Aff

Round 1

Table of Contents

Plan


The United States federal government should authorize the licensing of American oil companies to [[#|participate]] in the development of Cuba’s energy resources.

Contention 1 - solvency

The plan is key to US-Cuban energy cooperation--- failure to act allows other international actors to get involved.
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro 10(PhD, Professor of Political Science at [[#|University]] of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of [[#|Academic]] Excellence [[#|Program]] at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association) 2010 “Cuba’s [[#|Energy Future]]: Strategic Approaches to Cooperation”)
Oil exploration is an …it neighbors, and beyond.
Cuba says yes to US ventures – they prefer US [[#|assistance]] due to technological lead. Plan is a catalyst to the normalization of US-Cuban relations and regional stability
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro 06([[#|PhD]], Professor of Political Science at [[#|University of]] Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of [[#|Academic]] Excellence [[#|Program]] at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association) “The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special Report for the Cuban [[#|Research Institute]], Florida [[#|International University]],” http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf)
Why is it important to …issue area across the region.

Advantage 1 - Environment


Cuban drilling and oil spills in the Basin are inevitable, but Cuba can’t handle it
Melissa Bert 12 (a [[#|military]] fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Blake Clayton (fellow for energy and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations) 2012 “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill”, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515
The imminent drilling Horizon, this time from Cuba.

That decimates the reefs
Emily A. PetersonDaniel J. Whittle, J.D.and Douglas N. Rader 12, Ph.DDecember 2012 “Bridging the GulfFinding Common Ground on Environmental and Safety [[#|Preparedness]] for Offshore Oil and Gas in Cuba”, http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDF-Bridging_the_Gulf-2012.pdf
If a spill were to occurlife that depend on them
Florida’s a hotspot and spills over
Alles 7 (David L. Professor of Biology – Western Washington [[#|University]], “Biodiversity Hot Spots: The Florida Everglades”, 3-7-2007, http://www.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Everglades.pdf)
"Biodiversity hot spotsare areas contaminated by pollutants.

Extinction – defense doesn’t assume reefs
Robin Kundis Craig 03 (Associate Prof Law, Indiana U [[#|School Law]]) 2003
Biodiversity and ecosystem …most of the biosphere with us.


Advantage 2 - Economy

Cuban oil dependence on Venezuela is unsustainable---Venezuela will cut off supplies
Stephen Keppel 3/16 “What Chávez's Death Means for Cuba, Venezuela and the U.S.” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/chavezs-death-means-cuba-venezuela-us/story?id=18669003)
Upon hearing news of …be able to maintain popularity if things get tougher.
The plan solves Cuban dependence on Venezuela – key to economic and political reforms that will endure Cuban stability
Pinon 11Jorge R. Piñón is a visiting research fellow at the Latin American and Caribbean Center’s Cuban [[#|Research Institute]] at FIU. Spring 2011, "Why the United States and Cuba Collaborate (and What Could Happen If They Don't)"casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/2157/1306356964_Hemisphere_Vol._20.pdf
If Cuba’s suspected but yet… of partners, including the United States.
Cuban instability collapse causes Latin American instability and creates open opportunities for terrorist hubs
Tim Gorrell (Lieutenant Colonel) 2005 “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” 3/18, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)
Regardless of the …transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Caribbean instability causes LNG and bioterrorism
Bryan 1 (Anthony T., Director of the Caribbean [[#|Program]] – North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, “Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation”, 10-21, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html)
Terrorist acts can take …weapons within national borders.
LNG tanker explosions cause catastrophic damage – outweighs nuclear war
Lovin 1 (Amory B., Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and L. Hunter Lovin, President – National Capitalism and Co-Founder – Rocky Mountain Institute, “Brittle [[#|Power]]: Energy Strategy for National Security”, http://verdilivorno.it/doc_gnl/198204_Brittle_Power_intro_GNL_note.pdf)
About nine percent of …about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.

Caribbean terrorism leads to attack on the US---they’ll use bioweapons
Anthony T. Bryan (director of the North-South Center’s Caribbean Program) 10-21-2001. CFR, Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation, p.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and%20_homeland_%20security.html)
Terrorist acts can…biological weaponswithin national borders.
Knowledge to engineer a virus is easy and materials are accessible
Risk of bioterror is high
Jason Matheny (Jason is a research associate at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. He previously worked at the Center for Biosecurity and holds an MBA from Duke University) 2007 “Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction,” Risk Analysis Vol. 27, No. 5, http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/pmpmta/Mahoney_extinction.pdf
Of current systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006).
Bioterror leads to extinction - exponentially destructive pathogens means no defense
Anders Sandberg (is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University; Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Milan M. Ćirković, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and assistant professor of physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro) 9/8/2008, “How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction
The risks from …biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.

Contention 2 – Impact framing

No great power war – interdependence, democracy , deterrence
Robb 2012
[Doug, US Navy Lieutenant, “Now Hear This – Why the Age of Great-Power War Is Over”, May, 5/2012 [Lieutenant, US Navy, “”, US Naval Institute, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-war-over]
In addition to geopolitical …archaic, and improbable.
Miscalc is impossible
Quinlan 2009
[Sir Michael, visiting professor at King's College London, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and former senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, “Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects,” Oxford University Press]
One special form of... conventionally armed launch.
Intervening actions check escalation
Trachtenberg 2000
(Prof of History, Pennsylvania (Marc, The "Accidental War" Question, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/inadv(1).pdf)
The second point has to from leading directly to general war.
Nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction
Socol 2011
Yehoshua(Ph.D.), an inter-disciplinary physicist, is an expert in electro-optics, high-energy physics and applications, and material science and Moshe Yanovskiy, Jan 2,“Nuclear Proliferation and Democracy”, http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/nuclear_proliferation_and_demo.html, CMR
Nuclear proliferation should …states than the former


Round 3/5 1AC


Plan


The United States federal government should authorize the licensing of American oil companies to participate in the development of Cuba’s energy resources.

Contention 1 - solvency

The plan is key to US-Cuban energy cooperation--- failure to act allows other international actors to get involved.
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro 10(PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association) 2010 “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to Cooperation”)
Oil exploration is an inherently risky enterprise; there are always trade-offs between negatives and positives relating to energy security, environmental integrity, and geostrategic considerations. The consensus arising from the studies and the analyses in this book is that the creation of mutually beneficial trade and investment opportunities between the United States and Cuba is long overdue. Throughout most of the twentieth century, Cuban infrastructure and economic development were direct beneficiaries of commercial relations with the United States. This relationship was instrumental in providing Cuba with access to advanced technologies and the signs of modernity that were unparalleled in Latin America and far beyond. Once again, the United States is presented with an opportunity that might serve as the basis of a new relationship between the United States and Cuba. It holds out the possibility of enhancing the stability and development of a region that is wrestling with questions of how and when it too might benefit from engagement with a global economic development model. The question is whether the United States chooses to be at the center, or to leave Cuba to seek some alternate pathtoward its goals. Ironically, Cuban officials have invited American oil companies to participate in developing their offshore oil and natural gas reserves. American oil, oil equipment, and service companies possess the capital, technology, and operational know-how to explore, produce, and refine theseresources in a safe and responsible manner. Yet they remain on the sidelines because of our almost five-decades-old unilateral political and economic embargo. The United States can end this impasse by licensing American oil companies to participate in the development of Cuba’s energy resources. By seizing the initiative on Cuba policy, the United States will be strategically positioned to play an important role in the future of the island, thereby giving Cubans a better chance for a stable, prosperous, and democratic future. The creation of stable and transparent commercial relations in the energy sector will bolster state capacity in Cuba while enhancing U.S. geostrategic interests, and can help Cuba’s future leaders avoid illicit business practices, minimize the influence of narcotrafficking enterprises, and stanch the outflow of illegal immigrants to the United States.If U.S. companies are allowed to contribute to the development of Cuba’s hydrocarbon reserves, as well as the development of alternative and renewable energy (solar, wind, and biofuels), it will give the United States the opportunity to engage Cuba’s future leaders to carry out long-overdue economic reforms and development that will perhaps pave the way to a more open and representative societywhile helping to promote Cuba as a stable partner and leader in the region and beyond. Under no circumstances is this meant to suggest that the United States should come to dominate energy development policy in Cuba. The United States certainly has a role to play, but unlike its past relationship with Cuba, its interaction and cooperation will be predicated on its ability to accept, at a minimum, that Cuba will be the dominant partner in potential commercial ventures, and an equal partner in future diplomatic and interstate relations. Without a doubt Cuban government actors are wary of the possibility of being dominated by the “colossus of the North,” but as Cuba’s energy policymakers face the daunting reality of their nation’s energy future, it is abundantly clear that they possess the willingness and the capacity to assiduously pursue sound policy objectives and initiatives that begin to address the island’s immediate and long-term challenges. In the end, this course of action will have direct and tangible benefits for the people of Cuba, it neighbors, and beyond.
Cuba says yes to US ventures – they prefer US assistance due to technological lead. Plan is a catalyst to the normalization of US-Cuban relations and regional stability
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro 06(PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association) “The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special Report for the Cuban Research Institute, Florida International University,” http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf)
Why is it important to clarify the current status of Cuban energy in the face of a continuing opposition by the United States to anything resembling what can be construed as “good news” for the Castro regime? Obviously, because up until this point it hasn’t cost the United States much if anything. The current policy continues to clearly place at the forefront the sanctity and utility of a comprehensive economic and political embargo in the hopes that it helps to foment a change in regime and a peaceful transition to a democratic system of governance and a complimentary market economy. As energy security concerns continue to percolate up to an increasingly important status in the realm of national security objectives we may begin to see the erosion of the hard positionagainst the Cuban regime regardless of its leadership. The overview of the Cuban energy developments clearly and unambiguously reveals that the Castro regime has every intention of continuing to promote, design and implement energy development policies that will benefit Cuba for generations to come. Cuba is sparing no effort by instituting bottom-up and top-down policy initiatives to meet this challenge. It has significantly increased its international cooperation in the energy sector and continues to enhance its efforts to ensure energy security in these most uncertain of times. But it stands to reason that no matter how successful these efforts are, they will come up short. Two factors may alter this present situation. First, Cuba may indeed realize a bonanza from the offshore tracts that will allow it to possibly address its many energy challenges, from increasing oil production and refining capacity, to improving the nation’s energy infrastructure, ensuring a stable energy future. Second, and no less significant, is the possibility of normalization of trade relations with the United States. This is important not only because it will allow direct foreign investment, technology transfer and information sharing between these neighboring states but it possibly enhances the energy security of both states, and hence, the region, realized through a division of labor and dispersion of resources that serve as a hedge against natural disaster and market disruptions. Moreover, all states could derive benefit from the public information campaigns to promote energy efficiency and conservation presently being promoted in Cuba in the face of diminishing energy stocks and uncertain global markets. Ultimately, and only after normalization, the task still falls to the Cuban government, but the cost will necessarily be spread through a number of sources that are predominately American because of strategic interests, proximity and affinity. It suffices to say that the requisite investment and assistance will have a distinct American tinge to it, inasmuch as American corporations, U.S. government agencies, and international 7financial institutions, of which the U.S. is a major contributor, will play important roles in the funding of the effort to revitalize the Cuban energy sector. Cuban officials are not averse and perhaps would prefer that the U.S. be its major partner in this effort[[#|owing]] tothe fact that most if not all of the cutting-edge technology inenergy, oil and gas comes from the United States.It is remarkable that the Cuban energy sector is as vibrant as it presently is, absent the type of infrastructural investment that is available to most developing states, in large part because of theAmerican economicembargo. Finally, the cost is significant and it stands to reason that the longer one waits to address the challenge at hand the higher the cost of modernizing the energy sector. Forthis reason alone, the American role in assisting Cuba in this effort will be significant and every day that the task is put off, it increases the long-term cost of the effort. This should serve as an obvious point of entry into cooperation with the Cuban government andperhaps can serve as a catalyst for promotingconfidence, trust and cooperation in thiscritical issue area across the region.

Advantage 1 – China

Now is the time to engage Cuba – recent Cuban economic reforms are on the brink, provide unique opportunity for engagement
Ted Piccone 3/18 (Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy) 3/18/2013 “Time to bet on Cuba”, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/18-cuba-piccone
Cuba’s efforts to “update” its socialist system through a series of economic reforms just got more complicated. The death ofVenezuela’s Hugo Chávez, its principal benefactor, could seriously disruptwhat is already a precarious process of maintaining top-down political control whileliberalizing elements of the economy. Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will step down in five years and the emergence of younger leaders born after the 1959 revolution add further uncertainty to the island’s future.These new circumstances offer President Obama a rare opportunityto turn the page of history from an outdated Cold War approach to Cuba to a new era of constructive engagement. In his second term in office, he should place a big bet by investing political capital in defrosting relations, an approach that will advance U.S. interests in a stable, prosperous and democratic Cuba.Under Castro, the Cuban government has undertaken important reforms to modernize and liberalize the economy. Cubans are now permitted to buy and sell property, open their own businesses, hire employees and enter into co-ops, with state-owned enterprises on a more equal footing. The updating of the Soviet-style economic system is a gradual and highly controlled process. But the recent legal emergence of formal, small-scale private businesses (cuentapropistas) that can now compete on a more equal footing with state-owned enterprisesopens a window into a profound shift in thinking already under way on the island.The reforms also offer new opportunities for U.S. engagement. Castro’s loosening of the apron strings extends beyond the economy. In January, the Cuban government lifted exit controls for most citizens, which is likely to accelerate the process of reconciliation within the Cuban diaspora. It could also result in a swift uptick of Cubans departing for the United States, demanding a reconsideration of U.S. migration policy to manage the increase. The gradual handoff of power to a next generation of more pragmatic party and military leaders who will determine the pace and scope of the reform process is yet further evidence that the Castro generation is looking forward to securing a viable legacy.The U.S. approach to Cuba has likewise undergone important changes since Obama took office. Since the expansion of travel and remittances in 2009, hundreds of thousands of the 1.8 million Cuban Americans living in the United States have sent more than $2 billion to relatives there, providing important fuel to the burgeoning private sector and empowering citizens to be less dependent on the Cuban state.Much more, however, could be done. In his second term, Obama has a wealth of policy options available to him through executive authority that would reframe U.S. support for the Cuban people and advance U.S. national interests. In his second term, the president can (and should): Appoint a special envoy to open a discrete dialogue with Havana without preconditions to discuss such issues as migration, travel, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, energy and the environment, and trade and investment. Such talks could result in provisions that strengthen border security, protect Florida from oil spills, break down the walls of communication that prevent our diplomats from traveling outside Havana and help U.S. businesses export more goods, and thereby create jobs. Authorize financial and technical assistance to support burgeoning small businesses and permit trade in goods and services with certified independent entrepreneurs. Expand the list of exports licensed for sale to Cuba, including school and art supplies, water and food preparation systems and telecommunications equipment. Grant general licenses for journalists, researchers, humanitarian organizations and others to facilitate people-to-people exchanges. Remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, where it does not belong, allowing a greater share of U.S.-sourced components and services in products that enter Cuban commerce. This list is not exhaustive; the president can take any number of unilateral steps to improve relations and increase U.S. support to the Cuban people, as mandated by Congress. He can also expect significant pushback from a well-organized and vocal minority of elected officials who are increasingly out of step with their constituencies on this issue. (In the 2012 election, Obama’s share of the Cuban-American vote increased by 10 points in Miami-Dade county.) He can win the argument, however, by demonstrating that these measures are in the spirit of the congressional mandate to encourage a free and prosperous Cuba.The trend toward reform in Cuba is evident and suggests that an inflection point is approaching. Now is the time to employ a new paradigm by opening a long overdue direct dialogue with our next-door neighbor and thereby test the willingness of the Cuban government to engage constructively, including on the case of U.S. citizen Alan Gross. By invoking his executive authority to expand trade, travel and communications with the Cuban people, Obama can continue to help them make the transition from subjects to citizens. The moment has come to rise above historical grievances and extend that outstretched hand he so eloquently promised just four years ago.
As Cuba open up market for offshore drilling China will enter the market IF the US does not – plan key to open the US-Cuban oil market
Boston Globe 2/9 (“Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”, 2013, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)
Relations between the United Statesand Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in 1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled to return home. These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunityto acknowledge Cuba’s gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the Castros, the Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century. The Cuban-American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting greater contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as Romney — has more maneuvering room politically. The first step would be to end the silly claim, reinstated by the Obama administration last summer, that Cuba remains a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The administration argued that Cuba harbored members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. It has, but the FARC and Colombia are now in negotiations; those peace talks are supported by the Obama White House in order to end a bloody civil war. By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the United States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions, starting with promoting cultural exchanges; ending the travel ban; and eventually allowing for trade in oil, gas, and other commodities. Over time, billions of dollars in new trade between the two nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping Cubans. Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental interests;as Cuba opens up, other countries will sweep in to seek influence, as China has already done. Especially as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling and other maritime exploration, the United Statesmust improve communication with Havana. Currently, even though the United States and Cuba are separated by a narrow channel, the two countries have no bilateral communications to ensure safety standards for their mutual protection from oil spills. Secretary of State John Kerry should make Cuba a focus of his first months in office. Unfortunately, his successor as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a son of Cuban immigrants who has opposed the administration’s efforts to ease relations. Menendez will need to be convinced that he can help Cubans more by resetting American policy. Absent military intervention, there are very few opportunities for a president to dramatically alter relations with a historic foe; Obama has taken such advantage of a disorientingly rapid liberalization by Burma’s military rulers. Raul Castro’s recent decision to lift travel restrictions on Cuban citizens is similarly momentous — and signals that the timing is ripe for a new diplomatic agenda with Cuba.
The plan critical for US influence in Latin America and prevents Chinese expansion
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvadaro 06(PhD, Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, Director of the Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence Program at UNO, Treasurer of the American Political Science Association) 2006 “The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A Special Report for the Cuban Research Institute, Florida International University,” http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf)
In the period since the announcement that it had discovered offshore oil reserves off of the northwest coast of Cuba, the Castro regime, its energy development plans and its growing list of international partners have garnered increased interest from American policy analysts, corporate oil interests and a widening number of U.S. government officials regarding the scope and direction of the Cuban oil boom, and how this might alter the standing embargo against the Castro regime.2 Specifically, the questions have centered on the size and potential of the oil reserves and the possibility of American involvement in both the private and public domain. This special report is an attempt to clarify the current conditions of Cuban oil and gas development schemes and their impact on longer term U.S. interests as they pertain to energy security, the diversification of strategic energy resources especially those related to oil refining, and the role that cooperation in this arena may be beneficial after the eventual normalization of relations between these two countries. At first glance, listed below are the important factors to consider in assessing these prospects: 1. Since 1990, Cuba has increased its domestic oil production to a level where it now accounts for 95 percent of the fuel used to produce electricity for the island. 2. Cuba is enjoying its Venezuelan bonanza – a “virtually” guaranteed supply of oil imports amounting to 85,000 barrels of oil daily, mostly in the form of refined petroleum products; gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. 3. The discovery of a sizable oil field off the northwest coast of Cuba estimated to be approximately half of the oilfields of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). 4. The growing interest and investment of oil exploration companies from Canada, China, Spain, Brazil, India and Norway potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and significant transfers of cutting-edge technology to Cuba. 5. The attempt by the Cuban government to increase efficiency in the consumption of electricity and to promote an island-wide comprehensive program of energy conservation. 6. To improve the integrity of Cuba’s national electrical grid (la sistema de electricidad nacional – SEN) by shutting down inefficient plants, improving the national grid for transmission and delivery, and installing remote micro-electrical generation facilities to offset the impact of disruptions of service due to hurricanes and other catastrophes. Given that there are no formal diplomatic of economic relations between the governments of the United States and Cuba, the level of interest has grown significantlyin the 3 years due primarily to three reasons in the following interest areas: energy 2 security interests; broader regional strategic; and purely economic interests. First, the energy security interests in the potential of Cuban oil – although it really would not minimize the immediacy of an American energy crisis – is seen as possible if only partial remedy to energy supply concerns. Second, as Cuba, in part because of the increasing number of oil partnerships furthers its diplomatic and economic ties to with countries like Venezuela, China, Brazil and members of the European Union it may prove to provideCuba for a sufficient buffer against U.S. opposition as it solidifies it economic and diplomatic role in the region. This is important inasmuch as there is a de facto trend in the Americas that clearly disavows and attempts to minimize the influence of the United States in the region, and with the growing demands on the world economy by China, it stands to reason that Cuba may assume an increasing stature that almost potentially lessens the presence of American influence in Cuban and hence regional affairs. Finally, and as demonstrated by the presence of American oil interests in the February 2006 U.S.-Cuban Energy Summit in Mexico City, there may be interest in cooperating in jointventure projects, and by extension assisting in the long-term development in Cuba’s oil industry. To accomplish this task the report seeks to lay out some national security policy considerations applying strategic thought to what I will term “Post-Oil” Cuba – a Cuba that has a small but vibrant and growing oil and gas production capacity with extensive relations with a number of partners, and an increasingly positive outlook toward addressing energy and economic development questions that have plagued the Castro regime since the Cuban Revolution.3 The primary consideration is to determine the present state of Cuban energy and what possibilities exist that would be available to American foreign policy decision makers and business interests as the relations with Cuba evolve over the coming years.4This is important because any realistic appraisal of how Cuba is to take advantage of its oil bonanza involves the United States. Previous research in this area has clearly laid out the scope and objectives of Cuban energy development schemes in the period since the demise of Cuba’s favorable trade arrangements with the former Soviet Union. Recently, and as a result of the oil discovery and Cuba’s energy arrangement with the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela there is renewed interest in Havana’s energy policies. Most of that analysis has been focused on concrete possibilities where there can be cooperation in the energy field between these two neighbors. Specifically, the work has looked at areas for the convergence of energy interests as they apply to the near- and long-term energy development scenarios facing both countries. Myers Jaffe and Soligo have addressed this possibility by looking at the potential to increase diversification and dispersion of energy resources. This is an important consideration when one takes into consideration that well over one-third of all oil refining capacity resides on or near the Houston shipping channel. The potential negative impact on America’s refining capacity following Hurricane Rita made a significant impression on oil industry analysts for the necessity of diversifying the location of these vital national resources. The potential of viewing Cuba as a “staging area” for American oil storage and refining is plausible because of the proximity of the island. The also becomes more attractive because of the growing climatic concerns over the uncertain security of oil resources in the Gulf region as clearly demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. While it is true that Venezuela has initiated an investment of $1 billion dollars to bring the Cienfuegos 3 refinery online, there are still many other possibilities open and available to American companies, as well as a growing number of foreign firms.6 Additionally, Venezuela remains the fourth largest importer of oil to the United States and one can surmise that the existing trade arrangements between the U.S. and Venezuela will remain intact, the evolution of the Bolivarian revolution under Chavez and a growing Chinese presence in the region notwithstanding. Additionally, pursuing such a path would allow United States policymakers to take advantage of what Cuba has to offerin the following areas: domestic technical capabilities; continuing human capital development; strategic positioning in the Caribbean, and an improved diplomatic stature. Cuba, by any measure, possesses a largely untapped technical capacity owing to advanced training and education in the core mathematic and scientific areas. This was clearly demonstrated by its attempt to develop a nuclear energy capability in the 1980s and 1990s whereby thousands of Cubans pursued highly technical career paths leaving Cuba with among the highest ratios of scientists and engineers to the general population in all of the Americas. Moreover, the foundation of Cuba’s vaunted public education system remains intact and increased investment under various scenarios suggests that Cuba will continue to produce a well educated workforce that will be critical to its future economic vitality. This raises an important consideration that being the role that Cuba will play in the region in the 21st century. It suffices to say that Cuba remains the strategically important state by virtue ofits geographical location alone, in efforts against drug and human trafficking and related national and regional security matters.The extent to which a stable Cuban government has cooperated with the U.S. in drug interdiction efforts in the past suggests that the results from improved diplomatic relations between neighbors would have the effect of improving national security concerns related to terrorist activity, illicit weapons transfers and the like. Ultimately, a successful normalization of relations between the U.S. andCuba in these areas may well enhance and stabilize regional relations that could possibly lessen (or at a minimum, balancing) fears of a Chinese incursion in hemispheric affairs. To lessen those fears it may be useful to review the present structure of joint-venture projects in the energy sector in Cuba to ascertain the feasibility and possible success of such an undertaking become available to American firms. Moreover, it is interesting to note that U.S. firms in the agriculture sector have successfully negotiated and consummated sales to Cuba totaling more than $1 billion dollars over the past four years under conditions that are less than optimal circumstances but have well-served the commercial interests of all parties involved.
US influence in the region key to crowd out China
Alan Dowd (Senior Fellow with the American Security Council Foundation) 2012 “Crisis in the America's,” http://www.ascfusa.org/content_pages/view/crisisinamericas)
Focused on military operations in the Middle East, nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, and the global threat of terrorism, U.S. policymakers have neglected a growing challenge right here in the Western Hemisphere: the expanding influence and reach of China.Eyeing energy resources to keep its economy humming, China is engaged in a flurry of investing and spending in Latin America.In Costa Rica, China is funding a $1.24-billion upgrade of the country’s oil refinery; bankrolling an $83-million soccer stadium; backing infrastructure and telecommunications improvements; and pouring millions into a new police academy. In Colombia, China is planning a massive “dry canal” to link the country’s Pacific and Atlantic coasts by rail. At either terminus, there will be Chinese ports; in between, there will be Chinese assembly facilities, logistics operations and distribution plants; and on the Pacific side, there will be dedicated berths to ship Colombian coal outbound to China. In mid-January, a Chinese-built oil rig arrived in Cuba to begin drilling in Cuba’s swath of the Gulf of Mexico. Reuters reports that Spanish, Russian, Malaysian and Norwegian firms will use the rig to extract Cuban oil. For now, China is focusing on onshore oil extraction in Cuba. New offshore discoveries will soon catapult Brazil into a top-five global oil producer. With some 38 billion barrels of recoverable oil off its coast, Brazil expects to pump 4.9 million barrels per day by 2020, as the Washington Times reports, and China has used generous loans to position itself as the prime beneficiary of Brazilian oil. China’s state-run oil and banking giants have inked technology-transfer, chemical, energy and real-estate deals with Brazil. Plus, as the Times details, China came to the rescue of Brazil’s main oil company when it sought financing for its massive drilling plans, pouring $10 billion into the project. A study in Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ) adds that Beijing plunked down $3.1 billion for a slice of Brazil’s vast offshore oil fields. The JFQ study reveals just how deep and wide Beijing is spreading its financial influence in Latin America: $28 billion in loans to Venezuela; a $16.3-billion commitment to develop Venezuelan oil reserves; $1 billion for Ecuadoran oil; $4.4 billion to develop Peruvian mines; $10 billion to help Argentina modernize its rail system; $3.1 billion to purchase Argentina’s petroleum company outright. The New York Times adds that Beijing has lent Ecuador $1 billion to build a hydroelectric plant. There is good and bad to Beijing’s increased interest and investment in the Western Hemisphere. Investment fuels development, and much of Latin America is happily accelerating development in the economic, trade, technology and infrastructure spheres. But China’s riches come with strings.For instance, in exchange for Chinese development funds and loans, Venezuela agreed to increase oil shipments to China from 380,000 barrels per day to one million barrels per day. It’s worth noting that the Congressional Research Service has reported concerns in Washington that Hugo Chavez might try to supplant his U.S. market with China. Given that Venezuela pumps an average of 1.5 million barrels of oil per day for the U.S.—or about 11 percent of net oil imports—the results would be devastating for the U.S.That brings us to the security dimension of China’s checkbook diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere. Officials with the U.S. Southern Command conceded as early as 2006 that Beijing hadapproached every country in our area of responsibility” and provided military exchanges, aid or training to Ecuador, Jamaica, Bolivia, Cuba, Chile and Venezuela. The JFQ study adds that China has “an important and growing presence in the region’s military institutions.” Most Latin American nations, including Mexico, “send officers to professional military education courses in the PRC.” In Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia, Beijing has begun to sell “sophisticated hardware…such as radars and K-8 and MA-60 aircraft.” The JFQ report concludes, ominously, that Chinese defense firms “are likely to leverage their experience and a growing track record for their goods to expand their market share in the region, with the secondary consequence being that those purchasers will become more reliant on the associated Chinese logistics, maintenance, and training infrastructures that support those products.” Put it all together, and the southern flank of the United States is exposed to a range of new security challenges. To be sure, much of this is a function of China’s desire to secure oil markets. But there’s more at work here than China’s thirst for oil. Like a global chess match, China is probing Latin America and sending a message that just as Washington has trade and military ties in China’s neighborhood, China is developing trade and military ties in America’s neighborhood.This is a direct challenge to U.S. primacy in the region—a challenge that must be answered. First, Washington needs to relearn an obvious truth—that China’s rulers do not share America’s values—and needs to shape and conduct its China policy in that context. Beijing has no respect for human rights. Recall that in China, an estimated 3-5 million people are rotting away in laogai slave-labor camps, many of them “guilty” of political dissent or religious activity; democracy activists are rounded up and imprisoned; freedom of speech and religion and assembly do not exist; and internal security forces are given shoot-to-kill orders in dealing with unarmed citizens. Indeed, Beijing viewed the Arab Spring uprisings not as an impetus for political reform, but as reason “to launch its harshest crackdown on dissent in at least a decade,” according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. In short, the ends always justify the means in Beijing. And that makes all the difference when it comes to foreign and defense policy. As Reagan counseled during the Cold War, “There is no true international security without respect for human rights.” Second, the U.S. must stop taking the Western Hemisphere for granted, and instead must reengage in its own neighborhood economically, politically and militarily. That means no more allowing trade deals—and the partners counting on them—to languish. Plans for a hemispheric free trade zone have faltered and foundered. The trade-expansion agreements with Panama and Colombia were left in limbo for years, before President Obama finally signed them into law in 2011.Reengagement means reviving U.S. diplomacy. The Wall Street Journal reports that due to political wrangling in Washington, the State Department position focused on the Western Hemisphere has been staffed by an interim for nearly a year, while six Western Hemisphere ambassadorial posts (Uruguay, Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Barbados) remain empty. Reengagement means reversing plans to slash defense spending. The Joint Forces Command noted in 2008 that China has “a deep respect for U.S. military power.” We cannot overstate how important this has been to keeping the peace. But with the United States in the midst of massive military retrenchment, one wonders how long that reservoir of respect will last. Reengagement also means revitalizing security ties. A good model to follow might be what’s happening in China’s backyard. To deter China and prevent an accidental war, the U.S. is reviving its security partnerships all across the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps it’s time to do the same in Latin America. We should remember that many Latin American countries—from Mexico and Panama to Colombia and Chile—border the Pacific. Given Beijing’s actions, it makes sense to bring these Latin American partners on the Pacific Rim into the alliance of alliances that is already stabilizing the Asia-Pacific region. Finally, all of this needs to be part of a revived Monroe Doctrine.Focusing on Chinese encroachment in the Americas, this “Monroe Doctrine 2.0” would make it clear to Beijing that the United States welcomes China’s efforts to conduct trade in the Americas but discourages any claims of control—implied or explicit—by China over territories, properties or facilities in the Americas. In addition, Washington should make it clear to Beijing that the American people would look unfavorably upon the sale of Chinese arms or the basing of Chinese advisors or military assets in the Western Hemisphere. In short, what it was true in the 19th and 20th centuries must remain true in the 21st: There is room for only one great power in the Western Hemisphere9.[PL1] .

Chinese stronghold in Latin America will trigger a nationalistic land grad for Taiwan
Robbie Fergusson (Researcher at Royal Society for the Arts, Former Conference & Research Assistant at Security Watch) 2012 “The Chinese Challenge to the Monroe Doctrine,” http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/23/does-chinese-growth-in-latin-america-threaten-american-interests/)
Taiwan – domestic, or foreign policy?China’s goals in the region amount to more than the capture of natural resources. Although the People’s Republic of China considers resolution of the Taiwan issue to be a domestic issue, it is with some irony that one of China’s main foreign policy goals is to isolate Taipei internationally. The PRC and the ROC compete directly for international recognition among all the states in the world. . Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America, where 12 of the 23 nations that still have official diplomatic relations with the ROC reside.¶ The historical background Following the mainland Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the nationalist Kuomintang retreated to the island of Formosa (Taiwan) where it continued to claim to be the legitimate government of all of China. In June 1950 the United States intervened by placing its 7th fleet in the Taiwan straits to stop a conclusive military resolution to the civil war and slowly the battlefield became primarily political, concerned with legitimacy. When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) became one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This gave the ROC a de facto advantage over the PRC in attaining recognition from other nation states; particularly as the diplomatic clout of the hegemonic United States supported its position as the true representative of the Chinese people, until the rapprochement of the 1970s, when the Nixon administration wished to improve ties with the de facto rulers of China in order to exploit the Sino-Soviet split. UN Resolution 2758 granted the ’China seat’ to the PRC at the expense of the ROC who were in effect exiled from the organization, and the famous 1972 visit of President Nixon to China further added legitimacy to the communist regime. All this resulted in a thawing of world opinion, and gradually as the durability and permanence of the PRC regime became ingrained, countries began switching their diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. The economics of international recognition In the Americas, the PRC had international recognition and longstanding support from ideological allies such as Cuba. However, the ROC has maintained more diplomatic support in the Americas than any other region, mainly due to the small nature of the states involved and the importance of Taiwanese aid to their economies. Li notes that “from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, roughly 10 percent of Taiwan’s direct foreign investment (FDI) went to Latin America and the Caribbean,” [51] highlighting the concerted effort made in the region. Economic solidarity is increasingly important to the formation of the Taiwan-Latin America relationship, for two reasons. The first is that for Latin American states, the decision of which China to support is less ideological and political than it ever has been; which makes the decision a straight up economic zero-sum choice. The second is that Latin America is home to natural resources which are of great significance to the hungry growing economies of the PRC and the ROC regardless of international recognition. However, while the decision is not political for Latin American countries, for Taiwan, every country which switches its recognition to the PRC damages its legitimacy as a nation state in the international arena. The Table below shows the designation of diplomatic recognition in the region in 2008. Countries Recognising the PRC (China)Countries Recognising the ROC (Taiwan)Central AmericaMexico, Costa RicaEl Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, PanamaCaribbeanAntigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname, Trinidad & TobagoBelize, Dominican Republic, Haiti, St Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the GrenadinesSouth AmericaArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, VenezuelaParaguay On the other hand, for the PRC, every state which withdraws its support for the ROC takes it one step closer to being in a position where it can resolve the ‘Taiwan issue’ unilaterally. Subsequently, undermining Taiwan is of the utmost importance to China, and it has taken to ‘outbidding’ Taiwan in offers of foreign aid, a strategy made possible by the decline in aid from the defunct Soviet Union, and the West, which is pre occupied with terrorism and the Middle East. Li notes that “the region’s leaders have turned to Asia for help to promote trade and financial assistance, and consequently played the PRC and Taiwan against each other.” [53] Despite its smaller size, Taiwan has fared remarkably well in this bidding war; focusing its aid investments on infrastructure such as stadiums in St Kitts & Nevis for the Cricket World Cup in 2007. However, even Taiwan‘s economy can be put under strain by the seemingly relentless stream of foreign aid which has brought only debateable and mild gains to the Taiwanese cause. This has contributed to the PRC picking off the few remaining supporters of the ROC – take for example, the Dominican case. In early 2004, Commonwealth of Dominica asked Taipei for a $58 million aid, which is unrelated to public welfare. The Caribbean nation had relied on Taiwan to develop its agriculture-based economy since 1983. Diplomatic relationship was soon broken after Taipei turned down the request. [54] This incident showcased the fact that in economic terms, the PRC is winning the battle for Latin America. Political strategies of the PRCIn political terms too; the PRC is in an advantageous position, thanks in part again to its position within the UN. While it can be argued that China “provides incentives but does not threaten harm to induce countries to defect from recognizing Taiwan,” [55] the reality is that the use of force and direct harm are not the only means available to an economic entity as powerful as China. It refuses to maintain official relations with any state that recognises the ROC; an action which can be quite prohibitive to the country being able to take advantage of the growing Chinese market. Although Domínguez suggests that the PRC “has not been punitive toward those states that still recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan),” [56] the legitimacy of this claim has to be brought into question – for example “in June 1996, China fought the extension of the UN mission in Haiti, to punish the Caribbean nation for its appeal for UN acceptance of Taiwan.” [57] This incident showed that China is prepared to use its global clout to play spoiler and apply indirect pressure on countries to adopt its position. Similarly, China’s experience with one-party rule has taught it the importance of party-to-party relations in addition to state-to-state relations, further cementing the PRC by establishing a relationship based on goodwill and common understanding. Indeed by the start of 1998 “the CCP had established relations with almost all major political parties in the countries that were Taiwan’s diplomatic allies in Latin America,” [58] further isolating the ROC. The effect on American interestsWere the ROC to be deserted by its remaining allies in Latin America, the USA would be disadvantaged in attempting to maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. A Taiwan that was not recognised by any state from the Americas, or Europe (with the exception of the Vatican) would not be seen as a genuine sovereign entity whose defence would be more important than the upkeep of good relations between China and the West. As China’s economic and political position in the world improves vis-à-vis both America and Taiwan, so might its ambitions(unify Taiwan).The U.S.A might find itself in a position where it could no longer withstand the diplomatic pressure to allow the PRC to conclude a [[#|settlement]] on Taiwan, perhaps by force.
Taiwan crisis is likely this year---draws in the U.S.
Michael Mazza 1-3, research fellow in foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, 1/3/13, “Four Surprises That Could Rock Asia in 2013,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/03/four_surprises_that_could_rock_asia_in_2012?page=full
Since President Ma Ying-jeou came to power in 2008, Taipei and Beijing have improved ties and deepened their economic integration: cross-strait trade reached $127.6 billion in 2011, an increase of more than 13 percent from 2010. Some national security experts misinterpret this trend, thinking that growing economic interdependence will overwhelm factors pushing the two sides apart, and that interdependence will provide Beijing with leverage it can use to compel unification. But while Taiwan's businesspeople enjoy closer ties with China, the averageTaiwanese voter continues to move toward independence. Over the last 20 years, the portion of citizens of Taiwan identifying as "Taiwanese" has increased from 17.6 percent of those polled in 1992 to a whopping 53.7 percent today; those identifying as "Chinese" has declined over the same period from 25.5 percent to just 3.1 percent today. Support for independence has nearly doubled over the last two decades, from 11.1 percent to 19.6 percent. Support for immediate or eventual unification, meanwhile, has more than halved, from 20 percent in 1992 to 9.8 percent in 2012.Economic integration is apparently failing to halt what Beijing sees as a troubling trend. With a cross-strait trade agreement and a slew of other, easier deals already on the books, Beijing now expects Ma to discuss political issues. But Ma doesn't have the domestic political support to pursue political talks -- in March 2012, two months after his reelection, 45 percent of those polled said the pace of cross-strait exchanges was "just right," but the share of respondents answering "too fast" had increased to 32.6 percent, from 25.7 percent before the election. Any Chinese shifttoward a more strident Taiwan policy couldportend a new crisis in the Taiwan Straitsooner than many expect, as a lack of progress on these issues maybuttress hawks in the new Xi Jinping administration. And America would surely be dragged in: Even low-level coercive measures against Taiwan -- a top 10 U.S. trading partner and security ally -- couldthrow U.S.-China relations into a tailspin.
Taiwan escalates and goes nuclear – defense does not assume miscalculation
William Lowther 3-16, Taipei Times, citing a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3/16/13, “Taiwan could spark nuclear war: report,” http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211
Taiwan is themost likely potential crisisthat couldtrigger a nuclear warbetween China and the US, a new academic report concludes.“Taiwan remains the single most plausible and dangerous source of tension and conflict between the US and China,” says the 42-page report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).Prepared by the CSIS’ Project on Nuclear Issues and resulting from a year-long study, the report emphasizes that Beijing continues to beset on a policy to prevent Taiwan’s independence,while at the same time the US maintains the capability to come to Taiwan’s defense.“Although tensions across the Taiwan Strait have subsided since both Taipei and Beijing embraced a policy of engagement in 2008, the situation remains combustible, complicated byrapidly diverging cross-strait military capabilitiesand persistent political disagreements,” the report says.In a footnote, it quotes senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations Richard Betts describing Taiwan as “the main potential flashpoint for the US in East Asia.”The report also quotes Betts as saying that neither Beijing nor Washington can fully control developments that might ignite a Taiwan crisis.This is a classic recipe for surprise, miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation,” Betts wrote in a separate study of his own.The CSIS study says: “For the foreseeable future Taiwan is the contingency in which nuclear weapons would most likely become a major factor, because the fate of the island is intertwined both with the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and the reliability of US defense commitments in the Asia-Pacific region.”Titled Nuclear Weapons and US-China Relations, the study says disputes in the East and South China seas appear unlikely to lead to major conflict between China and the US, but they do “provide kindling” for potential conflict between the two nations because the disputes implicate a number of important regional interests, including the interests of treaty allies of the US.The danger posed by flashpoints such as Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and maritime demarcation disputes is magnified by the potential for mistakes, the study says.Although Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the bases for miscommunication and misunderstanding remainand draw ondeep historical reservoirs of suspicion,” the report says.For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would result in a military or even nuclear responseby the other party.To make things worse, “neither side seems to believe the other’s declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very uncertain endeavor, could beespecially difficult in any conflict,” it says.Although conflict “mercifully” seems unlikely at this point, the report concludes that “it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or unlucky.”The report says: “With both sides possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously dangerous and quite possibly devastating.”

Advantage 2 - Environment


Cuban drilling and oil spills in the Basin are inevitable, but Cuba can’t handle it
Melissa Bert 12 (a military fellow (U.S. Coast Guard) at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Blake Clayton (fellow for energy and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations) 2012 “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill”, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515
The imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a large-scale oil spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility by implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that both the U.S. government and the domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that threatens U.S. waters. These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United States typically welcomes greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the Castro regime.Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threatto the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industryto address a spill on its own.OilIndustry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States. Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90 limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs, subject to a few exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than $150 million. The Way Forward As a first step, the United States should discuss contingency planning for a Cuban oil spill at the regular multiparty talks it holds with Mexico, the Bahamas, Cuba, and others per the Cartagena Convention. The Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Response and Cooperation Plan provides an operational framework under which the United States and Cuba can jointly develop systems for identifying and reporting an oil spill, implement a means of restricting the spread of oil, and identify resources to respond to a spill. Washington should also instruct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct basic spill response coordination with its counterparts in Cuba. The United States already has operational agreements in place with Mexico, Canada, and several countries in the Caribbean that call for routine exercises, emergency response coordination, and communication protocols. It should strike an agreement with Cuba that is substantively similar but narrower in scope, limited to basic spill-oriented advance coordination and communication. Before that step can be taken, U.S. lawmakers may need to amend the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 to allow for limited, spill-related coordination and communication with the Cuban government. Next, President Barack Obama should issue an export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill response in Cuban waters, effective immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional authorization. The license should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban territory, such as capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton, should be included in the authorization. Finally, Congress should alter existing oil spill compensation policy. Lawmakers should amend OPA 90 to ensure there is a responsible party for oil spills from a foreign offshore unit that pollutes or threatens to pollute U.S. waters, like there is for vessels. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) have sponsored such legislation. Lawmakers should eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to obtain congressional approval on expenditures above $150 million for spills of national significance (as defined by the National Response Plan). And President Obama should appoint a commission to determine the appropriate limit of liability cap under OPA 90, balancing the need to compensate victims with the desire to retain strict liability for polluters. There are two other, less essential measures U.S. lawmakers may consider that would enable the country to respond more adeptly to a spill. Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other technologies in the Straits of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well blowout or other unusual activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol about the characteristics of Cuban crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the oil would spread in the case of a well blowout. Defending U.S. InterestsAn oil well blowout in Cuban waters wouldalmost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damageto Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory. However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger emanating from Cuba.Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.

That decimates the reefs
Emily A. PetersonDaniel J. Whittle, J.D.and Douglas N. Rader 12, Ph.DDecember 2012 “Bridging the GulfFinding Common Ground on Environmental and Safety Preparedness for Offshore Oil and Gas in Cuba”, http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDF-Bridging_the_Gulf-2012.pdf
If a spill were to occur in Cuban waters, marine and coastal resources of the United States, Cuba, and the Bahamas could be placed at significant risk. Fisheries, coastal tourism, recreation, and other natural resources-based enterprises and activities in the region could experience adverse impacts on the scale of weeks to years, or even decades. Multiple factors—including the type and amount of oil spilled, the environment in which the oil spilled, and prevailing weather and ocean current conditions—would play key factors in determining the extent and gravity of a spill’s impact.45In Cuba, marine and coastal habitats could suffersubstantial long-term harm which could degrade, in turn, entire populations and habitats downstream in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. According to Dr. John W. Tunnell, Jr., associate director of the Harte Research Institute and an expert on the Gulf of Mexico marine environment, the primary three habitats at risk on Cuba’s North Coast near the area where exploration is occurring are coral reefs, seagrass beds, and lush mangrove forests.46 These habitats are found throughout the region, but in greatest abundance in the Archipelago Sabana-Camaguey and the Archipelago Los Colorados, where they provide breeding, nursery, and feeding habitats for commercial fish species, including grouper, snapper, and grunts. If chemical dispersants were used as part of the clean-up effort, they could reduce impacts on fauna for which oiling per se is the greatest threat (e.g. birds) but also add additional toxicity, as well as alter the transport and ecological fate of oil constituents moving through the water column and then into the air or back towards the bottom. Dispersed oil could have greater deleterious effect on Cuba’s coral reefs, which are fragile, slow-growing, and have low resilience to physical and chemical stresses.47 Like salt marshes, coastal mangrove swamps are also difficult to clean up in the aftermath of an oil spill, and mangroves can die within a week to several months as a result of oil exposure.48 Reduced from their formerly healthy, vibrant state,such important habitats could lose their ability to support the fisheries and marine life that depend on them
Florida’s a hotspot and spills over
Alles 7 (David L. Professor of Biology – Western Washington University, “Biodiversity Hot Spots: The Florida Everglades”, 3-7-2007, http://www.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Everglades.pdf)
"Biodiversityhot spotsare areas where endemic species with small ranges are concentrated. Not all are in the tropics, but most are. Hot spots can be extraordinarily concentrated; thousands of species may be found within a relatively small area. Species with small ranges are particularly vulnerable to impacts. Nature has put her eggs in a small number of baskets, and we are in danger of dropping them. On land, worldwide 25 areas are recognized as hotspots which contain concentrations of endemic species that are disproportionately vulnerable to extinction from regional habitat destruction. These areas retain less than 10% of their original habitat and have unusually high human population densities." (Pimm, 2001) The Florida Everglades contains one of thehighest concentrationsof species vulnerable to extinction in the United States. The 5,000-square-kilometre wetland in southern Florida is home to at least 60 endangered species, including the American crocodile (Mason, 2003). And the area retains less than 10% of its original habitat as the human population density of southern Florida threatens to over-run one of the most unique habitats in North America. Nourished by the rain soaked Kissimmee River Basin and stretching south from 700 square mile Lake Okeechobee (left center), the Everglades are a wide slow moving river of marsh and saw grass covering some 4,500 square miles, flowing slowly towards the mangrove estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico (right below center). The Everglades are aunique habitat; there are no other everglades in the world. No other place combines a subtropical climate, a broad, shallow river, and astunning diversity of plants and animals into such a complex andfragileecosystem. No other place is so dramatically defined by annual rhythms of drought and flood, fire and sunshine and torrential rain. Everglades National Park is the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the United States.Its abundant wildlife includes rare and endangered species, such as the American crocodile, Florida panther, and West Indian manatee. Alligators, like the one shown above, are an important part of this ecosystem, and are regarded as a “keystone” species of the Everglades. The Florida Everglades ecosystem is also the only place in the world where alligators and crocodiles exist side by side. The American crocodile, shown above, was listed as an endangered species in Florida in 1975. It’s numbers had dropped dramatically because of hunting and loss of habitat. Today, it’s estimated that between 500 to 1,200 crocodiles live in Florida, up from approximately 200 to 400 two decades ago. They are found in the U.S. in the remaining tidal marshes in the Everglades along Florida Bay and in the Florida Keys. Though the species resemble one another, crocodiles vary greatly from the more than 1 million alligators found in Florida. Crocodile color ranges from olive green to gray compared with the black hue of alligators. Their snouts are narrower, and the bottom and top teeth are visible from the side when the mouth is closed; only the upper teeth are seen on an alligator. Adult crocodiles are 7 to 15 feet long and weigh 150 to 450 pounds. Decidedly less aggressive than the infamous Nile and Australian crocodiles, American crocodiles are rarely seen by people. The West Indian manatee is a large, herbivorous, aquatic mammal. These gentle creatures are endangered throughout their range. High annual mortality, primarily associated with human activity, as well as a low reproductive rate and loss of habitat continue to keep the number of manatees low and threaten the species’ future. The manatee population has long been the focus of battles between conservationists and boaters. Boating kills dozens of manatees a year, crushing or gashing the slow-moving mammals as they rise to the surface to breathe. Red tide algae blooms have been another cause of mortality for manatees along Florida's south-central Gulf Coast. The one-cell organism that causes red tide releases a toxin when it dies, sickening manatees. Once the toxin is in the animal, it affects their coordination and causes paralysis (Flewelling, et al., 2005). "Manatees on Florida’s Gulf coast are frequently exposed to brevetoxin, a potent neurotoxin produced by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis, during red tide events. In 1996, 151 manatees were documented to have died in southwest Florida from brevetoxicosis. This epizootic was particularly detrimental to the manatee population because more adults were killed than any other age class. Other red tide epizootics in 1982, 2002, 2003, and 2005 resulted in the deaths of 37, 34, 96, and (preliminarily) 81 manatees, respectively. There is no clear evidence that these events have been increasing in frequency along Florida’s coast, but certainly the impact on the manatee population has increased over the past two decades. Viewed globally, harmful algal blooms have been increasing over the past 25 years in frequency and in their impacts on the economy, public health, and marine life." In addition to rare and endangered species, the Everglades are rightly famous for the profusion of bird species found there, with 347 species recorded within the Park boundaries. The mangrove estuaries of Florida Bay, in particular, are a breeding habitat for Roseate Spoonbills, Wood Stork, White Ibis, Glossy Ibis, and eleven species of egrets and herons. Once, water flowed freely from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay in a “river of grass”, Florida environmentalist Marjory Stoneman Douglas's poetic phrase. It is a river that is 120 miles long and 50 miles wide, but less than a foot deep. In this flat landscape, even a few inches of elevation meant the difference between wet marsh and dry ground. Today, the Everglades is an ecosystem in danger of extinction. Canals and levees capture and divert its water for human use, including drinking water, irrigation, and flood control. Often, too much water is withheld from the Everglades during the wet season, or too much is diverted into it during the winter drought, disrupting the natural cycles of feeding and nesting which depend on these patterns. Much of the time the water is contaminated by pollutants.

Extinction
Robin Kundis Craig 03 (Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law) 2003
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 that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in theglobal 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] 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 system. n860 Thus, 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 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 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 hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the oceanwe kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.


Advantage 3 - Economy

Cuban oil dependence on Venezuela is unsustainable---Venezuela will cut off supplies
Stephen Keppel 3/16 “What Chávez's Death Means for Cuba, Venezuela and the U.S.” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/chavezs-death-means-cuba-venezuela-us/story?id=18669003)
Upon hearing news of the death of Hugo Chávez, scores of Venezuelans gathered in cautious celebration in Doral, a South Florida community with the highest concentration of Venezuelans outside Venezuela. They are hoping that Chávez's passing will bring about change in their homeland.Others in the region were not as happy.Sure Chávez was politically influential in Latin America, but in many ways his economic influence was even greaterespeciallywith friendly countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia and a score of Caribbean nations that benefited from Venezuela's oil-discount program, PetroCaribe.In the name of "economic solidarity," Chávez was extremely generous with these friends, offering oil at discounted rates and with flexible lending conditions. Nicaragua, for example, was known to pay for Venezuelan oil with shipments of beef, sugar, coffee, milk and even 19,000 pairs of pants. According to figures from the state-owned oil company PDVSA, in 2011 Venezuela sent 243,500 barrels of oil a day (or around 8 percent of its production) to 16 countries across Latin America. Yet the absence of Chávez and the potential drawdown of economic support would have the biggest impact on Cuba. That country receivesmore than 100,000 barrels of discounted oil per day and billions of dollars each year in exchange for Cuban medical personnel, technology experts, political consultants and other "professionals."That's because Chávez had a special relationship with Cuba and the Castros. His relationships with other presidents were also often very personal. That approach may be difficult to sustain in his absence.Even if Nicolas Maduro, Chávez's chosen replacement, wins the upcoming election, he will be more susceptible to domestic pressure to reduce Venezuela's foreign aid, given all the economic challenges at home.The Cubans have bad memories of the ending of Soviet patronage in the 1990s and are right to be worried about what the death of Chávez may bring.Where will Cuba turn this time if Venezuelan aid dries up?Maybe the United States. That doesn't mean the U.S. government, however. Rather, Cuba would likely turn to the nearly two million Cubans living in this country. They are already sending around $2 billion a year back to the island in remittances. Already, Raul Castro seems to have been preparing to make the Cuban economy a little bit more flexible and open to investment, and the Obama administration has made it easier for Cubans in the U.S. to send money back home.Which brings us to Venezuela's financial situation. The truth is the economic state there has been uncertain and chaotic ever since Chavez got sick,and that is unlikely to change in the short term. There is supposed to be a new election, and it appears that Maduro will win. But he will face a tough economic situation. Plus, he lacks the charisma of Chávez and may not be able to maintain popularity if things get tougher.
The plan solves Cuban dependence on Venezuela – key to economic and political reforms that will endure Cuban stability
Pinon 11Jorge R. Piñón is a visiting research fellow at the Latin American and Caribbean Center’s Cuban Research Institute at FIU. Spring 2011, "Why the United States and Cuba Collaborate (and What Could Happen If They Don't)"casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/2157/1306356964_Hemisphere_Vol._20.pdf
If Cuba’s suspected but yet undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves are proven real, it will take between three and five years to develop them fully. Production volumes would have to reach more than 200,000 barrels per day to have the same positive economic impact currently derived from foreign oil subsidies. If this occurs, significant revenues from oil, natural gas and sugarcane ethanol would integrate Cuba into global and regional markets within the next five years. International oil companies such as Spain’s Repsol, Norway’s Statoil Norsk Hydro and Brazil’s Petrobras are actively exploring Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters. Cuban authorities have invited United States oil companies to participate in developing the island’s offshore oil and natural gas resources, but US law does not allow this.Although US oil, oil equipment and service companies have the capital, technology and operational knowhow to explore, produce and refine Cuba’s potential reserves in a safe and responsible manner, the almost five-decade old unilateral political and economic embargo keeps them on the sidelines.Cuba currently relies on heavily subsidized oil from Venezuelafor two-thirds of its petroleum needs. This supplycontributes to the Cubangovernment’s ability to maintain apolitically antagonisticand belligerentpositiontowards the US. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 made Cuba aware of the political and economic risks and consequences of depending on a single source of imported oil. Only when Cubadiversifies suppliers and develops its offshore hydrocarbon resources, estimated by the United States Geological Survey at 5.5 million barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, will it have the economic independence to consider political and economic reforms.It is in the US interest to develop a new policy toward the island based on constructive engagement to support the emergence of a Cuban state in which Cubans themselves can determine the political and economic future of their country through democratic means. Cuba is about to embark on an 18-month oil exploration drilling program to validate the presence of recoverable hydrocarbon reserves. US support of such endeavors would be beneficial in the framework of a constructive engagement policy. The Deepwater Horizon drilling semi-submersible incident and the resulting catastrophic oil spill demonstrate the urgency of developing a policy of energy and environmental cooperation between the United States and Cuba. As Cuba develops its deepwater oil and natural gas potential, the possible consequences of a spill call for proactive planning by both countries to minimize or avoid an environmental disaster. To respond effectively to an oil-related marine accident, any company operating in Cuba would require immediate access to US oil services companies for the nearinstant technology and know-how needed to halt and limit damage to the marine environment. Obviously, the establishment of working relations between the US and Cuba in the area of marine environmental protection would assist enormously in the contingency planning and cooperation necessary for an early and effective response to an oil spill. The United States and Cuba are already parties to a number of multilateral oil pollution agreements, such as the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the 1983 Convention for the protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention). Both agreements address prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation also offers a precedent for cooperation. The convention is designed to encourage and facilitate international cooperation and mutual assistance in preparing for and responding to major oil pollution incidents. Signatory nations are tasked with developing and maintaining adequate capabilities to deal with such an emergency. In the case of Cuba and the United States, the capabilities must be transnational, as there is no barrier to the movement of oil from one country’s waters to another’s. The United States, therefore, must develop appropriate regulatory and procedural frameworks for the free movement of equipment, personnel and expertise between the two countries as part of any oil spill response. The 1980 Agreement of Cooperation between the United States and Mexico Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Substances (MEXUS Plan) provides the foundation for a similar protocol with Cuba. This would include the establishment of joint response teams, coordinating roles, rapid incident notification mechanisms, joint operations centers and communication procedures, along with regular exercises and meetings. The United States government, irrespective of the current embargo, has the power to license the sale, lease or loan of emergency relief and reconstruction equipment and the travel of expert personnel to Cuba following an oil spill. Cuba’s long-term energy challenges will be a consequence of its future economic growth and rising standard of living within a market environment. This anticipated growth will depend largely on the development ofa competitively priced, readily available and environmentally sound long-term energy plan. Cuban energy policy should embrace energy conservation, modernization of the energy infrastructure, and balance in sourcing oil/gas supplies and renewable energy sources that protect the island’s environment.The country would benefit from the guidance of a variety of partners, including the United States.
Cuban instability collapse causes Latin American instability, creates terrorist hubs throughout the Caribbean, and a refugee crisis that trades off US power projection
Tim Gorrell (Lieutenant Colonel) 2005 “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” 3/18, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war.Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapsesanarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast.In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand fleeing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably.In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated. Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency.The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to bedistracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast.The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region arepotential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China. What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?

Caribbean instability causes LNG terrorism
Bryan 1 (Anthony T., Director of the Caribbean Program – North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, “Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation”, 10-21, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html)
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean.The security of major industrial complexes in some Caribbean countries isvital. Petroleum refineriesand major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that producethe majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. [[#|Security issues]] become even more critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological weapons within national borders.
LNG tanker explosions cause catastrophic damage – outweighs nuclear war
Lovin 1 (Amory B., Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and L. Hunter Lovin, President – National Capitalism and Co-Founder – Rocky Mountain Institute, “Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security”, http://verdilivorno.it/doc_gnl/198204_Brittle_Power_intro_GNL_note.pdf)
About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG willprobably, if spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes. 3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred twenty-eight Fahrenheit degrees hot- ter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The result- ing gas, however, will be so cold that it will still be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume might extend at least three miles downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to twenty minutes. 4 It might ultimately reach much farther—perhaps six to twelve miles. 5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame reminiscent of the 1937 Hindenbergdisaster but about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant heat would cause third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away. 6 An LNG fireball can blow through a city, creating “a very large number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable equipment can put out a very large [LNG]... fire.” 7 Theenergy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters) is equivalent toseven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.



Neg

round 2

China Da




PTX

Immigration reform will pass and it political capital is key
Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=329931&CategoryId=12395
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Hispanic Democratic legislators on Wednesday that he will invest his political capitalin an immigration reformpackage whose principles will be revealed during a forum in the next two months. That is what members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported after their first meeting with Obama on the subject of immigration. In remarks to reporters, the lawmakers expressed confidence that, with the president’s support, this year the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform will be resumed, opening a path to legalization for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez said that the president assured the group “he is a man of his word” and would fulfill his campaign promises to push for immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said that during the meeting Obama assured lawmakers that he will invest part of his political capital in moving forward on immigration reformthat includes strong measures for border security and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Menendez said that the lawmakers will work with Obama on the “principles” of that reform package, which will be presented at a public forum in the next two months with the aim of starting the dialogue about how to fix the country’s problematic immigration system. “He understands that this is a matter of civil rights,” the senator said of Obama.Gaining approval ofa reform plan, Menendez acknowledged, will be “a struggle,” taking into account the opposition of many Republicans and other conservative groups.
Plan costs PC and angers most powerful lobby - Cuba policy requires Obama push and he gets blame anyway –
Stieglitz, 11
Matthew, Law Clerk at Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C, Judicial Intern at United States District Court, Masters @ Cornell University, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/Fellows2011/Stieglitz-_Final_Paper.pdf

CONCLUSION President Barack Obama’s election came with a variety of campaign promises, including addressing the US-Cuba embargo. However, after two years in office, normalized relations with Cuba have yet to materialize. Recent developments have pushed legislators to review the continued existence of the embargo, but the history of the US presidency and the blockade seems to dictate that the American presidency will ultimately be what causes any policy change. Thus, how and when will the embargo end? Clearly, American presidents have been directly tied to foreign policy towards Cuba. However, this does not provide clarity to what the future holds for diplomatic relations with the island. Progressive policies and actions in both nations in recent months seem to offer hope of change, yet such a scenario remains elusive. During the embargo’s existence, Cuban-Americans have maintained an active voice against the Castro regime. The community’s leaders have met with and advised multiple US presidents on Cuba, gained immense political clout in Miami, and have formed one of the most dominant ethnic lobbies in Washington. The result has been a hardline stance on Cuba that progressive Cuban-Americans have failed to overcome.While the community’s younger generation, as well as recent arrivals from Cuba, prefers a policy of engagement, normalized relations do not seem feasible at this point in time. The recent election victory of House Republicans, combined with the political riskiness of addressing the US-Cuba embargo prior to the 2012 presidential election, make it highly unlikely President Obama will address Cuba during his first term as president. Nevertheless, his administration has more than enough tools at their disposal to begin moving the Cuba dialogue forward, even if the Executive Office is compromised in its ability to end the embargo.
PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/20/in-interview-obama-says-he-has-a-year-to-get-stuff-done/, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday he’s eager to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that he has a severely limited time framebefore the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. Obama told a San Francisco television station that he wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. “Once we get through this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”Obama’s remarks were an acknowledgement thata second-term president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congresson issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigrationreform and gun control.
Immigration reform prevents inevitable bioterrorism
Francis ’01 (Sam, Syndicated Columnist, Immigration Reform: No, 11-15, http://www.vdare.com/francis/bush_ amnesty_si.htm)

It's been like pulling teeth, but the reality of the alien terrorist threat withintheUnited States is finally forcing even the pro-immigration Bush administration to recognize the suicidal folly of tolerating mass immigration from countries and cultures profoundly different from our own. Last week the president himself uttered the first words that indicate he's starting to perceive where the real danger comes from. [Read transcript , listen via RealAudio.] Acknowledging that "never did we realize that people would take advantage of our generosity to the extent that they have," Mr. Bush ticked off a list of changes in how the country would receive—or not receive—immigrants in the future. Tighter visa security and procedures, the most popular mantra of the hour, were high on the list, but so were new regulations forbidding the entry of suspected and potential terrorists. Later in the week, Attorney General John Ashcroft unveiled a new list of 46 more groups for the list of known terrorist organizations. This is progress, sort of. Apparently it requires immense concentration of mind and steely girding of loins for the ruling class to see that letting just about anyone who wants to come here enter the country and wander about at will is really not a good idea in itself, let alone the most effective way todeter foreign terrorists. Even with the new announcements, the president had to pause every other sentence to explain that he's really not against immigration per se. Although we need to "tighten up the visas," Mr. Bush also insisted "that's not to say we're not going to let people come into our country; of course we are." Then again, just because some people we let into our country are evil and need to be "brought to justice," "by far the vast majority of people who have come to America are really good, decent people—people that we're proud to have here." Maybe so, but it ought to be unnecessary for the president to have to keep saying it. No doubt most of the people of Afghanistan are "really good, decent people" as well, but neither the president nor the military leaders planning the bombing campaign feel the necessity to tell us so. As for the late and unlamented "amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants," that dominated the news prior to Sept. 11, it turns out that amnesty is not quite as late as some had thought. "It's not dead," says White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, but due to "other duties," drawing up the amnesty plan just "has not moved at the pace the president had hoped it would move." What all of this means is that the ruling class in general and the Bush administration in particular have not really changed their minds about immigration one iota. It's just that they have at least enough political sense to grasp that most Americans know immigration is a major reason why we have foreignterrorism at all, why we are having to worry aboutcontinuing __anthrax attack____s__, why we need to keep worrying about what immigrant terrorists are planning to do to us in the future, and why the FBI and similar agencies keep issuing warnings about imminent terrorist attacks. If there were no Arabic or Muslim immigrants here, if those here who are clearly sympathetic to terrorism or are clearly anti-American in their religious and political views were kicked out, there would not be much of a terrorist threat at all.
Bioterror causes extinction
Steinbrenner ’97 (John, Snr Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22, Lexis)

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 intensifyingcascade of disease that mightultimately 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.

Algae CP 1nc

Text: The United States federal government should amend relevant definitions in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include algae-derived fuels eligible for all tax credits, subsidies, and price supports.
Amending the RFS to include price supports for algae spurs green crude production. This provides clean renewable fuel – solves warming and crop shift
Jason Pyle (Chief Executive Officer, Sapphire Energy) June 12 2008 “Renewable Fuels And Food Prices,” CQ Congressional Testimony
First, let me thank the Committee for its leadership on alternative, renewable fuels. Your keen focus and vision have resulted in the first ever Renewable Fuel Standard. Although there will inevitably be elements of RFS that will improve over time, you've guided the country along on the right path. Second, within the RFS debate, I want to thank this Committee for its vision and support for technology neutrality in RFS legislation, even though that vision did not survive final passage. As you predicted by supporting a technology neutral position, we are now seeing the evolution of an entirely new generation of renewable fuels. These fuels transcend the use of food as fuel feedstock.The current dilemma that pits fuel against food is just the first of many consequences of a technology-specific RFS. Without a technology-neutral RFS, this nation will not meet its goalsof providing 32 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Although last year's Energy Independence and Security Act has yet to foster such solutions, this Committee should be applauded for anticipating an ever-expanding universe of alternative and renewable fuels. That's why I am here. I'm Jason Pyle, Chief Executive Officer of Sapphire Energy. Sapphireis one of several of this nation's best technology companiesworking to produce the next generation of renewable fuels. At Sapphire,we focus on the production of current fuel products, such as gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel, fromcompletely renewable sources, such as photosynthetic microorganisms, or algae. Our mission is to produce fuels for today's oil and gasoline infrastructure, and two weeks ago we announced thatSapphire had produced the first ever renewable, ASTM-compliant, 91 octane gasoline from microorganisms. Please refer to the attached two documents for more background on Sapphire Energy. The Problem One of the many reasons we have cheap food is the availability of cheap energy. We cannot expect to turn large amounts of food back into energy in an economic manner. In today's debate between food and fuel, we should not have to make a choice. Both are critical to the economy, the environment and the world at large; we should not match one against the other. But when price and demand rise for one, both suffer. Instead of a Pyrrhic choice between food and fuel, I offer the opportunity to transcend the debate and produce ample supplies of both, leading this nation toward energy independence. Instead of a dispute between two basic necessities, we need a dialogue that supports truly sustainable alternative fuel sources. Over the past year we have all seen prices and demand rise for commodities such as corn, sugar and vegetable oil. The entire world now feels the pressure. Daily we are faced with reports of people who struggle to afford essentials. A host of factors has contributed to price increases for food and fuel: weather, heightened demand, a weaker dollar, decreasing supplies. Just like energy, food is linked in a global market. Once we begin fueling our cars with food crops, we witness international repercussions.Riots occurred in Mexico earlier this year over expensive corn flour. This price increase has been attributed to U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol products, leaving less maize available for export. Protests over similar issues have occurred around the world, contributing to inflation and political instability.Even at an increased rate of production, current domestic biofuel processes will meet part, but not all, of U.S. demand. If the entire annual domestic soybean crop of 3 billion bushels were converted to biodiesel at the current efficiency of 1.4 gallons per bushel, it would provide about 6.5% of U.S. diesel fuel production. Though certainly a valuable asset to our fuel supply, it is clear that a spectrum of additional and diverse biofuels sources will be necessary to fulfill demand. Congress first adopted the Renewable Fuels Standardin 2005, but wisely recognized that neither biodiesel nor ethanol would be the final solution. It created the program as a bridge to a new generation of fuels, and established a system of incentives to create a marketplace for new technologies. Congress should consider whether the incentives are neutral and fair. Ask whether these mechanisms will lead to the support and development of fuels that will give America true energy independence.Congress should ensure that the next round of incentives can be applied to advanced technologies such as Sapphire's. American innovation is the heart of our people and our economy; I urge you to support this withadditional legislation that promotes a technology-neutral RFS. The Solution Food for fuel concerns are real, but can be managed. Industries such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from vegetable oil can continue to play an important role in the energy mix. However,if we intend to practically and economically reach the goals of the RFS, we must be ready to rapidly embrace new fuel technologies. We must call on American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism for the solutions. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it put the country on a path toward an energy future independent of imported resources. As Americans, we must support this vision. We should strive to maximize production, create fuel-efficient cars, reduce the amount of driving we do and, finally, develop alternatives to fossil fuels. All these efforts deserve increased support. But withouta truly new source of fuel, the system will remain in turmoil, prices will soar and the conflict between food and fuel will persist. Senators, my colleagues and I at Sapphire Energy have been thinking about this for a long time. We knew that an energy source based on agriculture would serve this country best as a stepping stone to a green energy future. We knew that energy requiring vast amounts of fresh water resources was not a viable option. And, finally, if we wanted to make a difference quickly, we knew we needed a fuel that could be transported and refined just like petroleum. Two years ago we asked ourselves, "In a perfect world, how should the next generation of fuel be produced and distributed?" These were our founding principles: 1.Fuel production must not use farmland. Period.2.Fuel production must be carbon neutral. 3.Fuel production and delivery must use the existing petroleum infrastructure. 4.Fuel production must scale domestically to reach tens of billions of gallons per year. 5.The next generation of fuels must be compatible with today's vehicles. That sounded like a tall order. ButAmericans have dreamed big and delivered in the past - atomic energy, highways and railroads that crisscross our nation, a man on the moon, mapping the human genome. Now, a similar ingenuity has developed a completely renewable and homegrown source of gasoline. I offer that we do not have to sacrifice food production for fuel production. We do not have to choose between powering our industries and feeding the hungry. The Sapphire processes and technologies are so revolutionary that the company is at the forefront of an entirely new industrial category called "Green Crude Production". Products and processes in this categorydiffer significantly from other biofuels because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms, sunlight and CO2; do not result in biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are carbon neutral and renewable; and don't require any food crop or agricultural land. The Sapphireprocess produces a replica of light sweet crude, green crude that can be used in traditional refining to make real gasoline, diesel, and aircraft fuel. Our feedstocks produce10 to100 times more energy per acre than cropland biofuels.A side benefit of our process is thatthe microorganisms consume pollutants and convert them to fuel. Using the Sapphire process, we have dramatically altered the domestic energy and petrochemical landscape and avoided the food versus fuel debate. Please allow me to reiterate, the Sapphire process does not create ethanol; it does not produce biodiesel; it does not use crops or valuable farmland. Sapphire fuel is the fuel we use today, the kind that is in your car or truck or airplane right now. It's gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel. Senators, this is a solution. This is a truly renewable, truly sustainable,alternative fuel- "Sapphire's green crude oil". This fuel, Sapphire fuel, is the world's first truly renewable petrochemical product, produced by converting sunlight and CO2 into a renewable, carbon-neutral alternative to conventional fossil fuels, without the drawbacks of current biofuels. This fuel is compatible with the current energy infrastructure- cars, refineries, and pipelines. Sapphire's scalable production facilities will produce this fuel economically because production will be modular, transportable, fueled by sunlight, and not constrained by arable land, crops, or other natural resources. Sapphire has turned sunlight into gasoline.


Case

Environment Adv.

Turn- Sugarcane ethanol is harmful to the environment- new studies prove
Spak and Carmichael 11, Scott, and Greg Carmichael. researchers at the University of Iowa."Study Shows Sugarcane Ethanol Production Causes Air Pollution." University of California, Merced. N.p., 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 03 July 2013. <http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/study-shows-sugarcane-ethanol-production-causes-air-pollution>.¶MA
The burning of sugarcane fields prior to harvest for ethanol production can create air pollution that detracts from the biofuel’s overall sustainability, according to research published recently by a team of researchers led by scientists at the University of California, Merced. UC Merced graduate student Chi-Chung Tsao was the lead author on the paper and was aided in the study by UC Merced professors Elliott Campbell and Yihsu Chen. The study — published online this week in the Nature Climate Change journal — focused on Brazil, the world’s top producer of sugarcane ethanol and a possible source for U.S. imports of the alternative fuel. “There is a big strategic decision our country and others are making, in whether to develop a domestic biofuels industry or import relatively inexpensive biofuels from developing countries,” Campbell said. “Our study shows that importing biofuels could result in human health and environmental problems in the regions where they are cultivated.”Ethanol is seen as an alternative to fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gasses when used and are a major contributor to air pollution and climate change. But despite some governments encouraging farmers to reduce field burning — which is done in part to protect farmworkers by removing sharp leaves and harmful animals — more than half of sugarcane croplands in Brazil continue to be burned. That leads to a reduction in air quality that can offset the benefits of ethanol over petroleum fuels that emit more greenhouse gases during their use, something Campbell said the U.S. should consider when determining whether to import inexpensive ethanol from Brazil or continuing to invest in domestic corn ethanol production.Unlike petroleum production, the potential to produce biofuels is relatively evenly distributed across many countries, and this is a big plus from an energy security perspective,” Campbell said. “However, agriculture practices in some regions result in biofuels that lead to even more intense air pollution than petroleum.”Satellites are currently used to measure air pollution in Brazil, but the study shows actual pollution caused by sugarcane fieldburning could be four times greater than satellite estimates. The researchers believe this is due to the relatively small scale of individual fires.
Monoculture

We don’t need animals to keep us alive—human evolution guarantees that we will never wipe ourselves out by destroying the environment
Julian Simon 96 (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland) 1996 The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment, http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/jsimon/Ultimate_Resource/
Let us begin by going beyond the trends in particular resources. The greatest and most important trend, of which these particular trends are a part, is the trend of this earth becoming ever more livable for human beings. We see the signs of this in our longer life expectancy, improved knowledge of nature, and greater ability to protect ourselves from the elements, living with ever more safety and comfort. But though this larger trend buttresses the particular resource trends, it still provides no causal explanation of the phenomenon we seek to understand. Evolutionary thinking, however, and (more specifically in economics) the sort of analysis suggested by Friedrich Hayek, offers an explanation of the observed long-term trend. Hayek (following upon Hume) urges upon us that humankind has evolved sets of rules and patterns of living which are consistent with survival and growth ratherthan with decline and extinction, an aspect of the evolutionary selection for survival among past societies. He assumes that the particular rules and living patterns have had something to do with chances for survival--for example, he reasons that patterns leading to higher fertility and more healthful and productive living have led to groups' natural increase and hence survival-- and therefore the patterns we have inherited constitute a machinery for continued survival and growth where conditions are not too different from the past. (This is consistent with a biological view of humankind as having evolved genes that point toward survival. But no such genetic evolution is presupposed by Hayek, in part because its time span is too great for us to understand it as well as we can understand the evolution of cultural rules. It may be illuminating, however, to view mankind's biological nature as part of the long evolutionary chain dating from the simplest plants and animals, a history of increasing complexity of construction and greater capacity to deal actively with the environment.) Let us apply Hayek's general analysis to natural resources. Such resources of all sorts have been a part of human history ever since the beginning. If humankind had not evolved patterns of behavior that increased rather than decreased the amounts of resources available to us, we would not still be here. If, as our numbers increased (or even as our numbers remained nearly stationary), our patterns had led to diminished supplies of plants and animals, less flint for tools, and disappearing wood for fires and construction, I would not be here to be writing these pages, and you would not be here to be reading them.
Species loss doesn’t snowball
Thomas Gale Moore 98 (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) 1998 Climate of Fear, 98-99
Nevertheless, the loss of a class of living beings does not typically threaten other species. Most animals and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefitsprovided by a particular species from more than a single source. If it were true that the extinction of a single species would produce a cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past should have wiped out all life. Evolution forces various life forms to adjust to change. A few may not make the adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same environment often produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins. It is almost impossible to imagine a single species that, if eliminated, would threaten us humans. Perhaps if the E. coli that are necessary for digestion became extinct, we could no longer exist. But those bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with man and, as long as humans survive, so will they. Thus any animal that hosts a symbiotic species need not fear the loss of its partner. As long as the host remains, so will parasites and symbiotic species.
Net benefit is the Russia and PTX Da

Climate Change

CO2 isn’t key to warming
BELL 11-3-2010 (Larry, Prof at U Houston, http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/02/global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-opinions-columnists-larry-bell.html)
More recent temperature variations have been relatively much more stable and moderate. The past century witnessed two distinct warming periods, one occurred from 1900-1945, and another from 1975-1998. About half of that total warming occurred before the mid-1940s. And while CO2 levels have continued to rise, there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1998 (the end of a strong El Nino season). Those who pay honest attention to long-term climate patterns will note that atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuations do not lead, but typically follow, temperature changes. That's because oceans are huge CO2 sinks, absorbing CO2 as they cool, and releasing CO2 as they warm up. (When you open a carbonated beverage you experience the same phenomenon. If the beverage is cold, it retains CO2. If it is warm, it releases CO2 and sprays all over.) These temperature shifts are heavily influenced by entirely natural ocean cycle fluctuations that affect heat transfer patterns from the tropics. In the Arctic these oscillations occur about every 60 to 70 years.
Warming inevitable—even at lesser population growth rates, we’re still producing too much carbon dioxide to overcome
Husler and Sornette ’11 (A.D., and D. Department of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zurich, “Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth,” 3/17/11, AM)

We have analyzed the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide and of what constitutes arguably its most important underlying driving variable, namely human population. Our empirical calibrations suggest that human population has decelerated from its previous super-exponential growth until 1960 to \just" an exponential growth.As for atmospheric CO2 content, we find that it is at least exponentially increasing and more probably exhibiting an accelerating growth rate, consistent with a FTS (_nite-time singular) power law regime. We have proposed a simple framework to think about these dynamics, based on endogenous economic growth theory. We showed that the positive feedback loops between several variables, such as population, technology and capital can give rise to the observed FTS behavior, notwithstanding the fact that the dynamics of each variable would be stable or at most exponential, conditional on the stationarity of the other variables. It is the joint growth of the coupled variables that may give rise to the enormous acceleration characterized by the FTS behavior, both in the equation and, we present suggestive evidence, in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Overall, the evidence presented here does not augur well for the future. _ The human population is still growing at a non-sustainable rate and there is no sign the population will stabilize anytime soon.Many argue that economic developments and education of women will lead to a decrease growth rate and an eventual stabilization of human population. This is not yet observed in the population dynamics, when integrated worldwide. Let us hope that the stabilization of the human population will occur endogenously by self-regulation, rather than by more stringent finite carrying capacity constraints that can be expected to lead to severe strains on a significant fraction of the population.
No extinction
INPCC 11. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC. 8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachoset al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records."Going on to do just that, Williset al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present,"describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

No War

Great-power nuclear war’s possible
Wittner 11Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?" 11/30/2011 www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a dangerthatthey will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons.The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Prefer specific scenarios - even if things make war more difficult it doesn’t make it unthinkable
James Wood Forsyth, Professor, National Security Studies and Thomas E. Griffith Jr., Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs, National War College, "Through the Glass Darkly: The Unlikely Demise of Great-Power War," STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY, Fall 2007, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA509123
The United States cannot prepare to put down any and all potential rivals. The costs of such an undertaking would quickly prove to be enormous, especially when domestic spending on programs like social security and Medicare are factored into the security equation. Over the long haul rivals will emerge, and there is little the United States can do except balance against them, as they will prepare to balance against us. In such a world, where states compete for power, one must be concerned with survival. That being the case, it is worth remembering that the most serious threats to the great powers have historically stemmed from other great powers. In the years ahead, as strong challengers emerge, conflicts will arise, making war among the great powers more, not less, likely. 49 Contrary to popular belief, we are not living in a whole new world. The events of September 11 and the wars that have followed have had a pronounced effect on US foreign and defense policy, but they have not done away with the state system. The world is still made up of states that must look out for themselves. To pretend otherwise is to neglect history or to fall prey to presentism—something common among pundits but dangerous for statesmen and men and women of the armed forces. Historically, the most efficient and effective way to ensure state security is through military means. Thus, the importance of the balance of power, which exists to prevent one great power from dominating the rest, has not diminished. Instead, it has been reinvigoratedas states are reminded of the need to defend themselves. The implications of acknowledging the possibility of a great-power war are easier to grasp than to implement. Despite the urgency of the war in Iraq, we need to think seriously about what a great-power war would look like, how it could occur and be prevented, and how it would be fought so that we can gain some understanding about the equipment and forces needed to fight and win. The groundwork for the technologies needed for such a contest needs to be laid today. The difficulties in putting armor on vehicles for Iraq pale in comparison to creating the lead time and resources needed to fight a great-power war. Failing to do so risks lives and jeopardizes US security goals. This does not mean that we should ignore current threats or overlook the need to relieve misery and suffering around the world, what one strategist terms “minding the gap.” 50 As citizens, we should be concerned with the political and human consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, and population growth. We must also fully address the problem of terrorism. But as real as the consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, population growth, and terrorism might be, it is hard to come up with a realistic scenario involving these tragedies that would alter the balance of power. 51 Put simply, in an age of transformation, we cannot neglect the basics. Should the United States find itself in another great-power war, things that are taken for granted today, like air superiority or control of sea lanes, might come up short tomorrow. That technology, economics, democracy, and norms play a role in preventing great-power war is not the issue. The issue is whether they make it unthinkable. Regrettably, they do not, and because they do not, great-power war has a bright future, however tragic that might seem.
Nuclear taboo is eroding
Potter 10 [Dr. William Potter is Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies and Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). “In Search of the Nuclear Taboo: Past, Present, and Future” Proliferation Papers, No. 31, Winter 2010, Chetan]
Less positive indicators of the vitality and durability of any non-use norm, however, also are in evidence. A short list of bad news items includes: the rise in the threat of high consequence nuclear terrorism involving both improvised nuclear devices and intact nuclear weapons, the failure of the CTBT to enter into force, the growing reliance on nuclear weapons by some nuclear weapons possessors tocompensate for shortcomings in manpower and/or conventional weapons (e.g., the Russian Federation and Pakistan), the disavowal by the United States during the Bush administration and, more recently by the Russian Federation, of a number of the “13 Practical Steps on Disarmament” adopted at the 2000 NPT Review Conference,12 stalled negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation over the extension of several key nuclear arms control treaties that will soon expire, the barren results of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and less than encouraging indications for the next Review Conference in 2010, and the erosion of the perceived benefits of non-nuclear weapon status accentuated by the U.S.-India deal and the associated exemption granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008. Perhaps most troubling is the potential for rapid escalation from conventional to nuclear weapons use in several regions, especially in South Asia. Space does not allow a discussion of all of the aforementioned positive and negative indicators, their impact on the probability that past restraint with respect to nuclear weapons use will either persist or lapse, or the likelihood of occurrence of specific breach scenarios. An examination of several trends, however, may provide some clues as to the durability of non-use and the conditions that might trigger at least a departure fromthe current norm/tradition/taboo.


Round 4 neg disclosure

T

Interpretation - “Economic engagement” is limited to expanding economic ties to change the behavior of the target state – economic diplomacy just creates a trade of goods

Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11
Introduction Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change the political behaviour of target stale. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway lo perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows "It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relation
s ".(p523-abstact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects biggerbenefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way that " the direct and positive linkage of interests of stales where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.

The AFF is a no strings attached policy, known as economic diplomacy – economic engagement requires strings to alter a states behavior

Voters –

Competitive Equity – economic engagement covers a vast amount of policies – creating predictable limts is key to a fair division of ground

Education – in depth topics and research about economic engagement is essential to beneficial education


Russia

Russia is focused on expanding into Latin America – part of its grand strategy to increase international credibility

Sudarev 2012
[Vladimir Sudarey, Doctor of Political Science, Professor of the European and American Countries’ History and Politics Department of the MGIMO University, “" Is Russia returning to Latin America?"” February 20, 2012, http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=252#top]
Latin American region has recently been often mentioned among new priority dimensions of Russian foreign policy. Despite the difficulties of both objective and subjective nature, the comeback of Russia to Latin America can provide it with new reliable partners and strengthen its position in a nascent multi-polar world. The nineties can be regarded as lost years for Russian policy in Latin America. In fact, Russia didn’t pursue any policy there. Traditionally, as in the Soviet times, this region stood low on the national foreign policy agenda. Of course, there have been undertaken some successful actions – for example, in 1996-1997 Russian Foreign Minister YevgenyPrimakov paid visits to the region during which the whole package of agreements on cooperation with Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, and, most importantly, with Brazil (about strategic partnership in the 21 century and creation of a greater Russia-Brazil committee) were signed. But these actions were only sporadic, and the signed agreements turned out to be suspended. What is more, it was in the early 1990-s after Russia’s withdrawal from Cuba, with abandoning the construction of about 500 major facilities and decreasing 30-fold trade turnover with this country [1], when West-oriented Russia started to be perceived in Latin America as an unreliable partner. The U-turn in Russian foreign policy after 9/11 contributed to it greatly. Having declared about the readiness of Russia to join the US-sponsored anti-terrorist coalition, President Putin on October 17, 2001 announced the withdrawal of the country from the only overseas strategic site - surveillance radar station in Lurdes on the outskirts of Havana – without prior notification of the Cuban side [2]. Make-or-break moment in the relationships with Latin America region countries occurred in the wake of the Yeltzin era. Latin American countries themselves seem to have contributed a lot to it. Already in 1999 the Rio Group uniting the region’s leading states turned out to be, actually, the only grouping in the world which condemned the bombing of Yugoslavia and pointed out in its declaration specific articles of the UN Charter violated by the NATO member- states [3]. In February 2003 Mexico and Chili as non-permanent UN SC members, in fact, vetoed the second Anglo-American resolution authorizing Iraq intervention, despite their economic dependence on the USA. These actions seem to have made the Kremlin look at the perspectives of cooperation with Latin American countries at a new angle. Thus, in March 2003 President Putin received in Kremlin the delegation of the Rio Group and held official talks with them. Both sides agreed not to confine themselves to regular contacts (launched in 1995) within the framework of the UN General Assembly, but also conduct meetings in Russia and countries of the Group member-states. By mid-decade the exchange of high level delegations between the sides had intensified. Only one example, in November 2008 President Medvedev visited four countries during his tour of the region - Peru, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba. Commenting on his visit, President Medvedev remarked: “…we visited the states which previous Russian leaders had never been to… It means only that we failed to pay due attention to these countries before, and, to a certain extent, it is only now that we are starting a full-fledged and I hope mutually beneficial cooperation with the heads of these states and between our economies. онотметил: We mustn’t be shy and timid and be afraid of competition. We must boldly engage in the battle”. In order to display its interest to the presence in the region Russia resorted to a number of un-common and spectacular actions. In November 2008 a warship squadron with the fleet nuclear-powered cruiser “Peter the Great” of the Russian Navy as a flagship entered the territorial waters of US-hostile Venezuela to participate in joint naval exercises of the North Fleet of the Russian Federation Navy. Simultaneously, within the framework of the resumed patrolling of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans two Russian long-range strategic bombers landed at a Venezuelan naval base. The so-called comeback of Russia to Latin America was to a great extent preconditioned by the “leftist drift” in the region which resulted in the emergence of the group of states that viewed the expanding relations with Russia as an important lever for strengthening their position in conflict relations with the USA. Many of these countries perceived Russia as the successor of the former USSR might and influence, with the vision of a new world order of both sides being practically identical – it should be multilateral, not individually tailored to the interests of a single superpower. This position was set out in numerous joint documents signed at the summits – practically all the leaders of the most prominent Latin American countries paid official visits to Moscow during the first decade of the 21st century. The breakthrough happened also in the military and technical field. Starting from 2004 Venezuela has begun purchases of scale of the Russian arms to the amount of over $4bln. Russia established military and technical cooperation with other countries of the region apart from Venezuela: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia also procured Russian military hardware. Russia tried to establish closer economic ties with its major partners in the region. At the end of the decade Russia’s oil and gas producing companies LUKOIL and GASPROM were already operating in Venezuela. RUSAL made heavy investments in bauxite industry of Guyana. ROSNEFT got its chunk for oil exploration in Cuban shelf of the Mexican Gulf. Trade between Russia and the countries of the region has been roaring recently – over the last decade trade turnover has tripled and amounted to $15bln [4]. However, despite the qualitative changes in the structure of Russian export – the share of machinery and equipment has a little increased – it still leaves much to be desired. Take Brazil, for example: mineral fertilizers have made up 90% of Russian export, while Brazil has been exporting to Russia mostly meat and tropical goods. Largely, Brazil has always been the weakest link of Russia’s regional policy despite its participation in the BRIC group. At any rate, the role of Brazil in Russia’s foreign policy is much smaller than those of China and India. It should be recognized that Russia has failed so far to establish strategic partnership with Brazil, which had been planned for as early as 1997. It can be largely attributed to the fact that Russian leadership has no priority system in interacting with this country. The latter, from our perspective, is explained by poor understanding of how much inter-complimentary could be the interests of the two resource-rich countries in the decades to come. Unfortunately, China, and lately India have been much more economically active in the region than Russia, filling the niches in the market that could have been well filled by Russia. Another question is why Brazilian dimension of Russian foreign policy is much weaker than the Chinese one? Why do we transfer to China, the relationships with which in the 20th century were abundant with conflicts including the armed ones, unique military aircraft building technologies, while denying this to Brazil with which we have never had conflicts or clashes on the international arena? Perhaps, it is the residual principle inherent of the USSR leadership and successfully inherited in 1990-s by the Russian leadership that is applied to this region. But, while the USSR used to have Cuba as a strategic partner, the Russian Federation, having curtailed the ties with the Island of Freedom, didn’t bother to start looking for new partners and paid as little attention to the relations with Brazil as with any other Latin American country. If Russia is really interested in serious and politically influential partners, then it is the Brazil dimension that should be prioritized as the major vector of Russian policy in the region. It means establishing a special system of partnership which will include an overhaul of the current system of trade and economic relations, an introduction of a new system of preferential terms of advanced know-how transfer and exchange, particularly in aerospace field. For that sake it’s necessary to maximally intensify the relations with Brazil’s leadership and take them to a higher level, with the head of state or the government taking control of it. However, the growing understanding of the Russian upper echelons of power of the necessity to shift the focus of economic cooperation with the countries of the region on to scientific and technical sphere arouses certain optimism.It is in the field of advanced technologies where Russia is most competitive, and no wonder that the main emphasis during the April 2010 visit of President Medvedev to the countries of the region was laid on this very issue. Low competitiveness of Russia vis-à-vis other countries undertaking huge efforts with a view to building up their political and economic position in this region continues to persist. Besides, our investment capability is also much lower than that of USA, China, EU and even India. Nonetheless, in spite of the difficulties, both objective and subjective, the trend of Russia’s presence expansion in the region may gain further momentum in the forthcoming decades, provided adequate efforts are taken. In this case Latin American dimension of Russian foreign policy has all chances to make it a separate independent direction which can win Russia new beneficial partners and enhance its position in a nascent multi-polar world.

US converting Cuba’s energy industry into ethanol crowds out Russia’s oil ventures in Cuba, sparking conflict

Carpenter and Logan 2009
[Carpenter, Ted Galen, and Justin Logan."Cato Handbook for Policymakers." Relations with China, India, and Russia.CATO, 2009. Web.MA]
Few people want to return to the animosity and tensions that marked relations between Washington and Moscow throughout the cold war. But clumsy policies by both the United States and Russia now threaten to bring back those unhappy days. Washington continues to press for further expansion of NATO to Russia’s border and is meddling in parochial disputes between Russia and its small neighbor Georgia. For its part, the Medvedev-Putin regimeshows signs of trying to cause headaches for the United States in the Caribbean.Both governments need to adopt more cautious policies. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once famously dismissed the concept of spheres of influence as an obsolete notion, and that view has become all too common among America’s foreign policy elite. But that doctrine is very much alive, and U.S. and Russian leaders ignore that reality at their peril.If a new cold war emerges, Washington will have done much to invite it. But Russia has become needlessly provocative as well. The dark hints in summer 2008 that it might station bombers in Cuba were reckless. For Americans, even the possibilitythat Moscow might deploy a nuclear capable weapon system in Cuba brings back memories of the most nightmarish episode of the cold war—the Cuban missile crisis. No American government would tolerate such a move—nor should it. Moscow’s growing flirtation with Venezuela’s Hugo Cha´vez, an obnoxious nemesis of the United States, is also creating gratuitous tensions. Moscow’s joint air and naval exercises with Venezuelan military forces in September 2008 especially did not improve relations with America.Those moves likely reflect mounting Russian anger at U.S. policies that seem calculated to undermine Russia’s influence in its own backyard and even humiliate Moscow. Washington’s ‘‘in your face’’ approach is not a recent development. U.S. officials took advantage of Russia’s economic and military disarray during the 1990s to establish a dominant position in central and eastern Europe. Washington successfully engineered the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO in 1998—over the Yeltsin government’s objections. That expansion of the alliance was nonprovocative, though, compared with the second round earlier this decade that incorporated Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, entities that had been part of the Soviet Union.

The impact is extinction

Bostrom 2002
[Nick, Dir. Future of Humanity Institute and Prof. Philosophy – Oxford U., Journal of Evolution and Technology, “Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards”, 9, March, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html]
The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existentialrisk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
.

PTX

Immigration reform will pass and it political capital is key

Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=329931&CategoryId=12395
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Hispanic Democratic legislators on Wednesday that he will invest his political capitalin an immigration reformpackage whose principles will be revealed during a forum in the next two months. That is what members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported after their first meeting with Obama on the subject of immigration. In remarks to reporters, the lawmakers expressed confidence that, with the president’s support, this year the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform will be resumed, opening a path to legalization for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez said that the president assured the group “he is a man of his word” and would fulfill his campaign promises to push for immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said that during the meeting Obama assured lawmakers that he will invest part of his political capital in moving forward on immigration reformthat includes strong measures for border security and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Menendez said that the lawmakers will work with Obama on the “principles” of that reform package, which will be presented at a public forum in the next two months with the aim of starting the dialogue about how to fix the country’s problematic immigration system. “He understands that this is a matter of civil rights,” the senator said of Obama.Gaining approval ofa reform plan, Menendez acknowledged, will be “a struggle,” taking into account the opposition of many Republicans and other conservative groups.
Plan costs PC and angers most powerful lobby - Cuba policy requires Obama push and he gets blame anyway –
Stieglitz, 11
Matthew, Law Clerk at Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C, Judicial Intern at United States District Court, Masters @ Cornell University, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/Fellows2011/Stieglitz-_Final_Paper.pdf

CONCLUSION President Barack Obama’s election came with a variety of campaign promises, including addressing the US-Cuba embargo. However, after two years in office, normalized relations with Cuba have yet to materialize. Recent developments have pushed legislators to review the continued existence of the embargo, but the history of the US presidency and the blockade seems to dictate that the American presidency will ultimately be what causes any policy change. Thus, how and when will the embargo end? Clearly, American presidents have been directly tied to foreign policy towards Cuba. However, this does not provide clarity to what the future holds for diplomatic relations with the island. Progressive policies and actions in both nations in recent months seem to offer hope of change, yet such a scenario remains elusive. During the embargo’s existence, Cuban-Americans have maintained an active voice against the Castro regime. The community’s leaders have met with and advised multiple US presidents on Cuba, gained immense political clout in Miami, and have formed one of the most dominant ethnic lobbies in Washington. The result has been a hardline stance on Cuba that progressive Cuban-Americans have failed to overcome.While the community’s younger generation, as well as recent arrivals from Cuba, prefers a policy of engagement, normalized relations do not seem feasible at this point in time. The recent election victory of House Republicans, combined with the political riskiness of addressing the US-Cuba embargo prior to the 2012 presidential election, make it highly unlikely President Obama will address Cuba during his first term as president. Nevertheless, his administration has more than enough tools at their disposal to begin moving the Cuba dialogue forward, even if the Executive Office is compromised in its ability to end the embargo.

PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/20/in-interview-obama-says-he-has-a-year-to-get-stuff-done/, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday he’s eager to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that he has a severely limited time framebefore the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. Obama told a San Francisco television station that he wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. “Once we get through this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”Obama’s remarks were an acknowledgement thata second-term president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congresson issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigrationreform and gun control.
Immigration reform prevents inevitable bioterrorism
Francis ’01 (Sam, Syndicated Columnist, Immigration Reform: No, 11-15, http://www.vdare.com/francis/bush_ amnesty_si.htm)

It's been like pulling teeth, but the reality of the alien terrorist threat withintheUnited States is finally forcing even the pro-immigration Bush administration to recognize the suicidal folly of tolerating mass immigration from countries and cultures profoundly different from our own. Last week the president himself uttered the first words that indicate he's starting to perceive where the real danger comes from. [Read transcript , listen via RealAudio.] Acknowledging that "never did we realize that people would take advantage of our generosity to the extent that they have," Mr. Bush ticked off a list of changes in how the country would receive—or not receive—immigrants in the future. Tighter visa security and procedures, the most popular mantra of the hour, were high on the list, but so were new regulations forbidding the entry of suspected and potential terrorists. Later in the week, Attorney General John Ashcroft unveiled a new list of 46 more groups for the list of known terrorist organizations. This is progress, sort of. Apparently it requires immense concentration of mind and steely girding of loins for the ruling class to see that letting just about anyone who wants to come here enter the country and wander about at will is really not a good idea in itself, let alone the most effective way todeter foreign terrorists. Even with the new announcements, the president had to pause every other sentence to explain that he's really not against immigration per se. Although we need to "tighten up the visas," Mr. Bush also insisted "that's not to say we're not going to let people come into our country; of course we are." Then again, just because some people we let into our country are evil and need to be "brought to justice," "by far the vast majority of people who have come to America are really good, decent people—people that we're proud to have here." Maybe so, but it ought to be unnecessary for the president to have to keep saying it. No doubt most of the people of Afghanistan are "really good, decent people" as well, but neither the president nor the military leaders planning the bombing campaign feel the necessity to tell us so. As for the late and unlamented "amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants," that dominated the news prior to Sept. 11, it turns out that amnesty is not quite as late as some had thought. "It's not dead," says White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, but due to "other duties," drawing up the amnesty plan just "has not moved at the pace the president had hoped it would move." What all of this means is that the ruling class in general and the Bush administration in particular have not really changed their minds about immigration one iota. It's just that they have at least enough political sense to grasp that most Americans know immigration is a major reason why we have foreignterrorism at all, why we are having to worry aboutcontinuing __anthrax attack____s__, why we need to keep worrying about what immigrant terrorists are planning to do to us in the future, and why the FBI and similar agencies keep issuing warnings about imminent terrorist attacks. If there were no Arabic or Muslim immigrants here, if those here who are clearly sympathetic to terrorism or are clearly anti-American in their religious and political views were kicked out, there would not be much of a terrorist threat at all.
Bioterror causes extinction
Steinbrenner ’97 (John, Snr Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22, Lexis)

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 intensifyingcascade of disease that mightultimately 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

Algae CP 1nc

Text: The United States federal government should amend relevant definitions in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include algae-derived fuels eligible for all tax credits, subsidies, and price supports.

Amending the RFS to include price supports for algae spurs green crude production. This provides clean renewable fuel – solves warming and crop shift

Jason Pyle (Chief Executive Officer, Sapphire Energy) June 12 2008 “Renewable Fuels And Food Prices,” CQ Congressional Testimony
First, let me thank the Committee for its leadership on alternative, renewable fuels. Your keen focus and vision have resulted in the first ever Renewable Fuel Standard. Although there will inevitably be elements of RFS that will improve over time, you've guided the country along on the right path. Second, within the RFS debate, I want to thank this Committee for its vision and support for technology neutrality in RFS legislation, even though that vision did not survive final passage. As you predicted by supporting a technology neutral position, we are now seeing the evolution of an entirely new generation of renewable fuels. These fuels transcend the use of food as fuel feedstock.The current dilemma that pits fuel against food is just the first of many consequences of a technology-specific RFS. Without a technology-neutral RFS, this nation will not meet its goalsof providing 32 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Although last year's Energy Independence and Security Act has yet to foster such solutions, this Committee should be applauded for anticipating an ever-expanding universe of alternative and renewable fuels. That's why I am here. I'm Jason Pyle, Chief Executive Officer of Sapphire Energy. Sapphireis one of several of this nation's best technology companiesworking to produce the next generation of renewable fuels. At Sapphire,we focus on the production of current fuel products, such as gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel, fromcompletely renewable sources, such as photosynthetic microorganisms, or algae. Our mission is to produce fuels for today's oil and gasoline infrastructure, and two weeks ago we announced thatSapphire had produced the first ever renewable, ASTM-compliant, 91 octane gasoline from microorganisms. Please refer to the attached two documents for more background on Sapphire Energy. The Problem One of the many reasons we have cheap food is the availability of cheap energy. We cannot expect to turn large amounts of food back into energy in an economic manner. In today's debate between food and fuel, we should not have to make a choice. Both are critical to the economy, the environment and the world at large; we should not match one against the other. But when price and demand rise for one, both suffer. Instead of a Pyrrhic choice between food and fuel, I offer the opportunity to transcend the debate and produce ample supplies of both, leading this nation toward energy independence. Instead of a dispute between two basic necessities, we need a dialogue that supports truly sustainable alternative fuel sources. Over the past year we have all seen prices and demand rise for commodities such as corn, sugar and vegetable oil. The entire world now feels the pressure. Daily we are faced with reports of people who struggle to afford essentials. A host of factors has contributed to price increases for food and fuel: weather, heightened demand, a weaker dollar, decreasing supplies. Just like energy, food is linked in a global market. Once we begin fueling our cars with food crops, we witness international repercussions.Riots occurred in Mexico earlier this year over expensive corn flour. This price increase has been attributed to U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol products, leaving less maize available for export. Protests over similar issues have occurred around the world, contributing to inflation and political instability.Even at an increased rate of production, current domestic biofuel processes will meet part, but not all, of U.S. demand. If the entire annual domestic soybean crop of 3 billion bushels were converted to biodiesel at the current efficiency of 1.4 gallons per bushel, it would provide about 6.5% of U.S. diesel fuel production. Though certainly a valuable asset to our fuel supply, it is clear that a spectrum of additional and diverse biofuels sources will be necessary to fulfill demand. Congress first adopted the Renewable Fuels Standardin 2005, but wisely recognized that neither biodiesel nor ethanol would be the final solution. It created the program as a bridge to a new generation of fuels, and established a system of incentives to create a marketplace for new technologies. Congress should consider whether the incentives are neutral and fair. Ask whether these mechanisms will lead to the support and development of fuels that will give America true energy independence.Congress should ensure that the next round of incentives can be applied to advanced technologies such as Sapphire's. American innovation is the heart of our people and our economy; I urge you to support this withadditional legislation that promotes a technology-neutral RFS. The Solution Food for fuel concerns are real, but can be managed. Industries such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from vegetable oil can continue to play an important role in the energy mix. However,if we intend to practically and economically reach the goals of the RFS, we must be ready to rapidly embrace new fuel technologies. We must call on American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism for the solutions. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it put the country on a path toward an energy future independent of imported resources. As Americans, we must support this vision. We should strive to maximize production, create fuel-efficient cars, reduce the amount of driving we do and, finally, develop alternatives to fossil fuels. All these efforts deserve increased support. But withouta truly new source of fuel, the system will remain in turmoil, prices will soar and the conflict between food and fuel will persist. Senators, my colleagues and I at Sapphire Energy have been thinking about this for a long time. We knew that an energy source based on agriculture would serve this country best as a stepping stone to a green energy future. We knew that energy requiring vast amounts of fresh water resources was not a viable option. And, finally, if we wanted to make a difference quickly, we knew we needed a fuel that could be transported and refined just like petroleum. Two years ago we asked ourselves, "In a perfect world, how should the next generation of fuel be produced and distributed?" These were our founding principles: 1.Fuel production must not use farmland. Period.2.Fuel production must be carbon neutral. 3.Fuel production and delivery must use the existing petroleum infrastructure. 4.Fuel production must scale domestically to reach tens of billions of gallons per year. 5.The next generation of fuels must be compatible with today's vehicles. That sounded like a tall order. ButAmericans have dreamed big and delivered in the past - atomic energy, highways and railroads that crisscross our nation, a man on the moon, mapping the human genome. Now, a similar ingenuity has developed a completely renewable and homegrown source of gasoline. I offer that we do not have to sacrifice food production for fuel production. We do not have to choose between powering our industries and feeding the hungry. The Sapphire processes and technologies are so revolutionary that the company is at the forefront of an entirely new industrial category called "Green Crude Production". Products and processes in this categorydiffer significantly from other biofuels because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms, sunlight and CO2; do not result in biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are carbon neutral and renewable; and don't require any food crop or agricultural land. The Sapphireprocess produces a replica of light sweet crude, green crude that can be used in traditional refining to make real gasoline, diesel, and aircraft fuel. Our feedstocks produce10 to100 times more energy per acre than cropland biofuels.A side benefit of our process is thatthe microorganisms consume pollutants and convert them to fuel. Using the Sapphire process, we have dramatically altered the domestic energy and petrochemical landscape and avoided the food versus fuel debate. Please allow me to reiterate, the Sapphire process does not create ethanol; it does not produce biodiesel; it does not use crops or valuable farmland. Sapphire fuel is the fuel we use today, the kind that is in your car or truck or airplane right now. It's gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel. Senators, this is a solution. This is a truly renewable, truly sustainable,alternative fuel- "Sapphire's green crude oil". This fuel, Sapphire fuel, is the world's first truly renewable petrochemical product, produced by converting sunlight and CO2 into a renewable, carbon-neutral alternative to conventional fossil fuels, without the drawbacks of current biofuels. This fuel is compatible with the current energy infrastructure- cars, refineries, and pipelines. Sapphire's scalable production facilities will produce this fuel economically because production will be modular, transportable, fueled by sunlight, and not constrained by arable land, crops, or other natural resources. Sapphire has turned sunlight into gasoline.


Case

Environment Adv.

Turn- Sugarcane ethanol is harmful to the environment- new studies prove

Spak and Carmichael 11, Scott, and Greg Carmichael. researchers at the University of Iowa."Study Shows Sugarcane Ethanol Production Causes Air Pollution." University of California, Merced. N.p., 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 03 July 2013. <http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/study-shows-sugarcane-ethanol-production-causes-air-pollution>.¶MA
The burning of sugarcane fields prior to harvest for ethanol production can create air pollution that detracts from the biofuel’s overall sustainability, according to research published recently by a team of researchers led by scientists at the University of California, Merced. UC Merced graduate student Chi-Chung Tsao was the lead author on the paper and was aided in the study by UC Merced professors Elliott Campbell and Yihsu Chen. The study — published online this week in the Nature Climate Change journal — focused on Brazil, the world’s top producer of sugarcane ethanol and a possible source for U.S. imports of the alternative fuel. “There is a big strategic decision our country and others are making, in whether to develop a domestic biofuels industry or import relatively inexpensive biofuels from developing countries,” Campbell said. “Our study shows that importing biofuels could result in human health and environmental problems in the regions where they are cultivated.”Ethanol is seen as an alternative to fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gasses when used and are a major contributor to air pollution and climate change. But despite some governments encouraging farmers to reduce field burning — which is done in part to protect farmworkers by removing sharp leaves and harmful animals — more than half of sugarcane croplands in Brazil continue to be burned. That leads to a reduction in air quality that can offset the benefits of ethanol over petroleum fuels that emit more greenhouse gases during their use, something Campbell said the U.S. should consider when determining whether to import inexpensive ethanol from Brazil or continuing to invest in domestic corn ethanol production.Unlike petroleum production, the potential to produce biofuels is relatively evenly distributed across many countries, and this is a big plus from an energy security perspective,” Campbell said. “However, agriculture practices in some regions result in biofuels that lead to even more intense air pollution than petroleum.”Satellites are currently used to measure air pollution in Brazil, but the study shows actual pollution caused by sugarcane fieldburning could be four times greater than satellite estimates. The researchers believe this is due to the relatively small scale of individual fire

No solvency – no card in the 1AC says plan solves for 4 degrees of warming

Sugarcane burning emits CO2 and NOx

NCGA 11 (NCGA, National Corn Growers Association, “Sugarcane as a Feedstock for Biofuels: An Analytical White Paper”, National Corn Growers Association, an association that represents the interests of corn growers, 7/15/11, http://www.ncga.com/upload/files/documents/pdf/sugarcanewhitepaper092810.pdf//HZ)
Burning of sugarcane is a major issue (Fig. 7). Burning is an effective method to remove the excess crop biomass that arises from the leaves, small tillers, and stalk tips (called trash). This fraction makes up about 14 percent of the sugarcane crop weight in the field. Trash is a restriction at harvest (for both hand-harvesting and mechanical), results in more costly transport, and can absorb the sugar juice during crushing with a negative effect on recoverable sugar.Burning a sugarcane field releases a considerable amount of CO2 with estimates varying from 2,600 – 4,500 Kg CO2/Ha. In some models, such as GREET as used by CARB, a small amount of carbon release from burning is included in the sugarcane ethanol assessment, and the Brazilian Sugarcane Association wants that to be reduced (UNICA2, 2009). The questions remain as to what is the exact amount of CO2 emissions used by the EPA, and what is the appropriate realistic number to include.Burning sugarcane also results in NOx emissions and, again, the exact amount is somewhat unclear although some reports indicate measured NOx emissions in the order of 25 Kg (N)/Ha (22 lb (N)/acre): this is reported to be about 30 percent of the N fertilizer applied to sugarcane (Oppenheimer et al, 2004). In addition to the CO2 and NOx emissions per unit area, there is a large area of cane that is burnt. The Sao Paulo area, in the Central South region, produces about 60 percent of the sugarcane, has higher yields and more modern technologies, yet cane burning covers 8,000 sq. miles or equivalent to ~5 MM acres in this area alone. UNICA makes the point that a considerable number of mills have moved to mechanical harvesting, instead of manual sugarcane cutting, and that this will remove the emissions from burning (UNICA2). However, while the more advanced Sao Paulo area now has ~49 percent mechanical harvesting, there is still 69 percent of the harvested cane area being burnt each year: while mechanical harvesting overcomes the necessity for burning, it is still more efficient to harvest mechanically after burning-off the trash. With no burning in the field, the trash will have to be harvested -- at a higher cost, using more energy, with additional transport, just to be combusted into CO2 at the mill in any case.

No evidence that Cuban farmers will change to sugar ethanol – no incentive

Monoculture


We don’t need animals to keep us alive—human evolution guarantees that we will never wipe ourselves out by destroying the environment

Julian Simon 96 (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland) 1996 The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment, http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/jsimon/Ultimate_Resource/
Let us begin by going beyond the trends in particular resources. The greatest and most important trend, of which these particular trends are a part, is the trend of this earth becoming ever more livable for human beings. We see the signs of this in our longer life expectancy, improved knowledge of nature, and greater ability to protect ourselves from the elements, living with ever more safety and comfort. But though this larger trend buttresses the particular resource trends, it still provides no causal explanation of the phenomenon we seek to understand. Evolutionary thinking, however, and (more specifically in economics) the sort of analysis suggested by Friedrich Hayek, offers an explanation of the observed long-term trend. Hayek (following upon Hume) urges upon us that humankind has evolved sets of rules and patterns of living which are consistent with survival and growth ratherthan with decline and extinction, an aspect of the evolutionary selection for survival among past societies. He assumes that the particular rules and living patterns have had something to do with chances for survival--for example, he reasons that patterns leading to higher fertility and more healthful and productive living have led to groups' natural increase and hence survival-- and therefore the patterns we have inherited constitute a machinery for continued survival and growth where conditions are not too different from the past. (This is consistent with a biological view of humankind as having evolved genes that point toward survival. But no such genetic evolution is presupposed by Hayek, in part because its time span is too great for us to understand it as well as we can understand the evolution of cultural rules. It may be illuminating, however, to view mankind's biological nature as part of the long evolutionary chain dating from the simplest plants and animals, a history of increasing complexity of construction and greater capacity to deal actively with the environment.) Let us apply Hayek's general analysis to natural resources. Such resources of all sorts have been a part of human history ever since the beginning. If humankind had not evolved patterns of behavior that increased rather than decreased the amounts of resources available to us, we would not still be here. If, as our numbers increased (or even as our numbers remained nearly stationary), our patterns had led to diminished supplies of plants and animals, less flint for tools, and disappearing wood for fires and construction, I would not be here to be writing these pages, and you would not be here to be reading them.

Species loss doesn’t snowball

Thomas Gale Moore 98 (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford) 1998 Climate of Fear, 98-99
Nevertheless, the loss of a class of living beings does not typically threaten other species. Most animals and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefitsprovided by a particular species from more than a single source. If it were true that the extinction of a single species would produce a cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past should have wiped out all life. Evolution forces various life forms to adjust to change. A few may not make the adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same environment often produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins. It is almost impossible to imagine a single species that, if eliminated, would threaten us humans. Perhaps if the E. coli that are necessary for digestion became extinct, we could no longer exist. But those bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with man and, as long as humans survive, so will they. Thus any animal that hosts a symbiotic species need not fear the loss of its partner. As long as the host remains, so will parasites and symbiotic species.

Climate Change

CO2 isn’t key to warming

BELL 11-3-2010 (Larry, Prof at U Houston, http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/02/global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-opinions-columnists-larry-bell.html)
More recent temperature variations have been relatively much more stable and moderate. The past century witnessed two distinct warming periods, one occurred from 1900-1945, and another from 1975-1998. About half of that total warming occurred before the mid-1940s. And while CO2 levels have continued to rise, there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1998 (the end of a strong El Nino season). Those who pay honest attention to long-term climate patterns will note that atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuations do not lead, but typically follow, temperature changes. That's because oceans are huge CO2 sinks, absorbing CO2 as they cool, and releasing CO2 as they warm up. (When you open a carbonated beverage you experience the same phenomenon. If the beverage is cold, it retains CO2. If it is warm, it releases CO2 and sprays all over.) These temperature shifts are heavily influenced by entirely natural ocean cycle fluctuations that affect heat transfer patterns from the tropics. In the Arctic these oscillations occur about every 60 to 70 years.

Warming inevitable—even at lesser population growth rates, we’re still producing too much carbon dioxide to overcome

Husler and Sornette ’11 (A.D., and D. Department of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zurich, “Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth,” 3/17/11, AM)

We have analyzed the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide and of what constitutes arguably its most important underlying driving variable, namely human population. Our empirical calibrations suggest that human population has decelerated from its previous super-exponential growth until 1960 to \just" an exponential growth.As for atmospheric CO2 content, we find that it is at least exponentially increasing and more probably exhibiting an accelerating growth rate, consistent with a FTS (_nite-time singular) power law regime. We have proposed a simple framework to think about these dynamics, based on endogenous economic growth theory. We showed that the positive feedback loops between several variables, such as population, technology and capital can give rise to the observed FTS behavior, notwithstanding the fact that the dynamics of each variable would be stable or at most exponential, conditional on the stationarity of the other variables. It is the joint growth of the coupled variables that may give rise to the enormous acceleration characterized by the FTS behavior, both in the equation and, we present suggestive evidence, in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Overall, the evidence presented here does not augur well for the future. _ The human population is still growing at a non-sustainable rate and there is no sign the population will stabilize anytime soon.Many argue that economic developments and education of women will lead to a decrease growth rate and an eventual stabilization of human population. This is not yet observed in the population dynamics, when integrated worldwide. Let us hope that the stabilization of the human population will occur endogenously by self-regulation, rather than by more stringent finite carrying capacity constraints that can be expected to lead to severe strains on a significant fraction of the population.

No extinction

INPCC 11. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Surviving the unprecedented climate change of the IPCC. 8 March 2011. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010) consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -- i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4°C and possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m ± 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008; Zachoset al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often "placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we can exploit in fossil records."Going on to do just that, Williset al. focus on "intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2concentrations increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present,"describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And, most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

No War

Great-power nuclear war’s possible

Wittner 11Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?" 11/30/2011 www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a dangerthatthey will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons.The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Prefer specific scenarios - even if things make war more difficult it doesn’t make it unthinkable

James Wood Forsyth, Professor, National Security Studies and Thomas E. Griffith Jr., Dean of Faculty and Academic Programs, National War College, "Through the Glass Darkly: The Unlikely Demise of Great-Power War," STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY, Fall 2007, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA509123
The United States cannot prepare to put down any and all potential rivals. The costs of such an undertaking would quickly prove to be enormous, especially when domestic spending on programs like social security and Medicare are factored into the security equation. Over the long haul rivals will emerge, and there is little the United States can do except balance against them, as they will prepare to balance against us. In such a world, where states compete for power, one must be concerned with survival. That being the case, it is worth remembering that the most serious threats to the great powers have historically stemmed from other great powers. In the years ahead, as strong challengers emerge, conflicts will arise, making war among the great powers more, not less, likely. 49 Contrary to popular belief, we are not living in a whole new world. The events of September 11 and the wars that have followed have had a pronounced effect on US foreign and defense policy, but they have not done away with the state system. The world is still made up of states that must look out for themselves. To pretend otherwise is to neglect history or to fall prey to presentism—something common among pundits but dangerous for statesmen and men and women of the armed forces. Historically, the most efficient and effective way to ensure state security is through military means. Thus, the importance of the balance of power, which exists to prevent one great power from dominating the rest, has not diminished. Instead, it has been reinvigoratedas states are reminded of the need to defend themselves. The implications of acknowledging the possibility of a great-power war are easier to grasp than to implement. Despite the urgency of the war in Iraq, we need to think seriously about what a great-power war would look like, how it could occur and be prevented, and how it would be fought so that we can gain some understanding about the equipment and forces needed to fight and win. The groundwork for the technologies needed for such a contest needs to be laid today. The difficulties in putting armor on vehicles for Iraq pale in comparison to creating the lead time and resources needed to fight a great-power war. Failing to do so risks lives and jeopardizes US security goals. This does not mean that we should ignore current threats or overlook the need to relieve misery and suffering around the world, what one strategist terms “minding the gap.” 50 As citizens, we should be concerned with the political and human consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, and population growth. We must also fully address the problem of terrorism. But as real as the consequences of poverty, ecological degradation, population growth, and terrorism might be, it is hard to come up with a realistic scenario involving these tragedies that would alter the balance of power. 51 Put simply, in an age of transformation, we cannot neglect the basics. Should the United States find itself in another great-power war, things that are taken for granted today, like air superiority or control of sea lanes, might come up short tomorrow. That technology, economics, democracy, and norms play a role in preventing great-power war is not the issue. The issue is whether they make it unthinkable. Regrettably, they do not, and because they do not, great-power war has a bright future, however tragic that might seem.

Nuclear taboo is eroding

Potter 10 [Dr. William Potter is Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies and Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). “In Search of the Nuclear Taboo: Past, Present, and Future” Proliferation Papers, No. 31, Winter 2010, Chetan]
Less positive indicators of the vitality and durability of any non-use norm, however, also are in evidence. A short list of bad news items includes: the rise in the threat of high consequence nuclear terrorism involving both improvised nuclear devices and intact nuclear weapons, the failure of the CTBT to enter into force, the growing reliance on nuclear weapons by some nuclear weapons possessors tocompensate for shortcomings in manpower and/or conventional weapons (e.g., the Russian Federation and Pakistan), the disavowal by the United States during the Bush administration and, more recently by the Russian Federation, of a number of the “13 Practical Steps on Disarmament” adopted at the 2000 NPT Review Conference,12 stalled negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation over the extension of several key nuclear arms control treaties that will soon expire, the barren results of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and less than encouraging indications for the next Review Conference in 2010, and the erosion of the perceived benefits of non-nuclear weapon status accentuated by the U.S.-India deal and the associated exemption granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008. Perhaps most troubling is the potential for rapid escalation from conventional to nuclear weapons use in several regions, especially in South Asia. Space does not allow a discussion of all of the aforementioned positive and negative indicators, their impact on the probability that past restraint with respect to nuclear weapons use will either persist or lapse, or the likelihood of occurrence of specific breach scenarios. An examination of several trends, however, may provide some clues as to the durability of non-use and the conditions that might trigger at least a departure fromthe current norm/tradition/taboo.

Round 6 Neg

T

1. Interpretation - “Economic engagement” is limited to expanding economic ties.

Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11
IntroductionEconomic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change the political behaviour of target stale. However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus on creating greater economic benefits for both parties.Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway lo perceive the international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the engagement policies as follows "It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations ".(p523-abstact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way that " the direct and positive linkage of interests of stales where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others in the same direction.

2. Violation – Plan creates spurs commercial engagement- economic and Commercial engagement are different – the plan is commercial.

Vickers 12 – Dr. Brendan Vickers, Research Associate on Global Economy and Development at the Institute for Global Dialogue, South African Foreign Policy Review, Volume 1, Ed. Landsberg and Van Wyk, p. 112-113
Conceptually, it is also possible to distinguish between 'economic' and 'commercial' diplomacy or, in another sense, the 'high' and 'low' politics of a country's international economic relations. In this chapter, economic diplomacy refers to the ways and means by which the South African government formally negotiates South Africa's place in the world economy at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. Economic diplomacy has clear political economy objectives such as increasing the country's relative power or influence in international bargains: improving the country's (or an industry's) competitive advantage relative to others; and using political tools to achieve economic ends, and vice versa. Economic diplomacy thus encapsulates global policy-making processes, for example, in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UIMCTAD). the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (W1PO); as well as regional economic policymaking In the African Union <AU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).a
South Africa's economic diplomacy agenda comprises four core policy imperatives: to expand trade and Investment links in Africa and advance regional integration in Southern and Eastern Africa: to consolidate links with traditional trade and investment partners in the North: to build industrial complementarities with the dynamic emerging economies of the South; and to rebalance global trade rules in favour of developing countries through the VVTO's Doha Round negotiations/'By contrast, commercial diplomacy entails a narrower set of activities that include export development and export promotion, facilitating inward and outward foreign direct investment (FDI),promoting technology sharing and cooperation, positioning South Africa as a preferred tourism destination, and marketing South Africa more widely abroad. The objective of commercial diplomacy is to support South African business to gain tangibly from the opportunities created by broader economic diplomacy processes.1

3. Reason to Prefer

Voting issue for education and competitive equity

Limits- Plan regresses the limits of the topic and allows for Affs to fund specific businesses that lack a proper literature base- Kills broader education area- our interpretation allows for a vast range of Affs

Ground- Narrow literature base dooms Neg ground- increases the research burden for small Affs that lack argumentation for both sides


China

Unique link – China’s current economic strategy is allowing them to outpace US influence in Latin America – plan reverses that

Gallagher 6/18/13 – associate professor of international relations at Boston University (Kevin P, “Time for a U.S. Pivot to Latin America”, http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?storyid=10035, CMR)

Increasingly, Latin American countries see China not as a rival but as a valuable trading partner. In fact, explains Kevin Gallagher, China has become a better partner in many ways than the United States. China is offering attractive deals to Latin American economies, while the United States continues to lecture and dictate. It's time for a real reset in U.S.-Latin American trade relations. The Obama administration and U.S. media have made much ado about the U.S. "pivot" to Asia. What has largely escaped their attention, however, is that China has been lining up economic allies inthe erstwhile "backyard" of the United States. Well, just as serious competition ought to awaken one's creative juices in business, it is time for the United States to step up a suitable economic policy for Latin America before it is too late. The difference in approaches by the United States and China in Latin America were squarely brought into focus just in recent weeks when U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping made tours of Latin America. The United States principal offer to its Latin American neighbors is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP offers access to the U.S. market to Latin American and Asian nations on the basis of a triple form of conditionality. First, they must deregulate their financial markets; second, adopt intellectual property provisions that give preferences to U.S. firms; and third, allow private U.S. firms to directly sue governments of countries that sign up to the TPP for violating any of its conditions. Talk about a heavily conditioned offering. So what's the Chinese approach? On his visit to the region, China's President Xi Jinping offered more than $5.3 billion in financing, with few conditions attached, to China's newfound Latin American friends. These offers will need to be confirmed, but according to press reports the Chinese have signed deals on this trip for: $3 billion in commitments to eight Caribbean countries for infrastructure and energy; $1.3 billion to Costa Rica in loans and lines of credit, including a $900 million dollar loan from the Chinese Development Bank for upgrading a petroleum refinery and a $400 million dollar line of credit for road infrastructure from the Chinese Ex-Im Bank; and a $1 billion credit line from the China Ex-Im bank to Mexico for its state-owned oil company PEMEX. Making available this financing comes on top of the already $86 billion in financing provided by China to Latin American governments since 2003.China offers Latin American countries what they want, while U.S. offers always come with strings attached. Granted, that amount — large as it sounds — seems just like another number in today's world. To put it into proper perspective, consider this: Since 2003, thus over the past decade, China's policy banks have provided more finance to Latin America than their counterparts at the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the U.S. Export-Import Bank. If anything ought to awaken the United States from its past slumber and taking Latin America essentially for granted, that comparison ought to do it. Simply put, the United States and the array of largely Western-dominated international financial institutions have been outgunned by China's financial muscle. Welcome to the brave new world! But it's not just a matter of sheer numbers. Unlike U.S. trade treaties or the finance from the international financial institutions largely under U.S. control, China offers up its loans come with few strings attached.

China is successfully capturing influence in Mexico – competition with US economic tactics is zero-sum

Funaro 6/4/13 (Kaitlin, “Xi flies to Mexico as China battles US for influence in Latin America”, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/130604/xi-flies-mexico-china-battles-us-influence-latin-ame, CMR)

Chinese President Xi Jinping is making the most of his four-country tour of the Americas to position China as a competitor to the US and Taiwan's economic influence in the region.Xi arrives in Mexico Tuesday for a three-day visit in which he and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are expected to discuss their economic ties.The two nations are economic partners but also competitors, particularly when it comes to exports to the United States. Mexico and China both enjoy strong exports to the American market but Mexico itself has been flooded with cheap Chinese goods that are displacing domestic goods. "China is a complicated case" for Mexico, Aldo Muñoz Armenta, political science professor at the Autonomous University of Mexico State told USA Today. "It's not the healthiest (relationship) in diplomatic terms because the balance of trade has been so unequal."When it comes to economic influence, China may be gaining the upper hand in Latin America.China is increasing its funding to the region just as the US has been coming under pressure to cut aid and investment. "If I’m a Latin American leader, I’m very happy because I now have more chips to play with," Kevin Gallagher, author of the 2010 book "The Dragon in the Room," about China’s inroads in Latin America, told Bloomberg. "The onus is on the USto come up with a more flexible, attractiveofferbut that’s notso easy because it doesn’t have the deep pockets like it used to." Latin America's growing economy makes for an attractive investment. The International Monetary Fund forecasts the region’s economies will expand 3.4 percent this year, almost three times the pace of growth in the developed world. Xi's tour of Trinidad, Costa Rica and Mexico are setting the stage for his visit to California later this week, which will be his first face-to-face talks with Obama since taking office. That Xi's Latin America trip came so early into his presidency is a confident approach that shows little concern for American reaction, Evan Ellis, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington told Bloomberg. "In the past Chinese presidents were very deferential to the US., always making reference to Washington’s backyard," Ellis said. "You don’t hear any of that from Xi’s team, though you don’t find any threatening rhetoric either."

Internal link – US-Sino competition risks open conflict

Ellis 6/6/13 – associate professor with the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (R Evan, “China's New Backyard”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/06/china_s_new_backyard_latin_america?page=full, CMR)

The challenge to Washington from China's presence in the region also extends beyond economics and policy objectives. The U.S. Defense Department's critical posture regarding Chinese cyberattacks is a reminder that hostilitiesbetween the United States and China, though highly improbable and undesirable, are not unthinkable. In such a conflict, China-operated ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, and other parts of the Chinese commercial presence in Latin America would represent potential assets in a global asymmetric warfare campaign against the United States.

Impact – US-China war causes extinction

Johnson 2 – president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, a tax-exempt nonprofit educational and research organization (Chalmers, Okinawa Between the United States and Japan, January, http://www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op24.html, CMR)

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

Renewables

A.Uniqueness – Mexico’soil production is tanking

Krauss and Malkin’10 (“Mexico Oil Politics Keeps Riches Just Out of Reach” New York Times, Clifford Krauss and Elisabeth Malkin, March 8, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/global/09pemex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
In all, Mexican oil output has dropped from just short of 3.5 million barrels a day in 2004 to a projected average of 2.5 million barrels this year. Mexican oil exports to the United States, now 1.1 million barrels a day, have fallen by nearly a third in the last six years.The United States Energy Department projects that Mexican production will decline by an additional 600,000 barrels a day by 2020; combined with growing domestic demand, that would probably make the country an oil importer. In the last two years, Mexico provided about 12 percent of all crude oil imports to the United States, supplying about 8 percent of the total oil used by American refineries, according to the Energy Department. Pemex — officially PetróleosMexicanos — is the most important company in Mexico, employing 140,000 people. Oil money is used for everything from building schools to fighting the war against drug cartels. “The fact that Mexico’s production is rapidly declining could potentially cause a financial crisis not only for Pemex but for the government,” said Enrique Sira, the Mexico director of IHS Cera, an energy consulting firm. Mexican officials put the best face on the situation, hailing a reform package passed by Congress two years ago that gives Pemex more independence and leeway in negotiating service contracts with foreign firms. “There is nothing to stop us from improving,” Pemex’s director general, Juan José SuárezCoppel, said at a recent university conference. In an interview, the Mexican energy secretary, Georgina Kessel, said she expected the drop in oil production to level off this year, “and we can begin on the road back toward reversing the fall in production in the coming years.” To accomplish that, Ms. Kessel said, “Mexico is going to have to go to the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico,” where she estimated there are at least 50 billion barrels in potential oil reserves — more than double the country’s current proven reserves. International oil executives share the enthusiasm for Mexico’s potential deepwater fields, which lie near rich new American fields. Mexico “potentially has, if not the largest, one of the largest undiscovered deepwater petroleum resources in the world,” said Jon Blickwede, a senior geologist at Statoil, a Norwegian oil company active in the Gulf. Pemex has stepped up exploration of its deep waters, but it will take specialized expertise and enormous financing to produce oil there. Just one deepwater rig can cost $365 million a year to operate, which is why even companies the size of Chevron and Shell look for partners to share the financial risk. Carlos Morales, head of Pemex production and exploration, said in an interview that the company was in advanced discussions with foreign companies to develop “new models” of contracts to share costs and technology on land and offshore that would include cash payments. “Without doubt, Pemex is in a key moment in its history,” he said. Like the government, international oil executives said they were cautiously optimistic some arrangement with Pemex could be worked out. But in the best case, it will be 10 or 15 years before significant production can begin in the deep gulf — and by then, Mexico could already be an oil importer. Stumbling blocks remain. The recent reforms do not lift constitutional prohibitions that effectively prevent foreign companies from booking Mexican reserves they help discover, which undermines their incentive to sign deals with Pemex. The Mexican government hopes to interpret the new rules to allow foreign firms to share the profits of new discoveries, but opposition political parties have filed a constitutional challenge to the rules. The case is before the Mexican Supreme Court. The 1938 nationalization, by the leftist government of Lázaro Cárdenas, came at the end of a long period of revolutionary ferment in Mexico. It occurred amid rising tensions between foreign oil interests, including American companies, and Mexican workers who felt they were being exploited. Schoolchildren learn about it as one of the great assertions of Mexican sovereignty. An outright reversal of that act is unthinkable in Mexican politics. Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican novelist and former ambassador, said any government leader who would try to change the legal status of oil “would be hanged in the Zócalo,” referring to Mexico City’s main square, though he personally would like to see some arrangement with foreign oil companies worked out. As a symbol of nationalism and sovereignty, Pemex is run like a government agency, not an oil company. Its budget is set by the Congress, so it cannot plan exploration far in advance. It is burdened by taxes, debt and pension liabilities that limit its ability to spend money discovering new fields. Mexico’s most important field has long been Cantarell. When production first faltered in the late 1990s, Pemex injected huge amounts of nitrogen gas to raise the pressure and increase production. But experts say the company may have gone overboard, bolstering production so much that the eventual collapse was accelerated. With production in deep gulf waters still a distant dream, the hope of stabilizing Mexico’s production has centered on the Chicontepec field here, on land. But Pemex’s production forecast, of up to 700,000 barrels a day by 2017, has evaporated as hole after hole came up dry.Chicontepec is now yielding only 35,000 barrels a day. The oil is contained in small pockets, and wet, hilly terrain makes it difficult to transport gear. Local corn farmers are slowing the drilling by blockading roads, demanding improvements like parks and pavement. “The oil is down there,” said Sergio Gómez, the Pemex production coordinator in Chicontepec. “The problem is getting it out of the ground.”

And, Renewable Energy is winning the investment race

American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE),California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), and Climate Policy Initiative 6/25 (ACORE, a 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to building a secure and prosperous America with clean, renewable energy. ACORE provides a common educational platform for a wide range of interests in the renewable energy community, focusing on technology, finance and policy. We convene thought leadership forums and create energy industry partnerships to communicate the economic, security and environmental benefits of renewable energy. Founded in 2004, the California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF) is a family of non-profit organizations working together to accelerate the movement of clean energy technologies along the continuum from innovation to infrastructure. Using tools from finance, public policy and technological innovation, CalCEF pursues these goals at the local, state and national levels via three affiliated entities: CalCEF Ventures, an evergreen investment fund; CalCEF Innovations, which leads CalCEF’s analysis and solutions development; and CalCEF Catalyst, an industry acceleration platform. Climate Policy Initiative is an analysis and advisory organization that works to improve the most important energy and land use policies in the world. An independent, not-for-profit organization supported in part by a grant from the Open Society Foundations, CPI has offices and programs in Brazil, China, Europe, India, Indonesia, and the United States. “Strategies to Scale-Up U.S. Renewable Energy Investment” http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Strategies-to-Scale-Up-US-Renewable-Energy-Investment.pdf)

Private sector investment in the U.S. renewable energy sector has grown significantly in recent years due in large part to manufacturing and technology cost reductions, state market demand policies, and federal tax policies. The combination of these factors has contributed to impressive growth for the renewable energy industry, and this scale in turn has further reduced technology costs. Over the past five years, more than 35% of all new power generation has come from renewable energy resources, including more than 49% of all new power generation in 2012 – surpassing all other energy sources, including natural gas. Since 2004, more than $300 billion has been invested in the U.S. clean energy market (PREF), including $35.6 billion6 in 2012, with a corresponding significant increase in jobs. Renewable energy generation also enhances energy security by harnessing clean domestic resources to produce more of the energy we consume here in the United States.

B. Link – Expanded US/Mexico cooperation increases our dependence on Oil

Krauss and Malkin ’10(“Mexico Oil Politics Keeps Riches Just Out of Reach” New York Times, Clifford Krauss and Elisabeth Malkin, March 8, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/global/09pemex.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
To the Mexican people, one of the great achievements in their history was the day their president kicked out foreign oil companies in 1938. Thus, they celebrate March 18 as a civic holiday. The effort to develop the geologically challenging Chicontepec field is deteriorating into an embarrassing setback for Pemex. Georgina Kessel, the energy secretary, estimated there are 50 billion barrels in potential oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet today, that 72-year-old act has put Mexico in a straitjacket, one that threatens both the welfare of the country and the oil supply of the United States. The national oil company created after the 1938 seizure, Pemex, is entering a period of turmoil. Oil production in its aging fields is sagging so rapidly that Mexico, long one of the world’s top oil-exporting countries, could begin importing oil within the decade. Mexico is among the three leading foreign suppliers of oil to the United States, along with Canada and Saudi Arabia. Mexican barrels can be replaced, but at a cost. It means greater American dependence on unfriendly countries like Venezuela, unstable countries like Nigeria and Iraq, and on the oil sands of Canada, an environmentally destructive form of oil production.As you lose Mexican oil, you lose a critical supply,” said Jeremy M. Martin, director of the energy program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s not just about energy security but national security, because our neighbor’s economic and political well-being is largely linked to its capacity to produce and export oil.” Mexico probably still has plenty of oil, especially beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, but Pemex lacks the technology and know-how to get it out. Inviting foreign companies into the country to help is one of the touchiest propositions in Mexican politics. As the Mexican government struggles to find a way forward, production keeps falling. The basic problem is simply that Mexico’s readily accessible oil is used up — pretty much the same thing that happened to the United States when production began falling in the 1970s. Output from Mexico’s giant Cantarell field, in shallow waters near the eastern shore, has plunged by 50 percent in recent years. Output at the country’s other large field is expected to begin falling in the next year or two. Historically, oil has supplied 30 to 40 percent of the Mexican government’s revenue. Confronting a potential calamity, President Felipe Calderón has pushed through the strongest reforms he can defend politically, in hopes of attracting foreign investment. But he dare not do anything that would appear to reverse the 1938 nationalization. Even the modest reforms he has managed to pass are being challenged in court. Officially, the government is optimistic that Mexico can reverse its decline as an oil-producing nation. But its efforts so far have yielded more rhetoric than oil. Last year, on the day celebrating the 1938 seizure, the president’s helicopter landed in a hilly oil field outside this farming town. He announced that a new era of Mexican gushers would dawn soon. “Under this soil,” Mr. Calderón told thousands of oil workers, lay “the richness that could propel development in our country and help Mexico accelerate our path to progress and well-being.” He promised that 20 wells would be spurting crude “very soon” from the ground on which he stood. Almost a year later, only three wells were pumping on a recent afternoon. Eleven had been shut after producing little or no oil. In fact, the effort to develop the geologically challenging Chicontepec field here, near the gulf coast, is deteriorating into an embarrassing disaster for Pemex, the latest in a string of them.

C. Internal Link – Reliance on oil production crushes the transition to renewables

CBO, 2012 (Congressional Budget Office, “Energy Security in the United States”, May, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf)

Even if world oil prices declined as a result of increased U.S. production, most households and businesses would not be substantially less vulnerable to future oil disruptions, for two reasons. First, an expectation by consumers of sustained lower prices would provide an incentive for households and businesses to make long-run decisions— that is, decisions that cannot easily be reversed in the near term—that ultimately increased their reliance on oil. For example, a reduction in gasoline prices would decrease the cost of using less-fuel-efficient vehicles or living far from work. Similarly, if industries expected lower oil prices, they would have less incentive to develop alternative fuel supplies (such as natural gas or electricity) for personal or public transportation. As a result, lower prices might induce households and businesses to increase their reliance on oil in the transportation sector and, thus, increase their exposure to disruptions in the supply of oil. Second, even though oil prices might be slightly lower if oil production was increased, a reduction in cost of a few dollars per barrel would be small compared with the price fluctuations that are common to the oil market. Between 2001 and 2011, price changes of $60 to $90 per barrel of oil occurred. Thus, increased domestic production would leave the vulnerability of most consumers to disruptions in oil markets largely unchanged.38
D. Impact – Renewable Transition is critical to solve global warming
Leahy, ’11(Stephen, Independent environmental journalist for 16 years, “Permafrost Melt Soon Irreversible Without Major Fossil Fuel Cuts”, Feb 21, http://www.countercurrents.org/leahy210911.htm)

UXBRIDGE - Thawing permafrost is threatening to overwhelm attempts to keep the planet from getting too hot forhumansurvival. Without major reductions in the use of fossil fuels, as much as two-thirds of the world's gigantic storehouse of frozen carbon could be released, a new study reported. That would push global temperatures several degrees higher, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable. Once the Arctic gets warm enough, the carbon and methane emissions from thawing permafrost will kick-start a feedback that will amplify the current warming rate,says Kevin Schaefer, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. That will likely be irreversible. And we're less than 20 years from this tipping point. Schaefer prefers to use the term "starting point" for when the 13 million square kilometres of permafrost in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and parts of Europe becomes a major new source of carbon emissions. "Our model projects a starting point 15 to 20 years from now," Schaefer told IPS. The model used a 'middle of the road' scenario with less fossil fuel use than at present. Even at that rate, it found that between 29 and 60 percent of the world's permafrost will thaw, releasing an extra 190 gigatonnes of carbon by 2200. The study is the first to quantify when and how much carbon will be released and was published this week in the meteorological journal Tellus. "The amount of carbon released is equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age," Schaefer said. The additional carbon from permafrost would increase the average temperatures in the Arctic by eight to 10 degrees C, the study reported. Not only would this utterly transform the Arctic, it would also increase the planet's average temperature by about three degrees C, agrees Schaefer. And this increase would be on top of the three to six degrees C from continuing to burn fossil fuels over the next 100 years. The Earth's normal average temperature is 14C, so heating up the entire planet another six to nine degrees C would be like increasing our body temperatures from the normal 37C to a deadly fever of 53 to 60 degrees C. As catastrophic as all this is, Schaefer acknowledges his study underestimates what is likely to happen. The model does not measure methane releases, which are 40 times as potent in terms of warming as carbon. Methane could have a big impact on temperatures in the short term, he says. "There would be a lot of methane emissions. We're working on estimating those right now," he said. The model also does not include emissions from the large region of underwater permafrost. IPS previously reported that an estimated eight million tonnes of methane emissions are bubbling to the surface from the shallow East Siberian Arctic shelf every year. If just one percent of the Arctic undersea methane (also called methane hydrates) reaches the atmosphere, it could quadruple the amount of methane currently in the atmosphere, Vladimir Romanovsky of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks previously told IPS. Nor does the model account for a process called thermokarst erosion, acknowledges Schaefer. This is a widely observed process where meltwater erodes the permafrost and exposes it to warmer temperatures and speeding up the thaw. "We can't model that yet but it could contribute to major releases of carbon and methane," he said. None of this has been taken into account by politicians and policy makers looking to cut humanity's carbon emissions with the agreed on target of keeping global temperatures below two degrees C. Nor is there a wide appreciation for the fact there is no 'reverse gear'. Even if all fossil fuel use stopped today, global temperatures would continue to rise and permafrost would thaw for another 20 to 30 years, Schaefer estimates. And once the permafrost carbon is released, "there is no way to put it back into the permafrost". Even if there was a way to lower the Earth's human-induced fever, it would take a century or more for thawed permafrost to reform, he said. Permafrost has been warming and thawing since the 1980s. A 2009 study reported that the southernmost permafrost limit had retreated 130 kilometres over the past 50 years in Quebec's James Bay region. The major loss of sea ice in the Arctic allows the Arctic Ocean to become much warmer, which in turn has increased temperatures of coastal regions an average of three to five degrees C warmer than 30 years ago. More ominously, large parts of the eastern Arctic were 21C higher above normal for a month in the dead of winter this year, as previously reported by IPS. However, while on the edge of a most dangerous precipice, there is a safer path available. A new energy analysis demonstrates that fossil fuel energy could be virtually phased out by 2050 while offering comfortable lifestyles for all. The Energy Report by Ecofys, a leading energy consulting firm in the Netherlands, shows that humanity could meet 95 percent of energy needs with renewables utilising today's technologies. "The Energy Report shows that in four decades we can have a world of vibrant economies and societies powered entirely by clean, cheap and renewable energy and with a vastly improved quality of life," said WWF Director General Jim Leape. WWF worked on the report with Ecofys. "The report is more than a scenario – it's a call for action. We can achieve a cleaner, renewable future, but we must start now," Leape said in a statement.

And, Positive feedbacks ensure runaway warming, causes extinction

Speth 2008[James, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Currently he serves the school as the Carl W. Knobloch, Jr. Dean and Sara Shallenberger Brown Professor in the Practice of Environmental Policy, The Bridge @ the Edge of the World, pg. 26]

The possibility of abrupt climate change is linked to what may be the most problematic possibility of all—"positive" feedback effects where the initial warming has effects that generate more warming. Several of these feedbacks are possible. First, the land's ability to store carbon could weaken. Soils and forests can dry out or burn and release carbon; less plant growth can occur, thus reducing nature's ability to remove carbon from the air. Second, carbon sinks in the oceans could also be reduced due to ocean warming and other factors. Third, the potent greenhouse gas methane could be released from peat bogs, wetlands, and thawing permafrost, and even from the methane hydrates in the oceans, as the planet warms and changes. Finally, the earth's albedo, thereflectivity of the earth's surface, is slated to be reduced as large areas now covered by ice and snow diminish or are covered by meltwater. All these effects would tend to make warming self-reinforcing, possibly leading to a greatly amplified greenhouse effect. The real possibility of these amplifying feedbacks has alarmed some of our top scientists. James Hansen, the courageous NASA climate scientist, is becoming increasingly outspoken as his investigations lead him to more and more disturbing conclusions. He offered the following assessment in 2007: "Our home planet is now dangerously near a 'tipping point.' Human-made greenhouse gases are near a level such that important climate changes may proceed mostly under the climate system's own momentum. Impacts would include extermination of a large fraction of species on the planet, shifting of climatic zones due to an intensified hydrologic cycle with effects on freshwater availability and human health, and repeated worldwide coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level. .. . "Civilization developed during the Holocene, a period of relatively tranquil climate now almost 12,000 years in duration. The planet has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to be stable. Now, with rapid warming of o.6°C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene. "This warming has brought us to the precipice of a great 'tipping point” If we go over the edge, it will be a transition to 'a different planet,' an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity. There will be no return within the lifetime of any generation that can be imagined, and the trip will exterminate a large fraction of species on the planet.

Ptx

Immigration reform will pass and it political capital is key

Latin American Herald Tribune 7/16 “Obama Ready to Spend Political Capital on Immigration”,
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=329931&CategoryId=12395
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Hispanic Democratic legislators on Wednesday that he will invest his political capitalin an immigration reformpackage whose principles will be revealed during a forum in the next two months. That is what members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus reported after their first meeting with Obama on the subject of immigration. In remarks to reporters, the lawmakers expressed confidence that, with the president’s support, this year the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform will be resumed, opening a path to legalization for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, New York Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez said that the president assured the group “he is a man of his word” and would fulfill his campaign promises to push for immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said that during the meeting Obama assured lawmakers that he will invest part of his political capital in moving forward on immigration reformthat includes strong measures for border security and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Menendez said that the lawmakers will work with Obama on the “principles” of that reform package, which will be presented at a public forum in the next two months with the aim of starting the dialogue about how to fix the country’s problematic immigration system. “He understands that this is a matter of civil rights,” the senator said of Obama.Gaining approval ofa reform plan, Menendez acknowledged, will be “a struggle,” taking into account the opposition of many Republicans and other conservative groups.

Plan drains finite PC

Pastor 13 – Professor and Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert A, “Speed Bumps, Potholes, and Roadblocks on the North American Superhighway”, Winter, Lexis, CMR)
Obama sought to warm the two bilateral relationships, but his agenda was so full- with two wars, a deep recession, and health insurance - that he could not devote the time or political capitalto refashion the North American relationship. This is the political context that explains why the three governments failed to take any steps to flatten the speed bumps, fill the potholes, eliminate the roadblocks, tear down the walls, and stop extracting tolls in the absence of roads. Real integration stalled and went into reverse. The costs of doing business among the NAFTA countries increased.
PC is key and finite
Nakamura 2/20 (David, “In interview, Obama says he has a year to get stuff done”, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/20/in-interview-obama-says-he-has-a-year-to-get-stuff-done/, CMR)
President Obamasaid Wednesday he’s eager to move quickly to enact his second-term agenda, acknowledging that he has a severely limited time framebefore the political world begins thinking about the next election cycle in 2014 and beyond. Obama told a San Francisco television station that he wants to “get as much stuff done as quickly as possible. “Once we get through this year, then people start looking at the mid-terms and after that start thinking about the presidential election,” Obama said during a brief interview with KGO, an ABC affiliate. “The American people don’t want us thinking about elections, they want us to do some work. America is poised to grow in 2013 and add a lot of jobs as long as Washington doesn’t get in the way.”Obama’s remarks were an acknowledgement thata second-term president’s ability to use his political capital faces rapidly diminishing returns, highlighting the high stakes of his bids to strike deals with Congresson issues from tax reform, budget cuts, immigrationreform and gun control.

Turn- Immigration reform decreases terror risk—multiple mechanisms

Griswold 04 (Daniel, Senior Fellow @ CATO, Federal News Service, 4/1, lexis)
MR. DANIEL GRISWOLD: Thank you, Chairman Chambliss, and members of the subcommittee for allowing the Cato Institute to testify on the pressing issue of border security and immigration reform. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, Congress and the administration and this subcommittee have labored to balance the need to secure our borders with our need to remain a free society, open to the world. Long time opponents of immigration seized on the attacks to argue against legalization of Mexican migration and in favor of drastic cuts in existing levels of legal immigration. Butany connection between terrorism and illegal immigration from Mexico is tenuous. None of the 19 hijackers entered the country illegally or as immigrants. They all arrived in the United States with valid temporary non-immigrant visas. None of them arrived via Mexico. None of them were Mexican. Sealing our Southwestern border with a three- tiered, 2,000 mile wall patrolled by a division of U.S. troops would not have kept a single one of those terrorists out of the United States. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not too many immigrants but insufficient control over who enters the country. Immigrants who come to the United States to work and settle are but a small subset of the tens of millions of foreign born people who enter the United States every year. In fact, on a typical day, as you know, more than one million people enter the United States legally by air, land and sea, through more than 300 ports of entry. In a typical year more than 30 million individual foreign nationals enter the United States as tourists, business travelers, students, diplomats and temporary workers. Now, of those, about 1.3 million will eventually settle here as permanent immigrant residents, some of them illegally. In other words, less than 5 percent of the foreigners who enter the United States each year intend to immigrate in any sense of the word. We could reduce immigration to zero and still not be safe from terrorists who might enter on temporary non-immigrant visas. Our focus, one might say our obsession in recent years with stifling the migration of Mexicansacross our Southwest border has not served our national security interest. It has diverted resources and attention away from efforts to identify and keep out people who truly mean to do us harm. While we were guarding the back door in 2001 to make sure no Mexican immigrants entered our country illegally to work, we were neglecting the far larger barn door of temporary non-immigrant visas through which all the September 11th hijackers entered. Most members of Congress understand that willing workers from Mexico are not a threat to America's national security. In May 2002 Congress overwhelmingly approved and the president signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. We don't get to say this very much at Cato, but that was a good piece of legislation. The law was aimed at the right target: keeping terrorists out of the United States. It mandates a timely sharing of intelligence with the State Department and Border Control agencies and use of machine readable and tamper resistant entry documents among other commonsense reform. Notably absent from the bill were any provisions rolling back levels of legal immigration or bolstering efforts to curb illegal migration from Mexico. Indeed, legalization and regularization -- legalizing and regularizing the movement of workers across the U.S.-Mexican border would enhance our national security by bringing much of the underground labor market into the open, encouraging newly documented workers to fully cooperate with law enforcement officials, and freeing resources for border security and the war on terrorism.Real immigration reform would drain a large part of the underground swamp of smuggling and document fraud that facilitates illegal immigration. It would reduce the demand for fraudulent documents which in turn would reduce the supply available for terrorists trying to operate surreptitiously inside theUnited States. It would eliminate most of the human smuggling operations I believe overnight. The vast majority of Mexican workers who enter the United States have no criminal records or intentions, they would obviously prefer to enter the country in a safe, orderly, legal way through the standard ports of entry rather than putting their lives in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Just as importantly, legalization would encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the government, reducing cover for terrorists who manage to enter the country and overstay their visas. Workers with legal documents would be more inclined to cooperate with law enforcement because they wouldn't fear deportation. Immigration reform would free up enforcement and border control resources to focus on protecting the American homeland from terrorist attack. Our Department of Homeland Security, which I believe has a hiring freeze on right now, should concentrate its limited resources and personnel on tracking and hunting down terrorists instead of raiding chicken processing plants and busting janitors at discount stores. Congress should respond to the leadership shown by President Bush and reform our dysfunctional immigration system. Immigration reformwould help our economy grow, it would enhance -- and it would reduce illegal immigration and itwould enhance the federal government's ability to wage war on terrorism.

Nuclear war--retaliation

Patrick F. Speice, "Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to Bilateral U.S.-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs," WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW v. 47, 2--06, p. 1437-1438.
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups couldacquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will stealor purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear deviceon their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriersto constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to delivera nucleardeviceinto the United Statesmakes itincredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses.49 Moreover,there would be immense political pressure in theUnited States todiscover the perpetrators andretaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict


Case

North American Intergration

The plan causes a huge protectionist backlash

Field 12 (Alan M, “Will protectionist murmurs deter efforts to forge even closer economic integration”, July 5, http://www.canadiansailings.ca/?p=4319#sthash.EBghHG0k.dpuf, CMR)

Although current NAFTA provisions for labour are “archaic,” said Ms. Greenwood, she is encouraged by the progress the U.S. and Canada are making in their Beyond the Border initiatives. For his part, Dr. Pastor argues that such initiatives don’t get nearly far enough to use joint North American resources to solve the common problems of the continent. He proposes that the transportation ministers of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico should negotiate a North American Plan for Infrastructure and Transportation, to create new trade corridors that would extend from Canada all the way to south Mexico.He added that leaders of the three countries should also eliminate their costly NAFTA ‘rules of origin,’ – complex barriers to trade that he said were an “inefficient tax estimated at over $500 million per year.” The three countries should also establish a common external tariff whose revenues would fund a North American Investment Fund, whose main goal would be to fund infrastructure and transportation, added Pastor. Among other new institutions would be a lean North American Commission on Regulatory Convergence, which would “do research and provide options for the three governments to improve competitiveness and security in North America.” No doubt, such bold initiatives will strike many as being far too ambitious to attract widespread political support ineither Canada, the U.S. or Mexico. In each of these countries, protectionist forces are well-entrenched, and many oppose any initiative that would seem to cede too much power to foreign governments and international institutions. Nevertheless, the countries’ leaders may gradually be impelled to move at least part of the way toward such bold solutions as their economies becoming increasingly integrated – and yet equally challenged by competition from other regions of the world.

That will force Obama to bash NAFTA – turns case

O’Brien 8 (Dan, Senior Editor – Economic Intelligence Unit, “Our Vested Interest in a McCain Win”, Sunday Business Post, 11-2, http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=GUEST+WRITER-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=37213-qqqx=1.asp, CMR)

Anti-globalisation sentiment is widespread in the Democratic Party, which has traditionally been less supportive of economic openness than the Republicans. The Democratic-controlled Congress has opposed free trade agreementsand, since 2007, has refused the extension of presidential powers to negotiate trade deals without having for itself line-by-line veto power. This is one of the reasons why the Doha round of multilateral trade talks continues to languish. As for Obama himself, he has not shied away from protectionist rhetoric during the campaign. But, in fairness, his bite is unlikely to match his bark. His economic advisers are mostly solid internationalists, and one of them, AustanGoolsbee, let slip earlier in the year that Obama would not act on his threats of economic nationalism if elected. How could these factors come together and play out in relation to Ireland? By far the greatest threat is a change to the US corporation tax code. Many voices are now calling for US companies to be taxed on worldwide earnings in their home country. If American companies located in Ireland were obliged to pay the US rate of 35 per cent, it would mean that, on top of the 12.5 per cent of their profits booked in Ireland, which go to the Department of Finance, an additional 22.5 per cent would go to the treasury in Washington DC. US companies, which directly and indirectly employ one in ten people at work in Ireland, operate here for many reasons, but tax is undoubtedly of key importance. Data on output per worker in the sectors in which US companies dominate show that Irish workers produce more (often far more) than their counterparts elsewhere. There can be little doubt that this is attributable far less to the heroic toiling of Irish workers and far more to transfer pricing, which, put simply, is a method of inter-jurisdictional tax avoidance. Obama has made noises about closing what many Americans consider to be a loophole. US businesses will lobby hard against this, arguing that it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. But as the US fiscal position weakens and as anti-business sentiment becomes shriller, making companies pay more tax in the US may be both necessary and popular.If the US revamped its tax regime along those lines, it would fundamentally change the way American companies view their international operations in general, and their Irish operations in particular. Companies already in Ireland would be more likely to divest, and attracting new ones would be far more difficult. Under a McCain presidency, the existing tax code would be safe, because he believes it is good for American companies and good for America. Reassuringly for Ireland, he even cited approvingly the country's low corporation tax rate in a TV debate with Obama. On trade, the differences between the candidates are narrower. Philip Gordon, who was director for Europe at the national security council during the Clinton administration, is among the hot favourites to take responsibility for Europe at the state department under Obama. At a conference in Barcelona in June, he stressed Obama's commitment to bilateral trade links with Europe, and the importance of the multilateral trading system centred around the World Trade Organisation.Pragmatic Republicans don't doubt the Obama commitments to avoid roll-back on trade. At a think-in of policy wonks and journalists in Slovakia two weeks ago, John Hulsman of the German Council on Foreign Relations, a hard-headed and worldly Republican, stated that, while Obama would not push for trade liberalisation, he was unlikely to go in the opposite direction. But whether, against his better judgment, Obama will be able to resist moving in a protectionist direction is moot. Europeans rarely realise that their prime ministers are far more powerful domestically than American presidents are in the US. Where European parliaments have limited powers over the executive branch of government, the US Congress can make life impossible for presidents.In order to get anything done, Obama will have to horse-trade with Congress. If demands for protectionism in the US rise, Congress will pander and even inflame. Legislators could call the president on his campaign promises, such as the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Obama may not be able to resist.

Turn – Maquiladoras:

A. Expanded border crossings cause Maquiladora revival


Paley 2013

Dawn Paley is a journalist from Vancouver, BC (Coast Salish territories). She’s written for magazines and newspapers including the The Guardian, Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, BC Business Magazine, and The Nation. In 2010, Dawn completed her Masters in Journalism at the University of British Columbia. “A Rough Guide to Obama’s Mexico Visit” Americas Program of the Center for International Policy 5/2/13 http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9449?utm_source=feedly

There’s a demand from the corporate sector to build new border crossings and expand existing ones between Mexico and the US. “Financially, investment in border crossings and infrastructure has not matched the exponential increase in trade crossing the border each year,” reads a December memo from the Council on Foreign Relations. This border infrastructure is necessary for the maquila (assembly) industry in Mexico to expand, and the US requires Mexico’s cooperation on these crossings, the construction of which amount to huge subsidies for the US and other corporations with operations along the US/Mexico border.


B. Maquiladoras hurt the Mexican economy – cause wage stagnation and concentration of wealth


Diederich 2012

PhillippeDiederich is a freelance writer, photographer & educator. His work has appeared in the NYT, Time magazine, US News, and he has won numerous awards for his photography & writing. Born in the Dominican Republic & raised in Mexico City and Miami. “Do not be fooled by the ‘Maquiladora Economy’” July 17, 2012 http://www.voxxi.com/do-not-be-fooled-by-maquiladora-economy/#ixzz2UeLxV0Wh

Maquiladora is a Mexican word. It’s the nickname that was given to the manufacturing plants along the US-Mexico border, which sprouted up after the Brasero program ended in the sixties and the Mexican government began the Border Industrialization Program. It comes from the word, maquila, the quota millers charged for milling other people’s grain. Today, there are thousands of maquiladoras in just about every country in Latin America and Asia. Countries with favorable conditions for maquiladoras must have all of the above: high poverty, high national debt, corrupt governments (dictatorships friendly to the U.S are a favorite) weak union organizations and financial incentives so foreign businesses can import their raw materials and export their finished product without having to pay fees to the host country. Maquiladoras, or assembly plants must be within a duty-free zone, and items must be tax and tariff free. Yep, if your country’s got that, you can bet your sweet pesos the maquilas will come knocking, if they’re not already there. But if wages rise, unions organize, or the government changes its tax-free policy for maquilas, watch out! You could lose your maquilas to a more convenient country, one that is poorer and has even worse wages than yours.That’s exactly what happened in Guatemala when workers got fed up with a Korean manufacturing plant. The Koreans shut down operations there, and are moving their maquiladora to Haiti where poorer more desperate people are willing to put up with their miserable wages and working conditions. And guess what, in this particular case the land is a gift courtesy of the willing Haitian government. The new port and buildings for the new manufacturing giant comes courtesy of the U.S. government. Which really means you, the tax payer. The poor people of the world thank you.The problem with maquiladoras is that they create stagnant economies.Workers who assemble items for export cannot improve their lot because wage increases and upward mobility are virtually non-existent. In the world of maquilas, it’s as if the Soviets had won the cold war, only it’s capitalist corporations that are the culprits of such Dickensian misery.But there’s an even greater problem with ‘Maquiladora Economics.’ Maquilas only benefit the corporations the their rich stockholders. The poor who manage to find work at a maquila are only taking one step out of one type of poverty and into another. It is an inert economy for those who work there. And all this is done so that we in the U.S.A. can satisfy our hunger for cheap name-brand shoes, multiple TVs in a single house, and fourteen-dollar shorts from Old Navy and Walmart, or even 300-dollar tennis shoes at Sacks. Meanwhile, the workers at the Maquila cannot afford to go to the GAP in Mexico City and buy a t-shirt. But as these conditions and methods of manufacturing go full speed ahead, it’s also the U.S. middle class that is being crushed. The fact is the U.S. middle class cannot afford goods manufactured within our own economy. And the gap is getting wider.

Free trade hurts democratic efforts – incompatible

Milne 2012 (Jared Milne is a member of the Edmonton Chapter of the Council of Canadians, 11-28-12, “Free Trade and Democracy Incompatible,” http://vueweekly.com/front/story/free_trade_and_democracy_incompatible/)

Free trade and democracy incompatible. • Long-term, legally binding agreements with multi-national corporations involving zero public and Canadian Parliamentary scrutiny. • Secretive lawsuits of any level of Canadian government by the same corporations if Canadian laws interfere with a corporation's profitability. • Export of good jobs overseas because smaller local companies can't competefor public contracts.Resulting pressure on Canadian governments to privatize our essential services.These are just a few of the negative outcomes of past trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-US FTA and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). And they will be repeated again with the impending Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA). The Harper government is trying to pass these deals with as little public awareness as possible, even though they will have a tremendous impact on Canada.

Disease spreads more easily through free trade

David A. Relma et al. [Professor, Medicine - Infectious Diseases @ Stanford University], Rapporteurs; Forum on Microbial Threats; Institute of Medicine¶ Infectious Disease Movement in a Borderless World:¶ Workshop Summary (2010http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12758

Modern transportation allows people, animals, and plants--and the pathogens they carry--to travel more easily than ever before. The ease and speed of travel, tourism, and international trade connect once-remote areas with one another, eliminating many of the geographic and cultural barriers that once limited the spread of disease. Because of our global interconnectedness through transportation, tourism and trade, infectious diseases emerge more frequently; spread greater distances; pass more easily between humans and animals; and evolve into new and more virulent strains. The IOM's Forum on Microbial Threats hosted the workshop "Globalization, Movement of Pathogens (and Their Hosts) and the Revised International Health Regulations" December 16-17, 2008 in order to explore issues related to infectious disease spread in a "borderless" world. Participants discussed the global emergence, establishment, and surveillance of infectious diseases; the complex relationship between travel, trade, tourism, and the spread of infectious diseases; national and international policies for mitigating disease movement locally and globally; and obstacles and opportunities for detecting and containing these potentially wide-reaching and devastating diseases. This document summarizes the workshop.

Energy

Zero risk the plan solve North American energy independence or vulnerability to foreign sources

Duffy 12
Aimee, “Busting the Myth of Energy Independence”, Aug 28, http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/28/busting-the-myth-of-energy-independence/, CMR

The global marketplace Even if we were to accept these three assumptions, there is still no getting around the fact that oil trades on the global market and is affected by everything from production in other countries to speculation on Wall Street to economic news to geopolitical events, and even the weather. No matter how much oil we pump out of North American soil, what happens in the Middle East and around the world will affect the price of oil in the United States.And that price of oil is crucial to North American oil production. The methods we use to produce energy domestically are expensive, and despite technological advancements, production costs, at least in the Canadian oil sands, are rising. Complete reliance on domestic production necessitates a sustained high oil price per barrel, and though that presents some pretty compelling opportunities for investors -- check out our free report on three outstanding examples -- it is ultimately something that is impossible to predict, much less guarantee, as Morgan Housel astutely pointed out last month. Foolish takeaway Pledging energy independence by 2020 is a goal based largely on increasing oil production, which is in itself built on too many assumptions to ensure a completely successful outcome right now. Increasing oil production increases our dependency on oil, as well as the likelihood that we will continue to turn to foreign sources in the future.

Energy independence won’t solve US power or vulnerability

O’Sullivan 13 (Meghan, professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, ’Energy Independence’ Alone Won’t Boost U.S. Power, Feb 14, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/-energy-independence-alone-won-t-boost-u-s-power.html, CMR)

Still, despite all this good news, the U.S. energy boom won’t deliver the one geopolitical benefit Americans long for most: a release from the Middle East. True, by 2020 the U.S. will be importing substantially less oil than it does today, and probably none of it will originate in the Middle East. The U.S. will, however, remain invested in stability in that part of the world even if it doesn’t consume a single drop of Middle Eastern oil. Interests other than energy, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the security of Israel and the well-being of more than more than 300 million Arabs, will continue to be high on the U.S. agenda.The U.S. will continue to have enduring energy interests in the Middle East, given that its allies and China -- the single largest engine of global economic growth -- will become increasingly dependent on the Middle East in the years ahead. Even more important, because all oil is priced on a global market, a disruption in the Middle East will quickly filter back to the U.S. economy. Americans in 2020 may transmit less of their income abroad in the case of a surge in oil prices, but a major increase in global prices caused by instability in the Middle East would be almost as destabilizing to the U.S. as it was when Uncle Sam secured much of its oil from Saudi Arabia.

Energy security won’t alter U.S. foreign policy – multiple alt causes constrain the U.S. and ensure our involvement overseas

Myhre 13 – graduate of the University of Colorado where he double majored in history and international affairs, PhD at the London School of Economics in international relations
Jeff, “American Energy Independence Might Not Change Things Much”, Feb 20, http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/02/20/american-energy-independence-might-not-change-things-much/, CMR

Thanks to fracking and the oil rush in North Dakota, many analysts predict energy independence for North America, and even for the U.S. itself. The most recent high-profile prediction came from Citigroup’ s global commodities research team, headed by Edward Morse. They issued an 85-page report, which sadly is not available for free, on the future of the energy markets. From a purely economic standpoint, the report, and others like it, was upbeat. However in terms of overall foreign policy, it’s hard to see how energy independence is a game changer. The Citi report stated that the “momentum toward North American energy independence accelerated last year well beyond the wildest dreams of any energy analyst.” The report supported this by noting “Crude oil production rose from the beginning to the end of 2012 by 1.16 million barrels per day, while natural gas liquids increased by 170 thousand barrels per day.” Since the 1970s oil embargo, the U.S. has focused a lot of its attention on access to oil. Indeed, the Carter Doctrine says that the U.S. will use force to protect the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. The fear then was the Soviets, having moved into Afghanistan, would someday occupy the oil fields of Arabia and win the Cold War. Despite the USSR going out of business, America remains concerned about access to oil from abroad.If the country achieves energy independence, theory says that America becomes free from the need to prop up unpleasant but friendly dictators, and American policy in the region will undergo a revolution based on a greater ability to maneuver. In practice, though, I am not so sure that the extra room is going to be all that much.Because of the Al Qaeda murders of 2001 and because of the Arab Spring (and yes, the collapse of the USSR), American policy across North Africa into the Middle East and beyond to Indonesia, has experienced mission creep, for want of a better term. America had a primary interest in access to oil, but in acting on that interest, the country became entangled in other political aspects of the region. In other words, we are so involved now that energy is merely one component of our array of interests.If energy vanished entirely from the equation, Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups would continue to target America and those close to it. The Arab Spring has illustrated the split between rulers and ruled in many countries where America has established a presence; which side America backs may be tied to access to energy, but many other consideration enter the picture. I am glad that there is a shot at energy independence for North America in general and the U.S. in particular. It will improve our balance of payments, and it will give us greater control over our environmental policies in the long run. I remain doubtful, though, that ending our importation of oil from sensitive regions in the world will have as great an impact on our foreign policy as some hope. In the 1970s, that might have been the case, but after 40 years, the situation is more complicated.

With oil and gas production developing so rapidly, the US is projected to become self-sufficient in the near future.


Domm, 2013(Patti, CNBC Executive News Editor, “US Is on Fast-Track to Energy Independence: Study” CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100450133, LL)

U.S. oil and gas production is evolving so rapidly—and demand is dropping so quickly—that in just five years the U.S. could no longer need to buy oil from any source but Canada, according to Citigroup's global head of commodities research.Citigroup's Edward Morse, in a new report, projects a dramatic reshaping of the global energy industry, where the U.S., in a matter of years, becomes an exporter of energy, instead of one of the biggest importers.The shift could sharply reduce the price of oil, and therefore limit the revenues of the producing nations of OPEC, as well as Russia and West Africa. Those nations face new challenges: not only are the U.S. and Canada increasing output, but Iraq increasingly is realizing its potential as an oil producer, adding 600,000 barrels a day of production annually for the next several years. "OPEC will find it challenging to survive another 60 years, let alone another decade," the report by Morse and other Citi analysts said. "But not all of the consequences are positive, for when it comes to the geopolitics of energy, the likely outcomes are asymmetric, with clear cut winner and losers." (Read More: The World's 15 Biggest Oil Producers)The U.S. is a winner in many ways. Its super power status could be prolonged because of this new growth in oil and shale gas production, made possible by "fracking" and other non-conventional drilling technologies. Crude oil generated the largest single annual increase in liquids production in U.S. history last year, with an increase of 1.16 million barrels per day. Oil production is booming in places like Texas and North Dakota, which has the lowest unemployment in the country at just 3 percent last September, compared to the national rate of 7.8 percent then. Citi analysts also foresee a new era of U.S. industrialization, fueled by cheaper power. They cite dozens of industrial projects across America that have already begun or are planned, in such industries as auto, chemicals and steel. (Read More: Winter Storm May Stall Gas Price Climb)The oil producing nations of OPEC, and others, will have to adjust to a world of lower prices. Separately, OPEC, in its February report Tuesday, commented about the U.S., noting the US is the fastest growing producer this year among the non-OPEC nations. "Starting this year, North American output, as we indicate in this report, should start to have tangible impacts both on global prices and trading patterns, and will eventually turn the global geopolitics of energy on its head," the report said. Morse surprised markets a year ago with a report that envisioned the U.S. as part of an energy independent North America. Since then, the view has become mainstream. The International Energy Agency forecast last fall that the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the top oil producer by 2017. The IEA also forecast that North America could become a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the U.S. could become nearly self-sufficient by 2035. Morse's latest report, released Tuesday, has an even more aggressive view of the U.S. move to dominance as an energy producer. If crude oil and field condensates, natural gas liquids, renewable fuels and refinery processing gains are counted, the report put U.S. production at 11.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2012, making the U.S. the biggest oil producer already last year. Asked how his report has been received so far, Morse said, with an ironic laugh, that he's had some "push back but not as much as last year."












[PL1]