting one of the globes five-largest economies and acting as an international financial center and technological leader. Those are challenging goals under any circumstances, but almost certainly will be impossible to achieve without abundant Western investment, trade and cooperation The image of a new Russian colossus threatening neighbors, Western Europe and the United States never reflected reality. Moscows ambitions always were much more limitedensuring border security and international respect, not reestablishing the Soviet empire. So, too, were its abilities limited, even before the ongoing economic crunch. The incoming U.S. administration should use the present economic uncertainty as an opportunity to refashion relations with Russia. Neither country can afford to finance a further arms buildup or has anything at stake in countries like Georgia and Ukraine that warrants a potential nuclear confrontation, and both nations would benefit greatly from expanded economic and security cooperation in the future. A modus vivendi should be possibleas long as Washington recognizes that diplomacy requires giving as well as taking, especially when the other party has a nuclear arsenal to back up its positions.

1AR A2: Russian War

No war weak arsenal Perkovich 3 Director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
George. vice president for studies and director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March/April 2003. Foreign Affairs. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16207.

As for Russia, a full-scale war between it and the United States now seems inconceivable . Given the desires for larger cuts in nuclear forces that Russia displayed in negotiating the 2002 Moscow Treaty, Russia hardly seems enough of a threat to justify the size and forward-leaning posture of America's present arsenal.

No war economics Maisaia 8 USAFA Defense Fellow

Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?, 3/3/8. Online

The Russian economy is in deep recession due to the global financial crisis and poor management and could not bear the burden of an additional $5 million a day in war costs. The economic crisis is additional reason why waging war is less probable as war against another sovereign state could lead to social disorder, including in the Armed Forces.

No war politics Maisaia 8 USAFA Defense Fellow

Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?, 3/3/8. Online

Moscow is seeking to communicate with the new US Administration and with the EU and damaging the already weak international position of Russia does not serve the interests of the incumbent authorities of the Russian Federation. The first Medvedev-Obama meeting, which will probably take place on April 2, will be a most interesting and fascinating event which will engender some corrections in the foreign policy formulation and strategic calculations of the Russian Federation. Hence, Moscow will manipulate the Medvedev-Sarkozy peace plan to present itself as a credible partner in international relations, mostly in terms of combating international terrorism and the Afghanistan mission, which is the number 1 priority for Obama Administration policy making.

1AR A2: Relations Impact

Relations collapse inevitable Magnitsky, adoptions and democracy assistance fights Gvosdev 13 - former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S.
Naval War College Nikolas, Washington and Moscow's Downward Spiral The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/washington-moscows-downward-spiral-7926 January 4

The destructive pendulum of tit-for-tat action in the U.S.-Russian relationship continues to swing unabated. The latest swing came last week, when Russian president Vladimir Putin announced he would sign a bill passed overwhelmingly by the Duma, which, among other provisions, bans U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children. It also prohibits nongovernmental organizations receiving funding from the United States to engage in political activity if such activity is deemed to be "detrimental" to Russian interests, as well as bars entry into Russia of any U.S. official accused of human-rights violations. This bill, the so-called Dima Yakovlev law, named after a Russian boy adopted in the United States who died from heat exhaustion after being left in a vehicle by his foster father in Virginia in 2008, was in response to the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which places travel bans and financial sanctions on Russian officials accused of human-rights violations. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Magnitsky bill was to signal American outrage at the circumstances surrounding the
detention and death of the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, something I discussed at length earlier this year. The Kremlin was always going to complain about any sort of U.S. action that would seek to impose American sanctions against Russian officials. But the way in which Congress acted was problematic. First, given a choice between a so-called global billone that would impose sanctions against government officials from any country accused of systematically abusing human rights without facing any sort of accountability from the domestic judicial systemand a bill that only focused on Russia, Congress chose the latter. Victims who have suffered abuse similar to that endured by Magnitsky at the hands of officials from other countries, particularly those with close economic or security ties to the United States, still have no redress from the U.S. Congress. Second, Congress, having failed to graduate Russia from the 1974 Jackson-Vanik sanctions despite repeated presidential certifications (by both Democratic and Republican occupants of the White House) that Russia was in compliance with its provisions since 1994 created an unhelpful impression: that Congress' real aim in tying Magnitsky sanctions to the granting of permanent normal trading relations was to punish Moscow (for a whole host of sins ranging from bans on chicken exports to restrictions on American religious missionary activity) and avoid giving up

Despite all the talk of reset and partnership, there are strong currents in both Washington and Moscow prepared to sweep in the opposite direction, to always assume the worst of the other side. Matters are not helped by the tendency in the United States, in the case of any dispute between Russia and its
congressional leverage on how U.S. and Russian presidents conduct the bilateral relationship. neighbors, to generally side against Russia automatically, as well as the continuing interest on the part of Russian officials to flirt with geopolitical foes of the United States like Iran or Venezuela. When the Magnitsky legislation passed, as part of the overall package that finally granted Russia permanent normal trading relations (thus clearing the way for U.S. companies to benefit from Russian membership in the World Trade Organization), the initial reaction in Russia was to propose "mirror" legislation that would bar American officials whom Russia accused of human-rights violations from entering Russia. However, it soon became clear that while many Russians are interested in being able to travel to and do business in the United States, there is no reciprocal level of desire from the U.S. side. Simply mirroring U.S. legislation, while it might have preserved a sense of equanimity, would not have much impact. So the Duma raised the stakesnot only enacting travel bans, but focusing on two other areas as well: blocking adoptions of Russian orphans by U.S. citizens (since the fall of the USSR some sixty thousand children have found homes with American families) and placing new restrictions on U.S.-funded groups. (A separate issue is how orphans are being used as pawns in a political struggle; orphans not adopted by Americans will not be adopted by Russians or other Europeans.) Of course, the Russian side has been careful not to pick on aspects of the U.S.-Russian relationship that bring concrete benefits to Russia. Thus, no sanctions were enacted against U.S. companies investing in key sectors of the Russian economy (e.g., no ban on the partnership between the Russian state oil company Rosneft and Exxon Mobil, a critical relationship if the Russian energy sector, particularly in the Arctic, is to be further developed). Nor did the Duma decide to put any barriers in the continued functioning of the Northern Distribution Network funneling supplies and personnel to Afghanistana critical lifeline not only for U.S. and NATO forces but also a lucrative source of revenue for Russian firms. When the Duma passed its bill, President Putin could have decided that he had signaled Russian outrage and then chosen to veto the bill in the interests of preserving good relations with Washington. He chose not to do this. It is not the first time that a president has chosen to be a domestic politician rather than an international statesman. The ball is now in the U.S. court. But it is likely that soon a return volley will be served. In November, even before the Duma bill restricting the activities of U.S.-sponsored NGOs had passed, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, noted that, in any consideration of U.S.-Russian relations, shared interests would not be enough to sustain the relationship; a Russian government that respects the rights and freedoms of its people is deemed to be in the national interest of the United States. With that understanding, and given the timing of the adoption ban at the Christmas season, there will be considerable pressure on Congress and President Obama himself to respond. One idea already making the rounds is to apply Magnitsky sanctions to Duma legislators who voted for the bill, which would inevitably bring a counter-reaction from the Duma. Right now, some key aspects of the U.S.-Russian relationshipthe partnership on Afghanistan, cooperation on the Arctic and some other key security issues remain sufficiently ring-fenced from these other problems in the bilateral relationship. But the continuing erosion of whatever progress was achieved in the "reset" during the presidency of Dmitri Medvedev and the first Obama term could threaten even these items. What is happening validates the warning I offered at an event held at the Center for the National Interest this past August.

Major public feuds

between Washington and Moscow could have a "snowball effect" and ultimately threaten even productive areas of cooperation . 2013 promises to be an uphill struggle to get U.S.-Russian relations back on an even keel.

US and Russia will not work cooperatively to solve problems differing interests and priorities, Russia does not need the U.S. and have negative demands, dislike American solutions, and are concerned with domestic issues. Shleifer and Treisman 11 Professor of Economic at Harvard and Professor of PoliSci at UCLA
Andrei Shleifer, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, and Daniel Treisman, Professor of Political Science at the University of California,Los Angeles, and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. Why Moscow Says No: A Question of Russian Interests, Not Psychology. Foreign Affairs. Jan/Feb 2011. Vol. 90, Iss. 1; pg. 122. ProQuest.

Russia and the United States share few interests and even fewer priorities. Where their interests do overlap, Russian leaders often doubt the efficacy of U.S. strategy. Moreover, there is an imbalance: whereas the United States, as a global superpower, needs Russia's help in addressing many issues, Russia needs the United States for relatively little. Russia's main demand is entirely negative: that Washington stop expanding nato and emboldening anti-Russian governments and nongovernmental organizations on its periphery. Russian foreign policy under Putin and Medvedev has been shaped by three objectives: boosting economic growth, fostering friendly regimes in other former Soviet states,
Today, and preventing terrorism at home. As the Russian leadership sees it, success in each area is critical to retaining power and domestic support.

Russia is unlikely to cooperate with the U.S. on any major initiatives. Shleifer and Treisman 11 Professor of Economic at Harvard and Professor of PoliSci at UCLA
Andrei Shleifer, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, and Daniel Treisman, Professor of Political Science at the University of California,Los Angeles, and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. Why Moscow Says No: A Question of Russian Interests, Not Psychology. Foreign Affairs. Jan/Feb 2011. Vol. 90, Iss. 1; pg. 122. ProQuest.

With very few exceptions, Russia does not need or want help from Washington in achieving its main objectives. What it would value is for the United States to stop interfering in its neighborhood, militarizing the border states, and attempting to undermine Russia's position in energy markets. rational ambivalence Nonetheless, Russia might still hope that the United States succeeds in its global endeavors. For example, the Kremlin has no desire to see Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. A victory for radical Islamists there could embolden insurgencies throughout Central Asia and invigorate the North Caucasus' terrorist networks. Yet Russian officials are unsure that nato can defeat the Taliban or at least impose a stable settlement. Looking ahead to the situation after U.S. troops leave, the Kremlin does not want to take positions now that will make it impossible to deal with Kabul's future rulers. Moscow also knows that some level of tension keeps its southern neighbors in line. When they feel threatened by the Taliban, Central Asia's leaders are more ready to cooperate in the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and to welcome Russia's military presence in the region. At the same time, Moscow is concerned about the recent flood of Afghan heroin across its borders; opium production has doubled since the nato invasion. And polls show that Russia's public is far less happy than Putin and Medvedev about assisting nato in Afghanistan. Iran evokes another set of complicated calculations. Moscow would prefer that Tehran not develop nuclear weapons. Yet many Russian officials doubt that even the toughest economic sanctions- fully backed by Russia-would prevent this outcome. Meanwhile, Russia has economic interests in Iran that it would be costly to jeopardize. Its exports to the country have grown from $250 million in 1995 to $3.3 billion in 2008. Moscow hopes for contracts to build additional nuclear power stations, develop oil and gas fields, and supply Iran with modern weapons. It also is loath to give Tehran's radicals any excuses for stirring up trouble in the North Caucasus. A resolution of the conflict between Tehran and Washington would threaten Russia's commercial and strategic interests. Western investment would likely pour into the Iranian oil and gas sectors, competing with Russian multinationals. The lifting of sanctions and the lowering of tensions would depress petroleum prices; new pipelines might be built to carry Iranian gas to Europe. In many ways, the current stalemate serves the Kremlin's purposes. And on the question of North Korea's nuclear program, Russia would like to see Pyongyang disarm but doubts that even its strong support for sanctions would have much of an effect. At the same time, it worries that any military escalation or a collapse of the regime in Pyongyang could send refugees flooding into Russia's Far East. The New start treaty mostly ratified cuts in the Russian nuclear arsenal that were occurring anyway as the weapons aged. Further reductions are not so clearly in Russia's interest; as antimissile systems become more accurate and powerful, Moscow will need to maintain enough missiles and warheads to remain sure of a second-strike capability. On climate change, the Kremlin recognizes that global warming would impose huge costs, causing floods and destroying infrastructure. Still, how the expense of cutting pollution should be shared among the major industrial and industrializing countries remains contentious. Like other countries, Russia has a powerful procarbon lobby. limited but constructive Washington should not expect much help from Moscow, not because Kremlin officials are overwhelmed by wounded pride and paranoia but because Washington's priorities are not their priorities- and may not be in their interest at all. The parallel with U.S.-Chinese relations is instructive. In dealing with Beijing, U.S. policymakers perceive conflicts of interest for what they are. They do not feel compelled to patronize and psychoanalyze their Chinese counterparts. It is hard to imagine a U.S. president on the eve of a Beijing summit berating President Hu for his obsolete Marxist mentality and promising to build up Premier Wen Jiabao as a counterweight. If divergent interests make a close relationship between Moscow and Washington unlikely in the next few years, there are grounds for greater optimism in the long run. As its interactions with the United States have shrunk, Russia has been gradually integrating into Europe, both economically and culturally. Because these changes are slow and not particularly dramatic, they have gone largely unnoticed. As it develops further, Russia will become even more European-without losing its distinct identity. In 2008, Russians made 39 times as many trips to western Europe and 19 times as many trips to China as they did to the United States. Of the 41,000 Russian students who studied abroad in 2008, 20,000 were at institutions in Europe; only 5,000 were in the United States. Meanwhile, in 2009,Russians were more likely to buy property in Bulgaria, Montenegro, Germany, Spain, and the Czech Republic than in the United States.

1AR A2: Deadhand

Dead Hand isnt on hair trigger not on alert unless in crisis Thompson 9
Nicholas. author of The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War. 9/21/9. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/1710/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all#.

Perimeter ensures the ability to strike back, but it's no hair-trigger device. It was designed to lie semi-dormant until switched on by a high official in a crisis. Then it would begin monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions. Before launching any retaliatory strike, the system had to check off four if/then propositions: If it was turned on, then it would try to determine that a nuclear weapon had hit Soviet soil. If it seemed that one had, the system would check to see if any communication links to the war room of the Soviet General Staff remained. If they did, and if some amount of timelikely ranging from 15 minutes to an hourpassed without further indications of attack, the machine would assume officials were still living who could order the counterattack and shut down. But if the line to the General Staff went dead, then Perimeter would infer that apocalypse had arrived. It would immediately transfer launch authority to whoever was manning the system at that moment deep inside a protected bunkerbypassing layers and layers of normal command authority. At that point, the ability to destroy the world would fall to whoever was on duty: maybe a high minister sent in during the crisis, maybe a 25-year-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.

Russian doomsday machine is a myth Russian Forces 6

Russian Nuclear Forces, Dr. Strangelove meets reality, http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/04/dr_strangelove_meets_reality.shtml

I doubt Dr. Strangelove was a required movie-watching experience for Soviet military planners, but they got the point (we should thank Stanley Kubrick for making it so well in the movie). Here is a copy of an internal Central Committee document from 1985, which discusses various ways to increase effectiveness of the Soviet strategic forces. The author, Oleg Belyakov, head of the Military Industry Department of the Central Committee, complains, among other things, that No [adequate] attention has been paid to a proposal, extremely important from the military and political point of view, to create a fully automated retaliatory strike system that would be activated from the top command levels in a moment of a crisis This is exactly a Doomsday Machine that he is describing. The true Strangelovian moment comes at the end of the sentence quoted above -- the author adds, in parenthesis (with a notification to the adversary). Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! The Soviet Union never built this automatic Doomsday Machine (also known as Dead Hand) -- the Perimeter communication system that is often mistaken for it is something quite different. So we will never know, had that system been built, would the Soviet leadership have waited till a Party Congress to make the announcement?

1AR A2: Econ Decline

Claims of Russian economic decline and disintegration are all conspiratorial and hype Clover 9
Charles Clover, Conspiracy theorists thrive on Russia anxiety, 3/8/2009 Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9596ed4-0c14-11de-b87d0000779fd2ac.html?ftcamp=rss&nclick_check=1

The transition of the [economic] crisis into the political arena has already begun happening, Gleb Pavlovsky wrote in the popular Moskovski Komsomolets tabloid. He warned of a remake of the 1991 street protests that helped bring down the Soviet Union, and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The sources of social protest should be sought in the corridors of power, Mr Pavlovsky wrote. His and other gloomy predictions have left some analysts scratching their heads. Alexei Levinson, at the Levada Centre, a research company, said: Do I see the potential for serious unrest? It is very dangerous to say no, because so many people are saying publicly that this is happening . . . But I simply dont see it. However, it was just as true that the number of people saying they see this potential has shot up, he added. So that must be significant. It shows that the relationship to the authorities is ch anging. Speculation has surrounded the relationship between president and prime minister since Mr Putin, head of state since 2000, stepped aside for Mr Medvedev last year. It is widely believed that Mr Putin, who was barred from a third consecutive presidential term by the constitution, plans to return to the Kremlin. That the prime ministers political future is openly speculated on is, for some politicians, a watershed in Russias political life. It is very conspiratorial, said Vladimir Milov, former deputy energy minister and a leader of the opposition group Solidarnost.

No impact to Russian economic collapse Aris 11

Ben Aris, 10-17-2011, Crisis looms, but Russia well prepared, http://rbth.ru/articles/2011/10/17/crisis_looms_but_russia_well_prepared_13580.html

But if the shock does come, Russia is better prepared than it was in 2008. Knowing a shock is coming is winning half the battle, as one of the reasons that the economy froze in 2008 and hit Russia so much harder than Western economies was that the 1998 devaluation was fresh in everyones mind. So they simply stopped doing business until it was clear how the crunch was going to play out; th e fact that Russias economy has bounced back so fast will go a long way to muting the impact of thi s round of crisis if it comes. Secondly, Russia is in a much stronger economic position than it was going into 2008. Most of the damage was done by the borrowing binge that preceded the 2008 collapse. Russian banks and companies had tapped international capital markets during the boom years. Worse, many companies had used their shares as collateral, which led to so-called margin calls during the very worst of the crisis. This time round there will be few, if any, margin calls, as the 2008 crisis squeezed all these deals out of the market. Stepping back a bit further, big companies have been starting to borrow again, but a second lesson from the crisis has been that the debt profile of Russian companies and banks is much better than two years ago: Companies have lengthened the maturities of their loans to medium-term debt while swapping a lot of their foreign borrowing for ruble loans. As the Russian government has plenty of cash and the banks are dominated by the state, the government is in a stronger position to restructure debt if a company gets into trouble, as it can all be done in house.

The Russian economy is resilient even dips caused by oil prices will not cause collapse. Guriev 10 - Professor of Economics @ the New Economic School in Moscow
Sergei Guriev, Morgan Stanley Professor of Economics and Rector of the New Economic School in Moscow, How to reform the Russian economy. Centre For European Reform Policy Brief. July 2010. www.cer.org.uk/pdf/pb_russian_economy_jul10.pdf

Todays leadership in Russia has more economic expertise and more experience with crisis management than the Soviet leaders had in the 1980s. The Russian economy is much more liberalised, and hence more flexible and adjustable in times of strain. So it is unlikely that Russias economy could implode like the Soviet one did. A more plausible scenario is slow growth over the medium term, interrupted by bouts of macro-economic volatility caused by oil price swings. Russias outlook is therefore similar to the experience of Latin Americas resource-dependent economies in the 20th century.

2AC Navy DA
Our fleet can take anyonesno challengers Work 12 - United States Under Secretary of the Navy and VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Robert O, "The Coming Naval Century," May, Proceedings Magazine - Vol. 138/5/1311, US Naval Institute, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/coming-naval-century For those in the military concerned about the impact of such cuts, I would simply say four things: Any grand strategy starts with an assumption that all resources are scarce, requiring a balancing of commitments and resources. As political commentator Walter Lippmann wrote: The nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its

The upcoming defense drawdown will be less severe than past postWorld War II drawdowns. Accommodating cuts will be hard, but manageable. At the end of the drawdown, the United States will still have the best and most capable armed forces in the world. The
purposes within its means, and its means equal to its purposes. President well appreciates the importance of a world-class military. The United States remains the only nation able to project and sustain large -scale military operations over extended distances, he said. We maintain superior capabilities to deter and defeat adaptive enemies and to ensure the credibility of security partnerships that are fundamental to regional and global security. In this way our military continues to underpin our national security and global leadership, and when we use it appropriately, our security and leadership

we will see the beginning of a Naval Centurya new golden age of American sea power. The Navy Is More Than Ships Those who judge U.S. naval power solely by the number of vessels in the Navys battle force are not seeing the bigger picture. Our battle force is just one componentalbeit an essential oneof a powerful National Fleet that includes the broad range of capabilities, capacities, and enablers resident in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It encompasses our special-mission, prepositioning, and surge-sealift fleets; the ready reserve force;
is reinforced. Most important, as the nation prioritizes what is most essential and brings into better balance its commit ments and its elements of national power, naval aviation, including the maritime-patrol and reconnaissance force; Navy and Marine special operations and cyber forces; and the U.S. Merchant Marine. Moreover, it is crewed and operated by the finest sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, civilian mariners, and government civilians in our history, and supported by a talented and innovative national

the heart of the National Fleet is a NavyMarine Corps team that is transforming itself from an organization focused on platforms to a total-force battle network that interconnects sensors, manned and unmanned platforms with modular payloads, combat systems, and network-enabled weapons, as well as tech-savvy, combat-tested people into a cohesive fighting force. This Fleet and its network would make short work of any past U.S. Fleetand of any potential contemporary naval adversary.
industrial base. If this were not enough,

No deterrent effect Daniel 2

Donald C.F. The Future of American Naval Power: Propositions and Recommendations, Globalization and American Power. Chapter 27. Institute for National Strategic Studies Na tional Defense University. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Books/Books_2002/Globalization_and_Maritime_Power_Dec_02/01_toc.htm

outside the context of a specific crisis, constant day-to-day presence does not do much to deter unwanted behavior. Thus, it would seem a raising of false
In sum, there would seem to be a special role for the U.S. Navy in contingency response along littorals, but, expectations to argue, for example, that the gapping of aircraft carriers in areas of potential crisis is an invitation to dis asterand therefore represents culpable negligence on the part of Americas defense decision-makers.33 In the early 1960s, the United States maintained three aircraft carrier battlegroups in the Mediterranean Sea but later gradually found that it needed to scale back. Currently, a single battlegroup operates there for less than 9 months of the year on average. This is a significant reduction, but no one can prove that the

Navy began to maintain a regular presence in the Arabian Gulf in 1979, but this did not prevent Iran or Iraq from attacking ships during their war. In the 1980s, attacks generally increased in number over the 8 years of the war. As for deterring the initiation of a crisis in the first place, it is essentially impossible for an outsider to prove that such deterrence was successful except in the rare case in
Mediterranean region became less stable. Conversely, the which a deterred party admits that he was deterred and states the reasons. Adam Siegel, John Arquilla, Paul Huth, Paul Davis, and a Rutgers Center for Global Security and Democracy team led by Edward Rhodes have each attempted to study the effects of forward presence and general deterrence. The deficiency of such study is always in making the

The majority of these studies suggest that [h]istorically seapower has not done well as a deterrent in preventing the outbreak of conflicts,36 principally because land-based powers not dependent on overseas trade are relatively insensitive to the operations of naval forces.
definitive link between them.

Naval power not key to hegemony Goure 10

Daniel Goure. PhD in IR, BA in government, VP of the Lexington Institute, member of the Department of Defense Transition Team, former director of Strategic Competitiveness for the Secretary of State, senior analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses. Can the Case be Made for Naval Power? 2 July 2010. Lexington Institute. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-the-case-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171

that the nature of the security challenges confronting the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past several decades. There are only a few places where even large-scale conventional conflict can be considered possible. None of these would be primarily maritime in character although U.S. naval forces could make a
More broadly, it appears significant contribution by employing its offensive and defensive capabilities over land. For example, the administrations current plan is to rely on sea -based Aegis missile defenses

The sea ways, sometimes called the global commons, are predominantly free of dangers. The exception to this is the chronic but relatively low level of piracy in some parts of the world. So, the classic reasons for which nations build navies, to protect its own shores and its commerce or to place the shores and commerce of other states in jeopardy, seem relatively unimportant in todays world.
to protect regional allies and U.S. forces until a land-based variant of that system can be developed and deployed.

China makes naval power obsoleteanti-access/area-denial capabilities effectively shut out US ships Krepinevich 9 president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Andrew, The PentagonsWasting Assets: The Eroding Foundations of American Power Foreign Affairs Volume 88 Number 4, July/August

In East Asia, an even more formidable challenge is emerging. Chinas Peoples Liberation Army is aggressively developing capabilities and strategies to degrade the U.S. militarys ability to project power into the region. The PLAs
buildup is being guided by the lessons drawn by the Chinese military from the two Iraq wars and the 1999 war in the Balkans. The Chinese were particularly impressed by the effectiveness of U.S. precision-strike capabilities and the role played by space systems, which provided reliable navigation and communications, as well as weather, targeting, and missile-warning data. The effort is also being driven by the Chinese experience during the 1995 96 Taiwan Strait crisis, when a U.S. aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Nimitz, entered the Taiwan Strait to compel China to stand down from its threats to Taiwan. This display of U.S. naval power bolstered Chinas determination to curb the United States access to East

China is working to combine Western technology with Eastern stratagems, aiming to be able to seize the initiative in the event of a conflict by exploiting the element of surprise. The Chinese approach would entail destroying or disrupting the U.S. militarys communications networks and launching preemptive attacks, to the point where such attacks, or even the threat of such attacks, would raise the costs of U.S. action to prohibitive levels. The Chinese call the military capabilities that support this strategy assassins mace . The underlying mantra is that assassins mace weapons and techniques will enable the inferior (China) to defeat the superior (the United States). Chinese efforts are focused on developing and fielding what U.S. military analysts refer to as anti-access/area-denial (a2/ad) capabilities. Generally speaking, Chinese anti-access forces seek to deny U.S. forces the ability to operate from forward bases, such as Kadena Air Base, on Okinawa, and Andersen Air Force Base, on Guam. The Chinese are, for example, fielding large numbers of conventionally armed ballistic missiles capable of striking these bases with a high degree of accuracy. Although recent advances in directed-energy technologysuch as solid-state lasersmay enable the United States to field significantly more effective missile defense systems in the next decade, present defenses against ballistic missile attacks are limited. These defenses can be overwhelmed when confronted with missile barrages. The intended message to the United States and its East Asian allies and partners is clear: China has the means to put at risk the forward bases from which most U.S. strike aircraft must operate. Area-denial capabilities are aimed at restricting the U.S. Navy s freedom of action from Chinas coast out to the second island chain a line of islands that extends roughly from the southeastern edge of Japan to Guam. The PLA is constructing over-the-horizon radars, fielding unmanned aerial vehicles, and deploying reconnaissance satellites to detect U.S. surface warships at progressively greater distances. It is acquiring a large number of submarines armed with advanced torpedoes and high-speed, sea-skimming ascms to stalk U.S. carriers and their escorts. (In 2006, a Chinese submarine surfaced in the midst of a U.S. carrier strike group, much to the U.S. Navys embarrassment.) And it is procuring aircraft equipped with high-speed ascms and fielding antiship ballistic missiles that can strike U.S. carriers at extended ranges. Advanced antiship mines may constrain U.S. naval operations even further in coastal areas. The
Asia. Senior Chinese political and military leaders decided it would be foolhardy to challenge the U.S. military head-on. Instead,

implications of these efforts are clear. East Asian waters are slowly but surely becoming another
potential , particularly for aircraft carriers, which carry short-range strike aircraft that require them to operate well within the reach of the PLAs a2/ad systems if they want remain operationally relevant. The large air bases in the region that host the U.S. Air Forces short -range strike aircraft and support aircraft are similarly under increased threat. All thus risk becoming wasting assets. If the United States does not adapt to these emerging challenges, the military balance in Asia will be fundamentally transformed in Beijings favor. This would increase the danger that China might be encouraged to resolve outsta nding regional security issues through coercion, if not aggression.

no-go zone for U.S. ships

Besides a 2-1 fleet displacement advantage over Russia and China combined the US Navy is qualitatively superior Work 9 - United States Under Secretary of the Navy and VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Robert, VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Strategy for the Long Haul: the US Navy Charting A Course for Tomorrows Fleet, http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090217.The_US_Navy_Charti/R.20090217.The_US_Navy_Charti.pdf

the United States currently faces only two plausible naval competitors Russia and China. The aggregate displacement of the combined fleets of these two countries amounts to 1,186,715 tons. With a war fleet of 3,121,014 tons, the US Navy enjoys a 2.63-to-one advantage in fleet displacement and fleet capabilities over the combined Russian-Chinese fleet. However, these figures assume that every Russian and Chinese ship is well maintained a questionable assumption.
What this means is that For example, a recent review of the Russian Navy reveals that thirteen Russian ships, amounting to some 113,922 tons of shipping, are inoperable due to poor maintenance.13 Despite some recent embarrassing maintenance inspections on US Navy ships,14 in any comparison with these two potential naval adversaries, it seems likely that the US Navy enjoys an even wider advantage in terms of both immediately available combat-ready warships and overall combat capabilities than a simple comparison of fleet displacements suggests. When factoring in the 2,445,555 tons of warships operated by US friends and allies,

the US naval advantage over its potential naval

competitors only widens.

US is not facing naval challengersother aspects of heg outweigh Goure 10

Daniel Goure. PhD in IR, BA in government, VP of the Lexington Institute, member of the Department of Defense Transition Team, former director of Strategic Competitiveness for the Secretary of State, senior analyst on national security and defense issues w ith the Center for Naval Analyses. Can the Case be Made for Naval Power? 2 July 2010. Lexington Institute. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-the-case-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171

The U.S. faces no great maritime challengers. While China appears to be toying with the idea of building a serious Navy this is many years off. Right now it appears to be designing a military to keep others, including the United
This is no longer the case. States, away, out of the Western Pacific and Asian littorals. But even if it were seeking to build a large Navy, many analysts argue that other than Taiwan it is difficult to see a reason

Russia, would have a challenge fighting the U.S. Coast Guard, much less the U.S. Navy. After that, there are no other navies of consequence. Yes, there are some scenarios under which Iran might attempt to close the Persian Gulf to oil exports, but how much naval power would really be required to reopen the waterway ? Actually, the U.S. Navy would probably need more mine
why Washington and Beijing would ever come to blows. Our former adversary, countermeasures capabilities than it currently possesses.

naval decline wont collapse heg Friedman 7

(George, Stratfor, April) The issue for the United States is not whether it should abandon control of the seas -- that would be irrational in the extreme. Rather, the question is whether it has to exert itself at all in order to retain that control. Other powers either have abandoned attempts to challenge the United States, have fallen short of challenging the United States or have confined their efforts to building navies for extremely limited uses, or for uses aligned with the United States. No one has a shipbuilding program under way that could challenge the United States for several generations. One argument, then, is that the United States should cut its naval forces radically -- since they have, in effect, done their job. Mothballing a good portion of the fleet would free up resources for other military requirements without threatening U.S. ability to control the sea-lanes. Should other powers attempt to build fleets to challenge the United States, the lead time involved in naval construction is such that the United States would have plenty of opportunities for re-commissioning ships or building new generations of vessels to thwart the potential challenge . The counterargument normally given is that the U.S. Navy provides a critical service in what is called littoral warfare. In other words, while the Navy might not be needed immediately to control sea-lanes, it carries out critical functions in securing access to those lanes and projecting rapid power into countries where the United States might want to intervene. Thus, U.S. aircraft carriers can bring tactical airpower to bear relatively quickly in any intervention. Moreover, the Navy's amphibious capabilities -- particularly those of deploying and supplying the U.S. Marines -- make for a rapid deployment force that, when coupled with Naval airpower, can secure hostile areas of interest for the United States. That argument is persuasive, but it poses this problem: The Navy provides a powerful option for war initiation by the United States, but it cannot by itself sustain the war. In any sustained conflict, the Army must be brought in to occupy territory -or, as in Iraq, the Marines must be diverted from the amphibious specialty to serve essentially as Army units. Naval air by itself is a powerful opening move, but greater infusions of airpower are needed for a longer conflict. Naval transport might well be critically important in the opening stages, but commercial transport sustains the operation. If one accepts this argument, the case for a Navy of the current size and shape is not proven. How many carrier battle groups are needed and, given the threat to the carriers, is an entire battle group needed to protect them? If we consider the Iraq war in isolation, for example, it is apparent that the Navy served a function in the defeat of Iraq's conventional forces. It is not clear, however, that the Navy has served an important role in the attempt to occupy and pacify Iraq. And, as we have seen in the case of Iran, a blockade is such a complex politico-military matter that the option not to blockade tends to emerge as the obvious choice.

Carriers not key to naval powerobsolete because of long range anti-ship missiles Haddick 8/31
Robert, Shipping Out [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/31/shipping_out?page=full]

new and disruptive weapons and technologies will soon upset long-standing assumptions and cozy arrangements. In particular, the spread of long-range anti-ship missiles threatens the ability of aircraft carriers to perform their traditional missions. What's more, these disruptions are occurring at the moment when U.S. policymakers
However, inter-service are under pressure to find cheaper ways of performing essential military missions. And the Air Force could develop the technology and the long-range platforms to carry out many of

these factors could force planners to rethink air power from first principles, leading to stormy times for aircraft carriers and inter-service harmony. The aircraft carrier's combat debut in the Pacific theater in 1941 instantly
the carrier's missions at less cost. All made the battleship obsolete. Aircraft carriers delivered more firepower, over longer ranges, with more speed and flexibility, over a wider variety of targets at sea and ashore. After World War II, the power of U.S. aircraft carriers forced adversaries to focus their naval spending on submarines rather than major surface ships, a trend still visible today. Without enemy surface ships to sink, the Navy's carrier pilots focused on projecting air power ashore, which they did against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan. Over the past half-century, the Navy's carriers also became well-suited to crisis response. Carrier strike groups could typically arrive at trouble spots within days and without the need for tedious negotiations with host countries over permissions and basing rights. The Air Force was fine with this arrangement because, although its tactical fighter wings could theoretically perform a similar role, the service's doctrine called for large, well-established, and well-supplied bases from which it could reliably generate a high sortie rate. Such

the proliferation of cheap but deadly long-range anti-ship missiles promises to upset these assumptions and arrangements . For example, China is putting anti-ship missiles on submarines, patrol boats, surface ships, aircraft, and trucks, giving it the ability to dominate its nearby seas. For the price of a single major warship, China can buy hundreds or even thousands of anti-ship missiles. And as it perfects its own reconnaissance drones, China will be able to thoroughly patrol neighborhood waters, identifying targets for these missiles. The Navy's aircraft carriers will come under pressure to retreat from this missile zone. However, there is a limit to how far they can retreat while still remaining in the game. As large as U.S. aircraft carriers are, they can only launch relatively small short-range fighter-bomber aircraft. For example, the F-35C, the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has a combat radius of just 615 miles. Mid-air refueling can extend this range. But refueling is not possible in hostile air space, and even with it, small fighters are
ponderous guidance could not deal well with fleeting contingencies, many of which occurred in austere locations. But constrained by the physiological limits of their single pilot.

There is little risk of naval conflict the sea acts as a barrier to aggression, it has clearly defined borders, and slow speed of navies reduce miscalculation and provide time for reduction of tensions. Kaplan 11 Senior Fellow for the CNAS and member of the Pentagons Defense Policy Board
Robert Kaplan, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and appointed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Pentagons Defense Policy Board, which advises the Secretary on key issues. The South China Sea Is The Future Of Conflict. August 15, 2011. http://www.cnas.org/node/6830

Military engagements on land and at sea are vastly different, with major implications for the grand strategies needed to win -- or avoid -them. Those on land enmesh civilian populations, in effect making human rights a signal element of war studies. Those at sea approach conflict as a clinical and technocratic affair, in effect reducing war to math, in marked contrast with the intellectual battles that helped define previous conflicts. World War II was a moral struggle against fascism, the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of noncombatants. The Cold War was a moral struggle against communism, an equally oppressive ideology by which the vast territories captured by the Red Army were ruled. The immediate post-Cold War period became a moral struggle against genocide in the Balkans and Central Africa, two places where ground warfare and crimes against humanity could not be separated. More recently, a moral struggle against radical Islam has drawn the United States deep into the mountainous confines of Afghanistan, where the humane treatment of millions of civilians is critical to the war's success. In all these efforts, war and foreign policy have become subjects not only for soldiers and diplomats, but for humanists and intellectuals. Indeed, counterinsurgency represents a culmination of sorts of the union between uniformed officers and human rights experts. This is the upshot of ground war evolving into total war in the modern age. East Asia, or more precisely the Western Pacific, which is quickly becoming the world's new center of naval activity, presages a fundamentally different dynamic. It will likely produce relatively few moral dilemmas of the kind we have been used to in the 20th and early 21st centuries, with the remote possibility of land warfare on the Korean Peninsula as the striking exception. The Western Pacific will return military affairs to the narrow realm of defense experts. This is not merely because we are dealing with a naval realm, in which civilians are not present. It is also because of the nature of the states themselves in East Asia, which, like China, may be strongly authoritarian but in most cases are not tyrannical or deeply inhumane. The struggle for primacy in the Western Pacific will not necessarily involve combat; much of what takes place will happen quietly and over the horizon in blank sea space, at a glacial tempo befitting the slow, steady accommodation to superior economic and military power that states have made throughout history. War is far from inevitable even if competition is a given. And if China and the United States manage the coming handoff successfully, Asia, and the world, will be a more secure, prosperous place. What could be more moral than that? Remember: It is realism in the service of the national interest -- whose goal is the avoidance of war -- that has saved lives over the span of history far more than humanitarian interventionism. East Asia is a vast, yawning expanse stretching nearly from the Arctic to Antarctic -- from the Kuril Islands southward to New Zealand -- and characterized by a shattered array of isolated coastlines and far-flung archipelagos. Even accounting for how dramatically technology has compressed distance, the sea itself still acts as a barrier to aggression, at least to a degree that dry land does not. The sea, unlike land, creates clearly defined borders, giving it the potential to reduce conflict. Then there is speed to consider. Even the fastest warships travel comparatively slowly, 35 knots, say, reducing the chance of miscalculations and giving diplomats more hours -- days, even -- to reconsider decisions. Navies and air forces simply do not occupy territory the way that armies do. It is because of the seas around East Asia -- the center of global manufacturing as well as rising military purchases -- that the 21st century has a better chance than the 20th of avoiding great military conflagrations.

CP Answers

Courts Answers
No solvencyCourts cant create norms or other solid implementation of international law
Kochan, 2006 (Donald J., Assistant Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, SOVEREIGNTY AND THE AMERICAN COURTS AT THE COCKTAIL PARTY OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE DANGERS OF DOMESTIC JUDICIAL INVOCATIONS OF FOREIGN AND IN TERNATIONAL LAW, Fordham International Law Journal, February, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J. 507)

rule of law issues are affected not simply by selection bias but by the non-U.S. nature of production of international sources. In other words, these "laws" were not created under the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. As such, they lack formal elements or intentions as enforceable law.Most often, customary international law outputs are intended only as aspirational or symbolic, rather than drafted as enforceable legal obligations or with the intent of creating liability. n159If these outputs are used as evidence of enforceable customary [*545] international law obligations and liabilities or as authority for the interpretation of U.S. law, courts mangle and inappropriately manipulate their purpose and character. n160 Indeed, allowing judges to use elusive and diffuse principles of human rights to discover applicable international law is beyond their capacity and beyond the power committed to them by the Constitution.
Furthermore, foreign and

Only Congress can handle the constitutional questions raised by the Agreement Courts would create multiple conflicting interpretation
Neuman, 2004 (Gerald L. Herber Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia University School of Law, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW: The Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation, American Journal of International Law, January, 98 A.J.I.L. 82) Normative reasoning borrowed from international human rights sources will not necessarily prevail in the process of constitutional interpretation. Other normative considerations omitted there may be relevant, and consensual and institutional factors may also come into play. The Court may conclude that the normatively compelling interpretation of a

the international human rights regime does not call for implementation at the constitutional level, only compliance.Thus, the Supreme Court has reason to examine international human rights norms and decisions interpreting them for the normative and functional insights that they may provide on analogous issues of constitutional right. They certainly cannot control constitutional interpretation, but they may inform it.The use of human rights treaties as an aid in construing constitutional rights might seem superficially in
right cannot be adopted at the constitutional level but, rather, should await political implementation. I emphasize again that tension with the Supreme Court's reassurance in Reid v. Covert that the treaty power cannot be employed to violate constitutional rights. n31 That appearance should dissolve on closer examination. The treaty makers cannot override constitutional norms, and they cannot order the Supreme Court to alter its interpretation of a constitutional provision. n32 But treaties, like legislation, can contribute to a shift in the factual, institutional, and normative environment within which the Court carries on its task of constitutional interpretation. The resulting doctrinal evolution is unavoidable in any candid account of U.S. constitutional history . Nothing in Reid v. Covert and its progeny precludes this indirect influence of treaty making on constitutional law. Treaties and the case law arising under them thus become data available for the Court's consideration in elaborating the contemporary meaning of constitutional norms. The political branches can neither require the Court to follow international or foreign law in interpreting the Constitution nor prohibit

Under current circumstances, the Supreme Court correctly does not engage in the practice, pursued by some other constitutional courts, of construing constitutional rights for the purpose of judicially implementing the positive international obligations of the nation under human rights treaties. The positive effect of treaty norms differs from the moral or functional insight that they may provide.Human rights treaties do not require implementation at the constitutional level, and in the U.S. legal system Congress retains ultimate control over the means of implementing--or breaching--a treaty. Entrenching positive human rights standards as [*89] constitutional interpretation, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the treaty as such, would deprive the political branches of their authority to choose methods of treaty implementation, and would not be consistent with current constitutional understandings. n33
the Court from considering international or foreign law.

The distinction is key the plan destroys hegemony Wilkinson, 2004 (The Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III is currently a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circ uit, The use of international law in
Judicial Decisions, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub.Pol'y 423) So of course American . It would be odd if it did not. In some areas, foreign and international law is made relevant by our Constitution, by statute or treaty, by the well-developed principles of common law, by overwhelming considerations of comity, or simply by

international law should play a part in

judicial reasoning

But when judges, on their own motion and without any direction by Congress or the we are dealing with an entirely different question.So judges must not wade, suasponte, into international law's deep blue sea. Rather, we ought to ask: How does American law make foreign or international standards relevant? Why should we ask this threshold question? Because it is important that the United States speak with one, not multiple, voices in foreign affairs. The Constitution is explicit on this: Article I, Section 10 says that "no State shall enter into any Treaty [or] Alliance" with a foreign power. n9The Constitution leaves the conduct of foreign and military affairs largely to the political branches -- not the courts. The diplomatic credibility of theUnited States would plummet if the actions and pronouncementsof the executive and legislative branches in foreign and military matters were later repudiated and contradicted by judicial decree.
private commercial agreement of the parties. Constitution decide to make such precedents relevant,

Congressional action is key to the perception of permanencyCourts have acquired a reputation of being fickle with treaties Hathaway et al 12 professor of international law at Yale (Oona A. Hathaway, Sabria McElroy & Sara Aronchick Solow, International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts, The Yale Journal of International Law, Volume 37, No. 1, 2012, http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/37-1-hathaway-international-lawat-home.pdf)
The United States is party to hundreds of Article II treaties, many of them It is thus of no small importance that the Supreme Court has cast the legal status of significant numbers of these treaties into doubt with its decision in Medelln v. Texas. In this Article, we have aimed to bring perspective to Medellnand to the broader debate over the enforcement of international law in U.S. courtsby placing it into context. We have shown that for the first century and a half after the Founding, the courts of the United States presumed that treaties that created private rights were self-executing and created a private right of action. But this presumption began to erode well before Medellnin no small part in response to the backlash against the post-War human rights revolution that some
Today, more than ever before, international law is a part of daily life. covering topics of the gravest importance to the country, ranging from the economy, 329 to criminal law enforcement, 330 to national security. 331 perceived as a direct threat to racial segregation. Medelln, and an overbroad dictum hidden within it, has in the past four years been read by the lower courts not as a simple ratification of this

Unless corrected, lower courts will likely continue to read Medelln to endorse the conclusion that the only treaty that may be directly enforced in court is the rare one that expressly states as much. Yet this Article also makes clear that the end of direct enforcement of Article II treaties in U.S. courts does not spell the end of all
more cautious post-War stance, but as a complete reversal of the Founding Era presumption. enforcement of Article II treaties in U.S. courts. For there remain several ways in which the courts allow treaties to be used even when they do not give rise to a private right of action. We call these indirect enforcement, defensive enforcement, and interpretive enforcement, and we show how they operate to enforce treaty obligations in ways that are not always noticed but are nonetheless deeply influential. This fuller picture of the enforcement of international law in U.S. courts allows us to see the peaks and the valleys more clearly. We see that the problem is at once

lower courts have made much more than observers predicted of the Medelln dictum and yet there remain many ways aside from direct enforcement of treaty obligations to enforce treaties in court. Armed with this more complete understanding of the challenge, we are better positioned to make and evaluate proposals for improving enforcement. Our proposals acknowledge that the problem of international law enforcement is not simply one for the courts to solve . Our proposalsfor legislative enactment, for clear statements by the executive, and for use of the Public Right of Actioncall for Congress and the President to respond to a need that is as much within their power and responsibility to address as it is within the courts. The President and the Senate, after all, concluded the Article II treaties now called into doubt and they must now work, together with the courts, to put the doubts to rest.
more and less dire than sometimes acknowledged

Traditional ratification is keyjudicial enforcement of obligations wont happen otherwise Hathaway et al 12 professor of international law at Yale (Oona A. Hathaway, Sabria McElroy & Sara Aronchick Solow, International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts, The Yale Journal of International Law, Volume 37, No. 1, 2012, http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/37-1-hathaway-international-lawat-home.pdf)
The courts of the United States are today less willing than at any previous time in history to directly enforce the Article II treaty obligations of the United States through a private right of action. The decline of such enforcement began in the post-World War II era, but reached its peak only recently as lower courts have begun treating the Medelln Courts statement of a background presumption against finding that treaties create private rights as universal. The gap left by the decline in direct enforcement has been filled in part by indirect enforcement, defensive enforcement, and interpretive enforcement. Yet there is more that can be done to ensure that once the United States makes an international legal commitment, it is able to honor that obligation. Here we offer three proposals to ensure that the United Statess Article II treaty commitments may be more effectively enforced in U.S. courts. 259 First, Congress could pass legislation that provides for the judicial enforcement of obligations established in Article II treaties. Alternatively, the President and Congress could make individual international treaty obligations through the ordinary legislative process rather than through Article II. Second, the executive branch could adopt a clear statement rule, which the Legal Advisors Office of the State Department would apply to newly concluded treaties. Finally, the executive branch could enforce international treaty obligations by seeking injunctions against state and municipal agencies violating those obligations in cases where the United States risks being placed in violation of a national treaty obligation. 260

Gas PIC Answers

Energy infrastructure and US investment are the key issues- the plan builds pipleines Wood 13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of
the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico Energy Cooperation, January 2013)

Beyond exploration and production, the pressing need for infrastructure stands out as an area with

high potential for bilateral collaboration . First, it is vital that large scale construction of gas pipelines occurs , both within Mexico and across the border. Within Mexico, the Calderon administration identified the need for multi - billion dollar investments in the creation of a truly national gas pipeline network: at the
present time the majority of western portion of the country lacks access to natural gas . Secondly, as was made painfully clear to a number of private sector industrial consumers duri ng 2012, during times of short supply, the country lacks the capacity to import

extra supplies of gas from the United States due to the limitations of the cross - border pipeline network. In
companies that they were unable to secure stable and sufficient supplies of gas for their manufacturing processes. The second deficit in energy infrastructure can be found in the refining sector. The much - publicized efforts of the Calderon administration,
2012 this led to complaints from announced in January 2009, to buil d a new refinery at Tula in the state of Hidalgo that was designed to process up to 300,000 barrels a day of Mexican heavy crude have thus far come to nothing. The project has been repeatedly delayed, first due to problems in securing the land, then due to bureaucratic problems and political wrangling. At the same time, Mexicos dependence on imported gasoline has increased in line with rising demand. Mexico therefore needs to find a solution to this issue in the near future, and one option that presents it self is the example of the Deer Park refinery complex in Texas where since 1993 Pemex and Shell have worked together in a joint venture to refine 340,000 barrels a day of crude oil. Part of the production of the refinery heads

Lastly, Mexicos petrochemical sector is in urgent need of investment . For many years now the industry has languished
back to Mexico and has become an important source of income for Pemex as well as helping to satisfy the countrys need for re fined products.

due to a lack of funds and a lack of direction from the government. Despite encouraging signs of new
investment interest in recent months, the major Mexican petrochemicals project of the last few years, Ethylene XXI, has suffered repeated delays . When completed in 2015, the project will be a private petrochemical complex for the production of polyethylene, producing up to one million tons of polyethylene, and replace up to $2 billion worth of imports resulting in the creation of thousands of jobs. But the prospect of huge supplies of cheap gas from Mexico and the U.S. shale gas industry offers the tantalizing prospect of turning Mexico into a production and export base for these products, and there will be a major opportunity for joint ventures with foreign firms. The prospect of huge supplies of cheap gas from Mexico and the U.S. shale gas industry offers the tantalizing prospect of turning Mexico into a petrochemical production and export platform.

Unconventional hydrocarbons and gas key to PEMEX future Wood 13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of
the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico Energy Cooperation, January 2013) The Evolving Energy Context The past 5 years have seen a revolution in the energy sector globally, with the advent of shale gas and tight oil production dramatically altering the supply outlook. In the case of gas, the success of American firms in drilling for gas in shale formations across the continental United States has meant a flood of new supplies that have caused a major decline in gas prices. From a Henry Hub spot price of over $13 per million British Thermal Units (mmBTUs), the price has fallen to just ove r $2 per mmBTU by the end of 2012. This, in turn, has greatly reduced the cost of generating electricity in the United States and has encouraged utilities to switch to gas from other fuel sources. The United States has also increased its domestic oil produ ction by more than 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) through the exploitation of tight oil reserves in places such as North Dakota, applying latest drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) 39 technologies. Although we have seen this jump in supply in the U.S. , oil prices have remained high due to global demand pressures and the international, rather than regional nature of oil

At the same time as U.S. production has risen, Mexican oil has experienced a precipitous decline. From a level of 3.4 million bpd in 2004, Mexicos oil production has fallen to only 2.55 million bpd. The stagnation of the national oil company, the prohibition on foreign or private investment and participation in the sector, and the end of easy oil in Mexico has meant that a change in thinking is desperately needed in Mexican
pricing.

hydrocarbons policy.

Oil and gas As noted above, the history of cooperation between the United States and Mexico on oil issues has been limited by the historical

sensitivity of Mexicos government and people to any hint of interference from the U.S. in what has traditionally been seen as a central element in the nations sovereignty. Nonetheless,

recent years have shown a softening on this sensitivity, in part due to generational change, in part due to politi cal change, and in part due to the success of negotiating a Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement in 2012. That agreement laid out a framework for determining the management and exploitation of cross - border oil reserves, and was hailed as a positive develop ment. It was quickly ratified
in the Mexican Senate, but is has yet to be ratified in the United States, and so has not yet come into force. Before moving on to discuss new areas of cooperation, it is important that this existing agreement is ratified. It is widely expected that the government of Enrique Pea Nieto will present an energy reform initiative to the Mexican Congress early in 2013. While it is still unknown how ambitious that reform proposal will be, it is thought that the government will presen t an initiative that will be aimed at opening the sector to greater levels of private participation in refining,

Such an opening will of course offer significant possibilities for foreign as well as Me xican firms, and will also open the door to new areas of technical and regulatory collaboration between the two countries. Mexicos energy establis hment, and increasingly it seems, the government, hope that private investment will occur in unconventional hydrocarbons sector. For Mexico the most interesting plays in the future will be found in the
petrochemicals and even in exploration and production. deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, in the as yet untap ped shale reserves that are found throughout the east of the country, and in the geologically - complex fields of Chicontepec, where Pemex has been consistently failing to meet production targets over the past four years.

The application of cutting - edge tech nologies and techniques

from U.S. firms would likely be important in all three of these areas , and the experience of American firms in shale plays would provide them with an advantage in the event of an opening in that area. It is widely expected that the government of Enrique Pea Nieto will present an energy reform initiative to the Mexican Congress early in 2013. Such an opening will of course offer significant possibilities for foreign as well as Mexican firms, and will also open the door to new areas of technical and regulatory collaboration between the two countries. 40 Of particular interest in this regard is the experience of U.S. firms in the hydraulic fracturing ( fracking ) business. The ability to extract shale oil and gas in areas that suffer from water shortages (such as Texas) will be crucial to developing shale resources in Mexico , particularl y in the north of the country. In fact existing knowledge of the geological characteristics of the Eagle Ford formation will also be crucial in
exploiting its oil and gas reserves in Coahuila, where the formation extends. One Mexican company, Alfa, has already worked extensively with U.S. partners in the shale industry north of the border, and we can expect higher levels of private sector collaboration to develop.

AT Energy Regime K

Top Shelf 2ac

Frame the alternative within consequentialism neoliberalism is most ethical because all practical alternatives are worse and cause violecne
-coming up with an alternative economic system matters -dont take a leap of faith -any alternative is utopian and unachievable -capitalism can be reformed

Richards 9 PhD in Philosophy @ Princeton

Jay Richards, PhD with honors in Philosophy and Theology from Princeton, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, pg. 31-32 Myth no. 1: The Nirvana Myth (contrasting capitalism with an unrealizable ideal rather than with its live alternatives) But the myth can have subtle effects even if we reject utopian schemes. To avoid its dangers, we have to resist the temptation to compare our live options with an ideal that we can never realize. When we ask whether we can build a just society, we need to keep the question nailed to solid ground: just compared with what? It doesnt do anyone any good to tear down a society that is unjust compared with the kingdom of God if that society is more just than any of the ones that will replace it. Compared with Nirvana, no real society looks good. Compared with utopia, Stalinist Russia and America at its best will both get bad reviews. The differences between them may seem trivial compared to utopia. Thats one of the grave dangers of utopian thinking: it blinds us to the important differences among the various ways of ordering society. The Nirvana Myth dazzles the eyes, to the point that the real alternatives all seem like dull and barely distinguishable shades of gray. The free exchange of wages for work in the marketplace starts to look like slavery. Tough competition for market share between companies is confused with theft and survival of the fittest. Banking is confused with usury and exploitation. This shouldnt surprise us. Of course a modern capitalist society like the United States looks terrible compared with the kingdom of God. But thats bad moral reasoning. The question isnt whether capitalism measures up to the kingdom of God. The question is whether theres a better alternative in this life. Those who condemn the immorality of liberal capitalism do so in comparison with a society of saints that has never existedand never will. Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works If were going to compare modern capitalism with an extreme, we should compare it with a real extremelike communism in Cambodia, China, or the Soviet Union. Unlike Nirvana, these experiments are well within our power to bring about. They all reveal the terrible cost of trying to create a society in which ev- eryone is economically equal. If we insist on comparing live options with live options, modern capitalism could hardly be more different, more just, or more desirable than such an outcome. That doesnt mean we should rest on our laurels. It means we need to stay focused on reality rather than romantic ideals. So how should we answer the question that began this chap- ter: cant we build a just society? The answer: we should do everything we can to build a more just society and a more just world. And the worst way to do that is to try to create an egalitarian utopia.

No transition institutional complexity and impersonal nature of systems cause cultural assimilation only growth can solve social conflict Barnhizer, 6
David, Prof of Law, Cleveland State U, Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream, Geo Intl Envtl L Rev, pg. l/n Devotees of sustainability pin their hopes on an awakening by an enlightened populace that will rise up and insist that business and government behave in ways that reflect the idea that "[a] sustainable society is one that can persist over generations, one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social systems of support." n81

This awakening is not going to happen . There will never be a populist revolution in the way humans value the

environment, social justice, and other matters of moral consequence. We frequently "talk the talk," but rarely "walk the walk." n82 This discrepancy is partly an individual failure, but it is even more a result of the powerful forces that operate within our culture. Residents of Western cultures are shaped by the system in which they live. They will never possess either the clarity of agenda or the political will essential to a coherent and coordinated shift in behavior due to a combination of ignorance, greed, sloth, and inundation by political and consumerist propaganda. This combination means there will be no values shift welling up from the people and demanding the transformation of our systems of production and resource use. Paul Tournier captured the essence of the cultural forces when he observed: [People] have become merely cogs in the machine of production, tools, functions. All that matters is what they do, not what they think or feel. . . . [T]heir thoughts and feelings are . . . molded by propaganda, press, cinema and radio. They read the same newspaper each day, hear the same slogans, see the same advertisements. n83 Feeling helpless in the face of inordinate complexity and vast impersonal forces causes us to flee from our

personal

responsibility

and become absorbed into the systems of institutions. The price of the required allegiance includes accepting (or appearing to accept) the institution's

values as our own. We become a contributing part of the same system that oppresses us and

steals our humanity and idealism . This assimilation

allows us to avoid the harshest application of the system's power while reaping the rewards of collaboration . We become, in the [*629] words of Pink Floyd, "just another

brick in the wall." n84 When we attempt to talk about the need to do such things as internalize costs that are now allowed to remain external to the entities generating the harms and shifting to a system of low or no impact on the Earth's natural systems, we are talking about fundamental, non-voluntary changes in entitlements and lifestyle. Even Alan Greenspan drew severe criticism when he recently suggested that social security benefits should be reduced. n85 Jacques Chirac's party in France has seen its public support plummet due to efforts to reduce social spending. n86 Germans have taken to the streets in the hundreds of thousands to protest their leaders' efforts to develop plans to gain control of the German welfare stat e. n87 It is impossible to generate the political will
that would be required to change the system we have constructed into one that satisfies the demands of sustainability. This is not surprising because the clear message is that we

need economic growth . The situation we face is akin to Bangladesh where I was part of a group urging the country's Planning Minister to
take potential environmental harms and ecosystem impacts into greater account in his planning. He responded that the ideas were admirable in theory but that he had to worry about generating jobs and food for 160 million people. He indicated that while he respected the arguments for sustainability his more immediate needs were to ensure jobs and food for Bangladeshis. In a similar context, while teaching international environmental law in St. Petersburg, Russia, my discussion with Russian academic colleagues related to water pollution in the area, radioactive materials dumping, and the raw air pollution from Lada cars running on 76 octane gasoline and other uncontrolled emitters of air pollution that fouled the air of this most beautiful city. At the end of the course one of my Russian colleagues said, "I found it all fascinating. But you know we have other problems with which we must deal before we can begin to worry about the environment. Perhaps in fifteen years or so we will be ready." I found myself unable to disagree with the speakers in either Bangladesh or Russia. Return to the idea of our inability to generate the political will that would be required to achieve fundamental change if we decided that the Agenda 21 type of sustainable development ideas were good social and economic strategies . Even if [*630] they were desirable, they are "impossible dreams"
because the people and institutions who set policy and decide on actions in the business and governmental arenas will never accept them as guides for behavior or as requirements for decisionmaking. This impossibility exists because we are not free and independent individuals but creatures of habit, dominated by the culture in which we exist. We desire to behave according to the dictates of the powerful systems that govern our lives and culture.

Even if they win discourse first, you should evaluate impacts within the framework of neoliberal knowledge production market relations are stable social constructions that people assume to be true only using them as a starting point is politically productive Jones & Spicer 9
(Campbell, Senior Lecturer in the School of Management at U of Leicester, Andre, Associate Professor in the Dept of Industrial Relations @ Warwick Business School U of Warwick, Unmasking the Entrepreneur, pgs. 22-23)

The third strand in our proposed critical theory of entrepreneurship involves questions of the 'extra-discursive' factors that structure the context in which these discourses appear. The result of privileging language often results in losing sight of political and economic relations, and for this reason, a turn to language and a concomitant disavowal of things extra-discursive have been roundly criticised (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000; Armstrong, 2001; Reed, 1998,2000,2009). An analysis of discourse cannot alone account for the enduring social structures such as the state or capitalism. Mike Reed has argued that a discursive approach to power relations effectively blinds critical theorists to issues of social structures: Foucauldian discourse analysis is largely restricted to a tactical and localised view of power, as constituted and expressed through situational-specific 'negotiated orders', which seriously underestimates the structural reality of more permanent and hierarchal power relations. It finds it difficult, if not impossible, to deal with institutionalised stabilities and continuities in power relations because it cannot get at the higher levels of social organisation in which micro-level processes and practices are embedded. (Reed, 2000: 526-7) These institutional stabilities may include market relations, the power of the state, relations like colonialism, kinship and patriarchy. These are the 'generative properties' that Reed (1998: 210) understands as 'mak(ing) social practices and forms - such as discursive formations - what they are and equip(ing) them with what they do'. Equally Thompson and Ackroyd also argue that in discourse analysis 'workers are not disciplined by the market, or sanctions actually or potentially invoked by capital, but their own subjectivities' (1995: 627). The inability to examine structures such as capitalism means that some basic forms of power are thus uninvestigated. Focusing solely on entrepreneurship discourse within organisations and the workplace would lead to a situation where pertinent relations that do not enter into discourse are taken to not exist. Such oversights in discursive analyses are that often structural relations such as class and the state have become so reified in social and mental worlds that they disappear. An ironic outcome indeed. Even when this structural context is considered, it is often examined in broad, oversimplified, and underspecified manners. This attention to social structure can be an important part of developing a critical theory of entrepreneurship, as we remember that the existing structural arrangements at any point are not inevitable, but can be subjected to criticism and change. In order to deal with these problems, we need to revive the concept of social structure. Thus we are arguing that 'there exist in the social world itself and not only within symbolic systems (language, myths, etc.) objective structures independent of the consciousness and will of agents, which are capable of guiding and constraining their practices or their representations' (Bourdieu, 1990: 122). Objective still means socially constructed, but social constructions that have become solidified as structures external to individual subjects. Examples of these structures may include basic 'organising principals' which are relatively stable and spatially and historically situated such as capitalism, kinship, patriarchy and the state. Some entrepreneurship researchers, particularly those drawing on sociology and political science, have shown the importance of social structure for understanding entrepreneurship (see for example Swedberg, 2000).

Economic rationality is ethical and solves war self-interest motivates individuals to sacrifice some autonomy to produce security and protect the rights of others Aasland 9
(Dag, Prof. of Economics @ U of Agder, Norway, Ethics and Economy: After Levinas, pgs. 65-66)
Business ethics, in the sense of ethics for business, illustrates this: its perspective is that of an enlightened self-interest where the constraints that are put on the individual, thanks to the ability to see the unfortunate consequences for oneself, postpone the war, in a direct or metaphoric sense of the word ( ibid.: 70-71). This enlightened self-interest forms the base not only of the market economy, but also of a social organization and manifestation of human rights, and even of some ethical theories. It is a calculated and voluntary renunciation of ones own freedom in order to obtain in return security and other common goals (ibid.: 72). The fact that economic, political and legal theories appeal to enlightened self-interest does not imply, however, that we should discard them. Nor should we reject proclamations of human rights, legal constraints of individual freedom and, for that matter, business ethics, even if they are based on an enlightened self-interest. It is rather the opposite: such institutions and knowledge are indispensable because the primary quality of the enlightened selfinterest is that it restricts egocentricity. Our practical reason (which was Kants words for the reason that governs our acts, where the moral law is embedded as a principle) includes the knowledge that it can be rational to lay certain restrictions on individual freedom. In this way practical reason may postpone (for an indefinite time) violence and murder among people. This has primarily been the raison-dtre of politics and the state, but it is today taken over more and more by corporate organizations, as expressed in the new term for business ethics, as corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship (see chapter 2). Thanks to this postponement of violence provided by politics and economic rationality, people may unfold their freedom within the laws and regulations set up by society (Burggraeve, 2003: 77).

Permutation do both The perm solves best infrastructure investment creates public wealth and produces social justice Cook 10
(Mitchell, freelance research consultant specializing in issues of urban planning, local governance and international development, he has consulted for the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, visiting scholar studying urban development strategy and local governance at the National Research Center for the Economy of the Upper Reaches of the Yangtze in Chongqing, China Toward a Sustainable Urbanism: Globalization, Urban Planning and the New Urban Reality. GPIA Student Working Paper Series 2010-2. New York: Graduate Program in International Affairs, The New School, www.gpia.info/files/u900/_Mitchell_Cook_GPIA_Student_WPS_Updated_5-19.pdf) I define the notion of public wealth as the total stock of public goods and services available for local consumption. Public goods and services include essential infrastructure, public education facilities, and public housing as well as more discretionary local goods like libraries, museums, parks and recreational facilities. When equitable access is guaranteed, the production of public wealth through the financing of investments in transportation, electricity, sanitation and clean water supply is a critical channel through which everyone can benefit from agglomeration. Indeed,

without these investments in core infrastructure, the gains to productivity

muted or even

from agglomeration are

reversed for poor workers who , for example, are forced to pay
to clean water or sanitation facilities

expensive rates for even minimal access

and whose employment

opportunities are geographically limited, resulting in higher unemployment rates due to an absence of accessible transportation infrastructure

Neolib solves war and collapse causes it historical evidence and studies prove Tures 3 Associate Professor of Political Science @ LaGrange College
John A. Tures, Associate Professor of Political Science at LaGrange College, 2003, ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND CONFLICT REDUCTION: EVIDENCE FROM THE 1970S, 1980S, AND 1990S, Cato Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj22n3/cj22n3 -9.pdf The last three decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of market-based reforms and the profusion of economic freedom in the international system. This shift in economic policy has sparked a debate about whether free markets are superior to state controls. Numerous studies have compared the neoliberal and statist policies on issues of production capacity, economic growth, commercial vol- umes, and egalitarianism. An overlooked research agenda, however, is the relationship between levels of economic freedom and violence within countries. Proponents of the statist approach might note that a strong gov- ernment can bend the market to its will, directing activity toward policies necessary to achieve greater levels of gross domestic product and growth. By extracting more resources for the economy, a pow- erful state can redistribute benefits to keep the populace happy. Higher taxes can also pay for an army and police force that intimidate people. Such governments range from command economies of totali- tarian systems to autocratic dictators and military juntas. Other eco- nomically unfree systems include some of the authoritarian Asian tigers. A combination of historical evidence, modern theorists, and statis- tical findings, however, has indicated that a reduced role for the state in regulating economic transactions is associated with a decrease in internal conflicts. Countries where the government dominates the commercial realm experience an increase in the level of domestic violence. Scholars have traced the history of revolutions to explain the relationship between statism and internal upheavals. Contemporary authors also posit a relationship between economic liberty and peace. Statistical tests show a strong connection between economic freedom and conflict reduction during the past three decades.

Neoliberalism leads to growth and solves poverty turns your structural violence args Obhof 3 J.D. from Yale Law School
Larry J. Obhof, J.D., Yale Law School, 2003; B.A., Ohio University, 2000. WHY GLOBALIZATION? A LOOK AT GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND ITS EFFECTS. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy. Fall 2003. Lexis. The effects of globalization have largely been positive for both developed and developing countries. Consider, for example, the effects of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, which lasted from 1986 to 1994 and resulted in agreements to reduce tariffs and other non-tariff barriers. Advanced countries agreed to lower their tariffs by an average of 40%, and [*99] the signatories agreed to liberalize trade in the important areas of agriculture and clothing. n32 The effects of the Uruguay Round have been both positive and large. Reducing tariffs and nontariff barriers has produced annual increases in global GDP of $ 100-300 billion. n33 This figure is five times larger than the total worldwide aid to developing countries. n34 More importantly, a significant share of this increase has gone to the poorest people. The percentage of the population in developing countries living under $ 1 per day has fallen from 30% to 24% in the past decade. n35 The recent experience of Mexico offers an excellent example of global capitalism in action. The extent of poverty in Mexico is shocking; 20 million people live on less than $ 2 per day. n36 This is so for a number of reasons, including government intervention in the market in the form of protectionist measures intended to help ailing or failing industries. Using government interventions to shape the allocation of resources traditionally led to gross inefficiencies and a low pace of innovation and adoption of new technologies. n37 Trade liberalization has helped curb such interventions - indeed, the opening of its markets has become one of the most important and far-reaching reforms in Mexico. The effects of trade liberalization on the Mexican economy have been significant. Exports in Mexico have increased sixfold since 1985, and the GDP of the country has grown at an average rate of 5.4% per year since 1996. n38 Since NAFTA created a "free trade area" among the United States, Canada, and Mexico in 1994, Mexican labor productivity has grown fast in its tradable sectors. n39 Not surprisingly, however, productivity has remained stagnant in nontradable sectors. n40 NAFTA has also improved Mexico's aggregate trade balance and helped to ameliorate the effect of the [*100] peso crisis on capital flows. n41 As most economists predicted during the NAFTA debate, the effects of the agreement have been positive and large for Mexico. n42 The effects have also been positive, although smaller, for the United States. This is also consistent with the pre-NAFTA analyses of most economists. n43 The positive effects of globalization have been consistent throughout the developing world. Dramatic increases in per capita inco me have accompanied the expansion of trade in countries that have become more globalized. Korea, for example, has seen average incomes increase eightfold since 1960. n44 China has experienced an average growth of 5.1% during the same period, and other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have experienced faster growth than that in advanced countries. n45 The evidence is incredibly one-sided. "[P]romoting openness, and supporting it with sound domestic policies, leads to faster growth." n46 The most successful third of developing countries have lowered average import tariffs by 34% and increased trade relative to income by 104% since 1980. n47 Per capita income in these countries rose by a yearly average of [*101] 3.5% in the 1980s, and a yearly average of 5% in the 1990s. n48 The remaining developing countries, which have lowered tariffs by an average of only 11%, experienced "little or no growth in GDP per capita in the post-1980 period." n49 In countries that have become more open, increased growth has undoubtedly been good for the poor. "Cross-country evidence suggests that the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of the population increase roughly one-for-one with the average per capita income." n50 Some studies have found an even stronger effect: a 1% increase in the average per capita income is associated with a reduction in poverty rates by up to 3.5%. n51 Poverty rates fall, almost always, simultaneously with growth in average living standards. The evidence is clear: increasing integration leads to greater growth, and with it, greater income levels, particularly for the poorest. n52

Growth key to solve overpopulation Hollander 3

Jack, professor emeritus of Energy and Resources at the University of California, Berkeley, Oakland Tribune, ln The picture is very different in the developing countries. Poverty itself is the environmental villain, and poor people are its victims. One example is the population problem. An absolute requirement for a future sustainable environment is a stable global population, yet traditionally the poorest countries produced explosive population- growth rates. The large families in these countries were the result of high expected death rates from hunger, infectious diseases, contaminated water, lack of health care, resources and education. Now, as income slowly rises in the developing countries, one can see the beginnings of a trend toward population stability. In every country with per-capita annual income over $5,000 (1994 dollars), the fertility rate (average number of children per woman) has dropped to the point where it is not higher than, and in some cases lower than, the minimum replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Even in Sri Lanka, where per-capita income is under $1,000, the fertility rate is only at replacement level.

Extinction Ehrlich and Ehrlich 6

Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, faculty at Stanford University, 9-30-2006, New Scientist Much of today's population growth is occurring in rural regions in the developing world, sparking tension both within and between nations as increasing numbers of young people migrate to cities and to wealthier countries looking for a better life. In the US, where large numbers of illegal immigrants enter the country in search of work, opinions on immigration are already sharply divided. Western European nations have tended to accept limited immigration from developing countries as a way to augment their workforce. Here too illegal immigration is increasingly a problem, as thousands of people flee overcrowded labour markets in poor African and Asian countries in search of jobs. In many developing countries, numbers of young working-age people are rising by up to 3 per cent per year. Dissatisfaction is inevitable where populations of mostly young people face high unemployment, poverty, poor healthcare, limited education, inequity and repressive government. Revolutions and political unrest most often occur in developing nations with growing populations. Unemployed, disaffected young men provide both public support and cannon fodder for terrorism. The majority of terrorists behind 9/11 and attacks in Europe, for instance, have been young adult men. This is also the demographic group responsible for most crime globally. Expanding populations also create rising demands for food, energy and materials. The strain this puts on ecosystems and resources in developing countries is compounded by demands from industrialised nations keen to exploit everything from timber and tropical fruits to metals and petroleum. Shortages of fresh water are increasingly common, jeopardising food production among many other problems. Rising oil prices may now be signalling the end of cheap energy, which also poses a threat to successful development. At the same time, mounting evidence of global warming makes reducing fossil-fuel use imperative. If the 5 billion-plus people in developing nations matched the consumption patterns of the 1.2 billion in the industrialized world, at least two more Earths would be needed to support everyone. Politicians and the public seem utterly oblivious to what will be required to maintain crucial ecosystem services and an adequate food supply in the face of rapid climate change and an accelerated loss of biodiversity. The future looks grim, unless patterns of consumption change - with rich nations causing less environmental damage and poor ones consuming more, but adopting the newest, cleanest and most efficient technologies for energy use and production of goods and services. It seems likely that by 2050 nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of most nations and many subnational groups. Imagine a well-armed world, still split between rich and poor, with unevenly distributed resources and a ravaged environment. Unless we act now, future generations will not have to imagine.

Transition Wars DA
Transition from neolib causes massive violence counter-revolutionary interventions Anderson 84
professor of sociology UCLA, (Perry, In the tracks of historical materialism, p. 102-103) That background also indicates, however, what is essentially missing from his work. How are we to get from where we are today to where he point us to tomorrow? There is no answer to this question in Nove. His halting discussion of transition tails away into apprehensive admonitions to moderation to the British Labor Party, and pleas for proper compensation to capitalist owners of major industries, if these are to be nationalized. Nowhere is there any sense of what a titanic political change would have to occur, with what fierceness of social struggle, for the economic model of socialism he advocates ever to materialize. Between the radicalism o f the future end-state he envisages, and the conservatism of the present measures he is prepared to countenance, there is an unbridgeable abyss. How could private ownership of the means of production ever be abolished by policies less disrespectful of capital than those of Allende or a Benn, which he reproves? What has disappeared from the pages of The Economics of Feasible Socialism is virtually all attention to the historical dynamics of any serious conflict over the control of the means of production, as the record of the 20th century demonstrates them. If capital could visit such destruction on even so poor and small an outlying province of its empire in Vietnam, to prevent its loss, is it likely that it would suffer its extinction meekly in its own homeland? The lessons of

without ambiguity or exception, there is no case, from Russia to China, from Vietnam to Cuba, from Chile to Nicaragua, where the existence of capitalism has been challenged, and the furies of intervention, blockade and civil strife have not descended in response. Any viable transition to socialism in the West must seek to curtail that pattern: but to shrink from or to ignore it is to depart from the world of the possible altogether. In the same way, to construct an economic model of socialism in one advanced country is a legitimate exercise: but to extract it from any
the past sixty-five years or so are in this respect computable relationship with a surrounding, and necessarily opposing, capitalist environment as this work doesis to locate it in thin air.

Reversal of neoliberal globalization causes transition wars and extinction terrorism, diseases, and regional tensions Sachs 95,
(Jeffrey, Prof of International Trade @ Harvard, Consolidating Capitalism, Foreign Policy No. 98, questia) For more than two decades, globalizationthe integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would producewould certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point . An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economyfrom New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?

AT Structural Violence
Structural violence declining now global trade Chen 2k Professor of Law @ Minnesota University
Jim Chen, Professor of Law and Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, 2000-2001, University of Minnesota Law School. PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME". November/December 2000. 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217. Lexis. The antiglobalization movement has made some extraordinary claims. Let us transplant a precept of natural science into this social realm: n177 extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. n178 From Seattle to Prague, protesters have argued that the organs of international economic law conspire with multinational corporations to sap national and local governments of legitimate power, to destabilize global security, and to poison workplaces as well as ecosystems. n179 That case has not met even the most generous standard of proof. The antiglobalization movement has failed to refute the following: Dramatic improvements in welfare at every wealth and income [*246] level. n180 Since 1820 global wealth has expanded tenfold, thanks largely to technological advances and the erosion of barriers to trade. n181 The world economic order, simply put, is lifting people out of poverty. According to the World Bank, the percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty fell from 28.3 to 23.4% between 1987 and 1998. n182 (The World Bank defines extreme and absolute poverty according to "reference lines set at $ 1 and $ 2 per day" in 1993 terms, adjusted for "the relative purchasing power of currencies across countries.") n183 A more optimistic study has concluded that "the share of the world's population earning less than US$ 2 per day shrank by more than half" between 1980 and 1990, "from 34 to 16.6 percent." n184 In concrete terms, "economic growth associated with globalization" over the course of that decade helped lift 1.4 billion people out of absolute poverty. n185 Whatever its precise magnitude, this improvement in global welfare has taken place because of, not in spite of, flourishing world trade. n186

Their description of structural violence is flawed it overdetermines a single line of causality, but lacks the specificity to describe likely scenarios prefer our empirical impact claims Thompson 3
William, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of International Relations at Indiana University, A Streetcar Named Sarajevo: Catalysts, Multiple Causation Chains, and Rivalry Structures, International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), AD: 7-10-9 Richard Ned Lebow (20002001) has recently invoked what might be called a streetcar interpretation of systemic war and change. According to him, all our structural theories in world politics both overdetermine and underdetermine the explanation of the most important events such as World War I, World War II, or the end of the Cold War. Not only do structural theories tend to fixate on one cause or stream of causation, they are inherently incomplete because the influence of structural causes cannot be known without also identifying the necessary role of catalysts. As long as we ignore the precipitants that actually encourage actors to act, we cannot make accurate generalizations about the relationships between more remote causation and the outcomes that we are trying to explain . Nor can we test the accuracy of such generalizations without accompanying data on the presence or absence of catalysts. In the absence of an appropriate catalyst (or a streetcar that failed to arrive), wars might never have happened. Concrete information on their presence (streetcars that did arrive) might alter our understanding of the explanatory significance of other variables. But since catalysts and contingencies are so difficult to handle theoretically and empirically, perhaps we should focus instead on probing the theoretical role of contingencies via the development of what if scenarios

AT Ethics/Economic Calculations Bad

Economic calculations are good ethics requires choices between competing demands economics creates a system for stabilizing the demands of the Other as preferences, allowing for ethical dialogue through market competition and negotiation Aasland 9
(Dag, Prof. of Economics @ U of Agder, Norway, Ethics and Economy: After Levinas, pgs. 65-66)
What is original in Levinas compared to other authors who also have defined being a human as being related to another human, such as, for instance, Buber and Lgstrup (mentioned in the previous chapter), and those representing the ethics of care (also presented in the previous chapter), is that Levinas acknowledges that I not only meet the Other, but also the third, as the Other. By meeting the third I am again confronted with an appeal for mercy. From this as a result of an intention of being responsible I am forced to evaluate, compare, reason and to seek what is just. Justice exerts violence but is still better than injustice. In my efforts towards more justice I must compare, and in this comparing I may have to count, also money; it may even be necessary to set a price for a human life, something that, from the point of view of mercy, is a scandal, but still necessary, because the third is also there. It is necessary to count; the question is why I count. Is it out of my conatus, which, if it is allowed to unfold freely without being questioned (or, alternatively, if I ignore the questioning), will lead to violence? Or is it out of mercy, which comes to me as an imperative in the encounter with the Other, and which, in the encounter with the third as the Other drives me to seek always more justice? This is not only about counting, it is about being in general why and how I am. Levinas will insist that To be or not to be, that is not the question (Cohen in Levinas, 1985: 10). Instead, it is a question of how I am a being together with others in the world. Ethics comes before ontology. An objection to Noddings ethics of care is that the mother-infant- situation is not a common one. It is instead a special situation where special qualities are called forth, that are not found elsewhere in society. To believe that the good is natural can be nave; it can even be dangerous. Looking around in the world today the opposite would be more natural to claim: we have a natural inclination towards controlling and reducing the Other, with violence, physical or psychological. But through the encounter with the Other we are told that this is wrong. It is this small source of the good which dominates a mother when she is alone with her infant. At the moment we have to relate to more than one other we understand that we need to make some efforts to understand the situation of the other individuals, their special situations and needs, so that we can know what is just in our dealing with others. It is his discussion of the meeting with the third that makes Levinas philosophy so relevant to economy, although most presentations of his philosop hy concentrate on the encounter with the Other, and may thus cause the misunderstanding that this is his ethics, and consequently a quite impossible one. However, as mentioned e arlier, Levinas description of the encounter with the Other is his answer to the question of what is the meaning of ethics, or, why we at all (at least sometimes) want justice. In short, to Levinas, the task of the economy is to contribute to justice. The cause of the striving for justice is the imperative of mercy in the encounter with the Other. And as there is always more than one other my experience of the encounter with the Other cannot be directly transferred to social reality. I must perform a brutal transformation from mercy to justice (but which nevertheless is less brutal than me not caring about justice), and in doing so I need as much as I can possibly acquire of what is available of detailed knowledge of each particular situation, as well as my ability to reason logically. It is not only a fact that ethics is necessary for the economy. Economy is also necessary for ethics. Just as a house may be a concrete security for a loan, the economy is a concrete security for ethics. Without economic goods and needs and the accompanying knowledge for myself, there would have been no need for ethics. An ethics for the other can only be expressed as long as the other has specific needs competing with mine. Only then can I act for the other instead of acting for myself, and thus set the needs of the other before those of me. Or, put in another way: angels do not need ethics, because they have no needs and thus no need to help each other

Ethic of consequences is the best middle ground- freedom and collective responsibility Williams 5
(Michael, Professor of International Politics at the University of Wales Aberystwyth, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, p. 174-176) A commitment to an ethic of consequences reflects a deeper ethic of criticism, of self-clarification, and thus of reflection upon the values adopted by an individual or a collectivity. It is part of an attempt to make critical evaluation an intrinsic element of responsibility. Responsibility to this more fundamental ethic gives the ethic of consequences meaning. Consequentialism and responsibility are here drawn into what Schluchter, in terms that will be familiar to anyone conversant with constructivism in International Relations, has called a reflexive principle. In the wilful Realist vision, scepticism and consequentialism are linked in an attempt to construct not just a more substantial vision of political responsibility, but also the kinds of actors who might adopt it, and the kinds of social structures that might support it. A consequentialist ethic is not simply a choice adopted by actors: it is a means of trying to foster particular kinds of selfcritical individuals and societies, and in so doing to encourage a means by which one can justify and foster a politics of responsibility. The ethic of responsibility in wilful Realism thus involves a commitment to both autonomy and limitation, to freedom and restraint, to an acceptance of limits and the criticism of limits. Responsibility clearly involves prudence and an accounting for current structures and their historical evolution; but it is not limited to this, for it seeks ultimately the creation of responsible subjects within a philosophy of limits. Seen in this light, the Realist commitment to objectivity appears quite differently. Objectivity in terms of consequentialist analysis does not simply take the actor or action as given, it is a political practice an attempt to foster a responsible self, undertaken by an analyst with a commitment to objectivity which is itself based in a desire to foster a politics of responsibility. Objectivity in the sense of coming to terms with the reality of contextual conditions and likely outcomes of action is not only necessary for success, it is vital for selfreflection, for sustained engagement with the practical and ethical adequacy of ones views. The blithe, self-serving, and uncritical stances of abstract moralism or rationalist objectivism avoid self-criticism by refusing to engage with the intractability of the world as it is. Reducing the world to an expression of their theoretical models, political platforms, or ideological programmes, they fail to engage with this reality, and thus avoid the process of self-reflection at the heart of responsibility. By contrast, Realist objectivity takes an engagement with this intractable object that is not reducible to ones wishes or will as a necessary conditio n of ethical engagement, selfreflection, and self-creation.7 Objectivity is not a nave naturalism in the sense of scientific laws or rationalist calculation; it is a necessary engagement with a world that eludes ones will. A recognition of the limits imposed by reality is a condition for a recognition of ones own limits that the world is not simply an extension of ones own will. But it is also a challenge to use that intractability as a source of possibility, as providing a set of openings within which a suitably chastened and yet paradoxically energised will to action can responsibly be pursued. In the wilful Realist tradition, the essential opacity of both the self and the world are taken as limiting principles. Limits upon understanding provide chastening parameters for claims about the world and actions within it. But they also provide challenging and creative openings within which diverse forms of life can be developed: the limited unity of the self and the political order is the precondition for freedom. The ultimate opacity of the world is not to be despaired of: it is a condition of possibility for the wilful, creative construction of selves and social orders which embrace the diverse human potentialities which this lack of essential or intrinsic order makes possible.8 But it is also to be aware of the less salutary possibilities this involves. Indeterminacy is not synonymous with absolute freedom it is both a condition of, and imperative toward, responsibility.

Life trump freedom it shouldnt be evaluated as a core deontological good. Locke 5

(Robert, writer for The American Conservative. March 14, Marxism of the Right http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html)

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one
can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoons wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are

security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.
either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But

Extinction first. Cummiskey, 1996

(David, Associate Philosophy Professor, Bates College, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 129-131) It does, however, support the consequentialist interpretation. Since the moral demand to respect other persons is based on the equal moral stat us of all persons, Kants argument presupposes the equal value, or dignity, of all persons. Such beings are comparable, and the comparison demonstrates the equal objective value of all. The equal value of all rational being provides a clear basis for a requirement to

maximally promote

the flourishing of rational agency (chapter 5). Nonetheless, while the extreme interpretation

must be rejected, the dignity- price distinction still accurately signifies the priority of rationality. If we refuse to sacrifice a person for the sake of the maximization of happiness or any other market value, then we have shown a reverence for such beings. But as we shall see more fully in chapter 9, this reverence is compatible with the sacrifice of some for the sake of other persons with dignity. It is mere dogmatic intuitionism or groundless deontology to insist that all such sacrifices are inconsistent with the equal dignity of all. At times the dignity
principle seems to function like an inkblot where each sees whatever conclusions he or she is predisposed to accept. If one believes that a particular way of treating people is morally unacceptable, then such treatment is inconsistent with respect for the dignity of persons. Too often, when a deontologist uses the dignity principle as a normative principle, the cart is put before the horse: This reasoning presupposes that we have a standard of unacceptable conduct that is prior to the dignity principle. The dignity principle cannot then provide the reason why the conduct is unacceptable. The goal of the Kantian deontologist is to (directly) vindicate ordinary commonsense morality; but it is not at all clear how the dignity principle can even support the intuitive view that the negative duty not to kill is more stringent than the positive duty to save lives. How is the common view that we have only slight, if any, duties to aid those in desperate need consistent with the lexical priority of the dignity of persons over the price of the inclinations? Of course, on the one hand, it is commonly maintained that killing some persons to save many others fails to give due regard to the incomparable and absolute dignity of persons. On the other hand, it is maintained that respect for the dignity of persons does not require that one spend ones discretionary income on saving lives rather than on ones own personal projects. As long as one has done some minimum and indeterminate amount to help others, then one need not do any more. So the Kantian deontologist wants to use the dignity-price distinction to resolve conflicting grounds of obligation in an intuitively acceptable way, but it is far from obvious why allowing a loss of dignity for the sake of something with price is consistent with the dignity principle. In short, ordinary morality permits one to place the satisfaction of ones inclinations above a concern for the dignity of all. Consequentialists have produced indirect justifications for many of these common intuitive judgments; it would seem that those appealing to the dignity principle must rely on similar arguments. Finally, even if one grants that saving

two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing onebecause dignity cannot be added and summed in this waythis point still does not justify deontological constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would seem that I may still save two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the one. Co nsider Hills example of a priceless object: If I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. But similarly, the loss of the two is not outweighed by the one that was not destroyed. Indeed, even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of the one, each is priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can. In short, it is not clear how the.extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.

No prior questions- our specific truth claims outweigh. Owen, 2002

David, Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton, Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical Reasoning, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, http://mil.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653 The first danger with the philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple function of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical account is

not

wholly independent of its

ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory to recognise that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of the commons in which dilemmas of collective action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the advocates of rational
choice theory cannot give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e., how it is that the relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, if this is the case, it is a philosophical weaknessbut this does not undermine the point that, for a certain class of problems, rational choice theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words, while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one

for example, one

kind of critical judgement, it is not the only or even necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from philosophical first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach to IR.
Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this: since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions of a given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to decide which is the most apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint, theory-driven work is part of a reductionist program in that it dictates always opting for the description that calls for the explanation that flows from the preferred model or theory. 5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since whether there are general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to be prejudged before conducting that inquiry. 6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the promotion of

the pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity. The third danger is that the preceding two combine to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IRwhat might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the Highlander viewnamely, an image of warring theoretical approaches with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view because the turn to, and prioritisation of, ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right , namely, the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right. This image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers, and so a potentially vicious circle arises.

AT Consequences
Evaluate consequences. Isaac, 2002
Jeffery C., Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, Ends, Means, and Politics, p. Proquest. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism

inhibits

this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

AT Root Cause
Not root cause- our proximate approach is best. Goldstein 1
Joshua Goldstein, Intl Rel Prof @ American U, 2001, War and Gender, p. 412 First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, if you want peace, work for justice. Then, if one believes that sexism contributes to war one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influence wars outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices.9 So,if you want peace, work for peace. Indeed, if you want justice (gender and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes towards war and the military may be the most important way to reverse womens oppression. The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies, and moral grounding, yet, in light of this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the m ain cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate.

AT Epistemology
Epistemogloical pluralism creates the best chance for dialogue and accurate knowledge. Sil 2k
Rudra Sil, assistance professor of Political Science @ the University of Pennsylvania. Beyond boundaries?: disciplines, paradigms, and theoretical integration in International Studies. 2001. P. 166. In the final analysis, it may be best to regard the entire process of social research as an ongoing collective search for meanings by a community of scholars. This search may not result in any definitive answers to theoretical or practical questions given the diverse foundations informing the puzzles, texts, and models that preoccupy members of this community. Nevertheless, thanks to the mediating role played by those subscribing to a pragmatic epistemological middle-ground, the process can still yield valuable insights, partial explanations, and even modest "lessons" and that can be judged as more or less convincing in the eyes of one's audience whether this audience consists of academic peers, the lay public at large, or the policy-making community. In an era of increasingly divided disciplines, scholars adopting a more pragmatic epistemological "middle ground," by virtue of their agnosticism, are likely to make the most critical contributions to whatever cumulation of knowledge is possible in the social sciences. These scholars are in a better position than those at the extreme ends for the purpose of generating and sustaining greater dialogue across different disciplines, theoretical approaches and intellectual movements precisely because their assumptions prevent them from hastily dismissing a study on grounds that are only meaningful to a subgroup within the wider community of scholars. In the absence of meaningful dialogue across different intellectual communities whether delimited by disciplines, paradigms or methodological schools the social sciences risk becoming permanently "balkanized," with scholars passing up opportunities to glean valuable insights from intellectual products developed on the basis of different foundational assumptions.