Venezuela Affirmative Wave 2 - JDI 2013

8/13/2019 Venezuela Affirmative Wave 2 - JDI 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/venezuela-affirmative-wave-2-jdi-2013 1/51

Venezuela Affirmative Wave II



General XTs



US influence in LA Down now

US influence decreasing and other countries moving into Latin America

Ben Ami 13 (Shlomo Ben-Ami; 6-5-13; Israeli foreign minister who now serves as Vice President of the

Toledo International Center for Peace; “Is the US Losing Latin America?”; 7-12-13)It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem

truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary,

the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true

nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well.¶ It is true that US attention to Latin

America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on

terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term.¶

Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt

sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on

Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through

education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an

utter failure.¶ It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s

sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with theUS. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements

in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela. ¶

Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships

with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in

the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the country’s military industries have spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to demonstra te Russia’s

ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived American meddling in Russia’s own “near abroad,” particularly

Georgia and Ukraine.¶ Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin America’s broadening international relations as marking the end of US

preeminence. Unlike in the bygone era of superpowers and captive nations, American influence can no longer be defined by the ability to install

and depose leaders from the US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last quarter-

century.¶ A continent once afflicted by military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable democracies. Responsible economic

management, poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater openness to foreign investment have all helped to generate years of

low-inflation growth. As a result, the region was able to withstand the ravages of the global financial crisis.¶ The US not only encouraged these

changes, but has benefited hugely from them. More than 40% of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America, the US’s fastest -

growing export destination. Mexico is America’s second-largest foreign market (valued at $215 billion in 2012). US exports to Central America

have risen by 94% over the past six years; imports from the region have risen by 87%. And the US continues to be the largest foreign investor onthe continent. American interests are evidently well served by having democratic, stable, and increasingly prosperous neighbors.¶ This new

reality also demands a different type of diplomacy – one that recognizes the diverse interests of the continent. For example, an emerging

power such as Brazil wants more respect on the world stage. Obama blundered when he dismissed a 2010 deal on Iran’s nuclear program

mediated by Brazil and Turkey (despite having earlier endorsed the talks). Other countries might benefit from US efforts to promote democracy

and socioeconomic ties, as Obama’s recent trips to Mexico and Costa Rica show. ¶ Trade relations provide another all-important lever. President

Sebastian Piñera of Chile visited the White House earlier this week to discuss, among other things, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an

ambitious trade agreement that might encompass New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. President Ollanta Humala of

Peru is expected in the White House next week, while Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to visit Latin America soon after.¶ Language and

culture matter, too. Given the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence in the US, it is almost inconceivable that America could lose its unique

status in the region to China or Russia, let alone Iran.¶ Gone are the days when military muscle and the politics of

subversion could secure US influence – in Latin America or anywhere else. A world power today is one that can

combine economic vigor and a popular culture with global outreach on the basis of shared interests. The US is better positioned than any other

power in this respect, particularly when it comes to applying these advantages in its immediate vicinity.

US Influence in L.A at an all-time low

Hakim 06 (Peter Hakim; President of the Inter-American Dialogue; “Is Washington Losing Latin America?”; 7-12-13)

Relations between the United States and Latin America today are at their lowest point since the end

of the Cold War. Many observers in the 1980s had hoped that Latin America's turn toward democracy

and market economics, coupled with Washington's waning emphasis on security matters, would lead to

closer and more cooperative ties. Indeed, for a time, the Americas seemed to be heading in the right

direction: between 1989 and 1995, Central America's brutal wars were largely settled; the Brady debt-



relief proposal (named for then U.S. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady) helped end Latin America's

decade-long, debt-induced recession; the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); the United States hosted the hemisphere's first summit meeting in

more than a generation; and in 1995 a bold Washington-led rescue package helped prevent the collapse

of Mexico's economy. But much of this progress has since stalled, with U.S. policy on Latin America

drifting without much steam or direction.¶ After 9/11, Washington effectively lost interest in Latin

America. Since then, the attention the United States has paid to the region has been sporadic and

narrowly targeted at particularly troubling or urgent situations. Throughout the region, support for

Washington's policies has diminished. Few Latin Americans, in or out of government, consider the

United States to be a dependable partner. U.S.-Latin American relations have seriously deteriorated --

the result of failures of Washington's leadership, the United States' uncompromising stance on many

critical issues, and the unwillingness of the administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to

stand up to powerful domestic constituencies.¶ The United States is not the only culprit, however. Latin

American leaders have also performed badly. Most Latin American governments have only partially

completed the political and economic reforms needed to sustain robust growth and healthy democratic

institutions. They have mostly neglected the region's deep economic inequities and social tensions. Too

often, Latin American governments have only grudgingly cooperated with the United States and one

another. Some of the region's leaders have turned to populist and anti-American rhetoric to winsupporters and votes.

Regional politics means US influence is waning in Latin America

Martinez 13 (Guillermo Martinez; May-23-2013; a journalist for Sun-Sentinel; “America losing

influence throughout Latin America”; 7-12-13)

Once upon a time, as many fairy tales start, the United States was the prevailing force in Latin

America. It had a coherent policy for its southern neighbors, and its opinions mattered to those who

governed in the region.¶ Despite President Barack Obama's recent trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, and Vice President Joe Biden's

upcoming trip to the region, that is no more.¶ The days when John F. Kennedy created the Alliance for Progress and was a hero to the

young throughout the western hemisphere have been gone for more than half a century. The time when Jimmy Carter pledged to back only

those governments that respected human rights and encouraged that caudillos be ousted is also a historical footnote.¶ True, the world has

changed.¶ The attacks of September 11, 2001 made everyone look to the East; to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Iran, Syria and other countries in theMiddle East. Israel is still crucial to American foreign policy, more so now that militants are willing to die to kill Americans and Israelis.¶ Latin

America also changed when the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez was elected. The rising price of oil gave Chávez riches beyond belief

and he began sharing it with similar-minded leaders in Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Argentina; just to name a few.¶

Colombia once depended greatly on the Plan Colombia assistance from the United States to fight the FARC guerrillas and the drug lords that

governed much of the country. The emphasis on the Plan Colombia since Juan Manuel Santos took office has decreased. Santos also believes in

negotiations with the FARC and closer ties to those who govern in Venezuela.¶ Mexico counted on American intelligence assistance and money

to fight the drug cartels until Obama's visit to Enrique Peña Nieto, recently elected president.¶ The communique at the end of the meeting

talked about new economic cooperation between the two nations and how together they would fight the drug cartels. Not highlighted was the

Mexican-imposed position that the United States agents would no longer be welcome in their country and that the cooperation would be

respectful of their sovereign rights. Peña Nieto, the candidate of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) wanted a different approach to the

war on drugs; one that would mitigate the violence that had killed thousands of Mexicans in the last decade.¶ Finally, China has helped

change the equation. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, for several years the

United States was the only super power. When American presidents spoke, the world listened. Now

China offers both a challenge to the United States, as a second super power, and has become analternative economic trading partner for countries throughout the world.¶ Still, it is inconceivable that American

media and officials pay so little attention to the region. Maybe those around President Obama have not told him that Iran has close ties with

Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela. Certainly the administration must know Cuba and Venezuela are so close that many critics of President Nicolás

Maduro are now saying Cubans are helping to keep him in power. They talk, only part in jest, that there is a new country in the region called

Cubazuela – the alliance between Cuba's Raúl Castro and Maduro's supporters is so close.¶ It is true all have heard the main culprit of the drug

trade in the world is American and European consumption. Yet the United States has waged war on the producers and importers, and not on

the consumers at home.¶ Seldom has Latin America been further from American influence. Many of the

leftists' presidents in the region consider the United States their enemy. Others maintain cordial, or even friendly

relations with Washington, but are quick to negotiate economic deals with China.¶ The task is not easy, granted. Yet it would help if the United



States and the Obama Administration articulated a policy for its neighbors in Latin America. They should not be a second thought in America

foreign policy. The region deserves better. So does the United States. This country needs to improve those ties or continue to lose status as a

premier world power.¶ This is no fairy tale.



Engagement Now

The administration is increasing Latin American economic engagement in the squo

Goodman 13 (Joshua, He is a reporter for Bloomberg News in Rio de Janeiro, “Biden Circles Xi as U.S.

Duels China for Latin America Ties” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/biden-circles-xi-as-u-s-duels-china-for-latin-america-influence.html) Biden’s tour, which began May 26 in Colombia, included a “frank” and at times “brutal” discussion

about trade, economic growth and security with 15 Caribbean leaders in Trinidad yesterday, Prime

Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said, without giving more details. The leaders signed an accord to

boost investment and economic cooperation.¶ “Our country is deeply invested and wants to be more

deeply invested in the region,” Biden said in Port of Spain. Yesterday’s accord “will give us all a vehicle

to overcome special, specific, practical barriers to trade and investment. Our goal is not simply growth,

but growth that reaches everyone.”¶ In Colombia, Biden said a one-year-old free-trade agreement

between the two countries is “just the beginning,” citing a doubling of the period for which entry visas

are valid and efforts to expand trade ties further.¶ State Visit¶ The outreach follows President Barack

Obama’s visits in May to Mexico and Costa Rica and precedes talks at the White House in June with the

leaders of Chile and Peru. In October, Obama will host Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to a state

dinner at the White House.¶ U.S. business with the region is brisk even in the absence of a region-wide

free-trade agreement that the U.S. pursued for more than a decade and that anti-U.S. allies of the late

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez helped bury in 2005.¶ Buoyed by bilateral agreements signed since

then with Peru, Panama and Colombia, U.S. exports to Latin America have more than doubled since

2000 to a record $400 billion last year. The region last year bought 26 percent of U.S. exports, an

increase from 22 percent in 2000.



AT: Snowden

US will downplay Snowden

Llorente 6-24

Elizabeth, 2013, “Edward Snowden Scandal Could Create A Rift In U.S.-Latin American Relations”http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-could-be-political-weapon-for-

ecuador-against-us/#ixzz2Z33ypzIO

Kerry said he was hopeful that a rapprochement could be achieved. The meeting, which came at

Venezuela's request, took place just hours after Venezuela released from prison an American

filmmaker who had been jailed on espionage charges, removing an immediate irritant in the

relationship.¶ “If Snowden came to Venezuela, they would not hand him over to the United

States, they would give him safe haven,” said David Smilde, a researcher with the Washington

Office on Latin America, a political think tank.¶ “But if they gave him *permanent+ safe haven, that

would seriously harm improved relations.”¶ Some U.S. lawmakers assailed Snowden for seeking

refuge in countries that are sworn enemies of the United States. ¶ “It would not be surprising if the

NSA leaker finds safe haven in Cuba or Venezuela, two regimes that have a longstanding history of

giving refuge to fugitives from U.S. law," said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in a statement. "Let us

not forget that Phillip Agee, former CIA agent, leaked classified information about CIA personnel

and fled the U.S. to seek refuge until he passed away in 2008 in Cuba."¶ "The cruel irony is that

there are no press freedoms in either Cuba or Venezuela, yet Snowden who supposedly stands for

transparency in government seeks refuge in police states like these two countries," the

congresswoman said. "Those who misrule over Cuba and Venezuela, Raul Castro and Nicolas

Maduro, do not allow independent free press, do not cooperate on terrorism related issues,

disregard due process and an independent judicial system."¶ Kerry, indeed, warned about serious

consequences for any nation that gives Snowden asylum or aids in his transport and evasion of

extradition.¶ Giving Snowden support, said Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, would not do

much to bolster the popularity of Raul Castro or Correa inside their own nations. ¶ Correa, in

particular, already is very popular in his country, having won reelection by a landslide.¶ “It’sbasically about taking on a cause that puts the United States, from their point of view, in a

questionable light,” he said. “And it’s trying to associated themselves with what they see as

heroes, whistleblowers.”¶ That said, however, Smilde argued that the United States itself may not

want to keep a bright spotlight on the Snowden saga for the long-run.¶ “Right now there’s a lot

of bravado,” said Smilde in a telephone interview from Caracas, where he is conducting research.

“Once he gets safe passage, given asylum by some country, this will die down.”¶ Plus, one must

remember that the U.S. State Department is also walking a political tightrope right now,

considering the damaging information Snowden revealed.¶ “This is not flattering to the United

States,” said Smilde. “It defends democracy all over the world, and here is someone who has

revealed extensive surveillance by the U.S. government of its citizens. They’ll want this to go

away.”



Oil Shocks XTs



Supply Solves Shocks

Increased oil production insulates countries from market oil shocks – US proves

Roger Howard May 3 2013 (Prolific Author and Journalist, written numerous peer-reviewed articles

on oil and gas security, Roger Howard is a British journalist and historian specializing in the Middle East.He is the author of the academic titles The Oil Hunters: Exploration and Espionage in the Middle East,

1880 –1939 and Iran in Crisis? Howard’s articles have appeared in the Guardian, the London Times, the

Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, the International Herald Tribune, and many other newspapers and

journals; “How Shale Energy Reshapes American Security”)

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-shale-energy-reshapes-american-security-8423 -KYThe shale revolution hit America and the world with such speed and suddenness that it surprised almost everyone—investors, businessmen,

economists and politicians. Soon the implications of this dramatic development seeped into the national consciousness and spread optimism

that the United States could ride it to a wave of prosperity. And the new techniques for extracting "unconventional" oil and gas from shale rock,

which America possesses in such abundance, do indeed pose prospects for an economic boom.¶ They also pose prospects for changes in the

defense posture of many nations. Anything of value that a nation possesses must be protected, and that includes its capacity to produce

energy. America's leaders and defense chiefs will have to recognize and respond to the new strategic imperatives of shale, just as their

potential adversaries undoubtedly will. Together, these new imperatives will have repercussions for sea-lane protection, domestic security, the

importance of water, and international competition for diminishing foreign markets.¶ While these may not be major challenges to Washington

yet, they will grow in significance as the shale revolution, currently in its relative infancy, continues to expand. As Maria van der Hoeven,executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), puts it, “The global oil map will be redrawn over the next five years.” The revolution

is the product of new, cost-effective methods of drilling to extract natural gas trapped in shale rock. In the United States, which has taken the

lead in such development, this has brought a glut of cheap energy onto the domestic market. By 2015, the IEA

estimates, the United States will overtake Russia as the world's biggest gas producer and by 2035 will become “all but (energy) self -sufficient.”

Shale oil also can be extracted from shale rock, and the IEA estimates that within a decade the United States will overtake Saudi

Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer. As recently as October 2005, America was importing more than 13 million barrels of

oil every day, around two-thirds of its consumption.¶ Exactly where and when other shale producers will emerge is difficult to tell. Other

countries, notably European states, possess large deposits of shale rock but lack the key ingredients of America's own energy revolution.

Western Europe's shale deposits, for example, have a higher clay content that makes them much harder to exploit, while Eastern Europe lags

behind the United States in technology. Its governments also may not be able to subsidize their energy companies with the generous tax breaks

and incentives that have fuelled America's shale boom. But China could eventually become a major player, since it is moving fast to exploit its

very large resources of shale gas: some leading analysts think that, by 2020, domestic production could significantly reduce its demand

for imported gas. Other countries with high hopes of shale production include Argentina, Poland, Ukraine and, in the longer term, India.¶

Despite many uncertainties about its scope and duration, the shale revolution will continue to insulate the United States

from market shocks affecting the global price of both crude oil and liquefied (shipped) natural gas. Oil exporters

such as Saudi Arabia have previously wielded a hugely powerful "energy weapon," exerted with devastating effect

after the Arab-Israeli war of 1973. And gas producers, most notably Russia, have sometimes exercised a comparable grip

over the recipients of their piped supplies. But as the United States becomes increasingly self-

sufficient in energy, it is acquiring, in equal proportion, more immunity from such actions, putting it in a position to

exploit this to its own advantage. For example, until the advent of commercial shale in the United States around 2008-9, the adverse

effects on the price of crude dictated heavily against tough measures on Iran. But since 2012 the

United States has successfully supported EU sanctions on the flow of Iranian oil: these measures have drastically reduced

Iran's exports, slashing its revenues and punishing its economy without pushing global oil prices over $100 a barrel.¶ America’s breakout

position in the shale revolution raises a number of strategic possibilities. For example, the United States could manipulate the price of energy

for its political rather than narrowly commercial benefit. Future U.S. shale output could depress the market price of crudeoil and liquefied natural gas and undermine the viability of other countries’ shale- (and conventional-) energy industries, which require well-

defined break-even costs and clear margins. By doing so, the United States could maintain its clear strategic advantage as a virtually self-

sufficient producer. Comparisons can be drawn to the Cold War in the 1980s, when Saudi overproduction depressed the price of crude oil and

thereby depleted the Soviet Union's revenues; or to Moscow's decision, in 2010, to abandon the massive Shtokman gas field, the viability of

which was undermined by sharply lower market prices. Of course, such an approach could damage America's own shale industry, whose profits

and margins would also come under pressure.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-shale-energy-reshapes-american-security-8423

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-shale-energy-reshapes-american-security-8423



AT: Shale Gas

Growing oil production stabilizes market prices and prevents price shocks – US shale

production isn’t enough to fully stabilize markets, plan key

Gold & Cummins July 2 2013 (Russell Gold is an energy reporter for The Wall Street Journal. He was previously an investigativereporter for San Antonio Express-News and suburban correspondent for the The Philadelphia Inquirer.¶ He is best known for his reporting on

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He was a Pulitzer Prize finalist [3] and winner of a Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business and Financial

Journalism for the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the blowout and spill.¶ Gold graduated from Columbia University in 1993 with a degree in

history; Chip Cummins is the Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal, B.A. from Harvard; “Rising U.S. Oil Output Gives Policy Makers More

Options”) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324682204578517271965827876.html-KY

Growing North American oil supplies promise to bolster U.S. energy security, but they already are helping deliver a more

global benefit: stable oil prices.¶ Among the beneficiaries of that are policy makers in Washington, who have less need to worry

about the market impact of decisions they make.¶ On Jan. 15, the operator of a North Sea pipeline shut the system down after a leak, bottling

up oil output from nine offshore production platforms. In years past, such an outage might have sent oil prices hurtling higher. Yet prices that

day actually declined a bit.¶ Crude prices have remained remarkably stable over the past year in the face of a

long list of supply disruptions, from Nigerian oil theft and Syrian civil war to an export standoff

between Sudan and South Sudan. The reason in large part is a thick new blanket of North American oil

cushioning the markets. This has "moderated" the market effect of recent outages, said Adam Sieminski,administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.¶ The new supply isn't yet pushing prices lower, and analysts differ over

whether it will. But it is acting as a shock absorber in a global supply chain that pumps 88 million barrels of oil to consumers each

day.¶ That helps everyone from manufacturers to motorists, by steadying fuel prices and making budgeting easier. And in a less-noticed effect,

it provides new geopolitical leverage to the U.S.¶ The increasing U.S. energy supply "helps reduce our vulnerability to

global supply disruptions and price shocks" and thus "affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our

international security goals," Tom Donilon, the White House national-security adviser until recently, said in April.¶ Exhibit A: Washington's

success last year in pushing through tough new economic sanctions against Iran to blunt its nuclear ambitions. U.S. and European

Union sanctions reduced Iran's oil exports by about a million barrels a day last year, according to the EIA. The

drop had little lasting impact on prices—an outcome that would have been practically unthinkable a

few years ago, said John Hannah, national-security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney in the second George W. Bush term.¶ The Bush

administration had been wary of moves that could cut Iran's oil exports because of the likely effect on markets and price volatility, according to

Mr. Hannah. "To be able to do what we did last year with *that+ kind of relative price stability…was a real eye -opener for people in the national-

security community," he said.¶ Higher global oil inventories and output, including from the world's top swing producer, Saudi

Arabia, helped moderate market reaction to the lost Iranian barrels. But new U.S. shale-oil and Canadian oil-sands

output provided an extra cushion amid a handful of production outages around the world.¶ Carlos Pascual, the State Department's top energy

official, said increased oil supplies, especially in the U.S., "have been absolutely essential at being able to undertake the

kind of negotiations that we have had with countries around the world to reduce their imports of crude oil from Iran."¶ In the late 1990s, oil

prices started a long rally, climbing more than tenfold over a decade as demand outstripped production growth. Though prices plunged during

the 2008 financial crisis, they soon started up again. The near-perpetual tightness conditioned markets to expect price jumps after even

minimal supply interruptions. That is starting to ease, as U.S. benchmark oil moves in a relatively tight range between roughly $90 and $100 a

barrel—closing regular trading Tuesday at $99.60 a barrel.¶ Big disruptions can still move the price of oil. U.S. benchmark crude topped $100 a

barrel later Tuesday partly on worries about Mideast supply amid protests in Egypt and the threat that the military could intervene there.¶ Still,

price volatility was the lowest last year since at least 2000 for the U.S. and European crude-oil benchmarks, according to an analysis by The Wall

Street Journal that was reviewed by University of Houston professor Craig Pirrong, who studies commodities pricing. So far this year, price

volatility has fallen further. The daily fluctuation is about half that of the early 2000s, Mr. Pirrong said.¶ North America has added about 1.8

million barrels of daily oil production in the past two years. The Paris-based International Energy Agency forecasts the continent as a whole will

add a further 3.9 million barrels of daily output by 2018.¶

In the U.S., the growth is largely due to new drilling methods that reach oil trapped inshale and other rock. In Canada, an explosion of new investment has flowed into extracting heavy crude from quartz-sand deposits. Mexican

production has been basically flat.¶ Though most large oil-consuming nations hold emergency stockpiles, economists track spare production

capacity as the most reliable cushion for supply shocks. Idle pumping capacity that can be called upon quickly resides primarily with members of

the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.¶ The new North American oil production has reduced U.S. imports from OPEC

members—in effect giving OPEC more spare capacity. Economists at Barclays BARC.LN +1.07% PLC figure global spare capacity at about 2.7

million barrels a day, up sharply from 1.5 million barrels a year ago.¶ Certain developments could change this picture. If oil

prices start falling, as some economists forecast, OPEC members would have less incentive to do the spending that keeps so much unused

capacity at the ready. Alternatively, if a pickup in economic activity in big consuming countries drove up their demand, this could reduce the

new global cushion.¶ There also are questions about the economics and geology of the U.S. oil boom itself. The cost of

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324682204578517271965827876.html







trying to do this for 100 years and everyone who has tried to produce oil shale has lost their shirt and broken their pick.”¶ Udall is one of many

people who believe oil shale will never pay off. “Oil shale is kind of a mirage on the highway,” he says. “As you approach it, it recedes further

and further away from you. I compare it to pulling the sword from the stone.”¶ If oil shale is Excalibur, there are still ple nty of people trying to

become the industry's King Arthur. In Utah, EnShale has developed new technology to more efficiently extract oil from the shale by heating it

on the surface. Crushed rock goes in one end – light crude comes out the other. The company has plans on the table for a commercial facility it

claims could produce 15,000 barrels a day. Eesti Energia of Estonia (where oil shale is fueling power plants) is moving into Utah to develop its

version of surface conversion -- “retorting.” And Red Leaf Resources is experimenting with new surface technology that converts shale to oil

with minimal environmental impact.¶ Big companies like Shell, Exxon, Chevron and American Shale Oil are taking a different tack. They are

trying to convert the oil 'in situ' – where it is – underground. They’re spending tens of millions of dollars on research to heat the rock 1,000 feetdeep and release the oil so it can be pumped to the surface with a conventional well. The technology is incredibly complex. Shell has even been

experimenting with a 'freeze wall’ – basically a vertical ice rink – that keeps ground water out of the oil producing area – and vice versa.¶ The

companies say they have ‘proof of concept’ that in situ oil shale conversion is possible. Now the trick is to make it commerc ially viable.¶ And

that’s where they run headlong into environmental concerns. A Rand Corporation study found that producing oil shale will take an enormous

amount of water. And in Colorado and Utah, there is barely enough to go around as it is. The study also found that converting 100,000 barrels

of oil from shale underground every day would take enough power to light a million homes, and that upping production to 1 million barrels a

day would require the construction of 10 new 1200mw power plants.¶ Environmental groups argue that given the failed

promise of oil shale so f ar, it’s just not worth it to try again. ¶

Shale production will fizzle out faster than petroleum production

Ayres 13 (Robert U. Ayres, INSEAD Emeritus Professor of Economics and Political Science and Technology Management , The Novartis

Chair in Management and the Environment, Emeritus; 5/13; “Shale Oil And Gas: The Contrarian View”; 7-13-13)Complicating the issue is the fact that shale gas (and oil) wells peak and decline much more rapidly

than conventional wells. The Bakken play declined about 69 percent in the first year, 39 percent in the

second year, 26 percent in the third year, etc. Based on experience, if no new wells had been drilled after 2010, the Bakken shale oil output

would have declined from the peak of just over 350,000 bbl/day in 2010 to 200,000 bbl/day two years later. (Remember that production at

peak was not all from new wells. It represented a number of older wells that were already declining. This is a much faster rate of decline than

the afore-mentioned 7 percent per annum decline in conventional oil-fields.¶ The longest experience in shale gas comes

from the Barnett shale play under Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. It peaked in 2009, when over 12,000 wells

had been drilled costing US$2 to US$4 million each. Production rates were high at first, but declined rapidly, typically

down 65 percent in the first year.¶ This ratcheting up and down explains why drilling for gas in the US trebled from 2000 to 2009,

while the quantity of gas recovered remained virtually constant. Drilling for oil in the US in 2012 was at the rate of 25,000 new wells per year,

just to keep output at the same level as it was in the year 2000, when only 5,000 wells were drilled.¶ Will shale oil and gas prompt a major shift

of global petrochemical operations from Europe to the U.S.? Given that a state-of-the art petrochemical plant probably costs several billion

dollars, I doubt it.



AT: Peak Oil

No oil shortage- it’s an industry myth to encourage high prices

Connor 8 *Steve is an award winning science editor for The Independent, “Oil shortage a myth, says

industry insider”, 6/9/8, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/oil-shortage-a-myth-says-industry-insider-842778.html] RLY

There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a

former industry adviser who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven

reserves are calculated.¶ Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where

oil production has peaked and proven reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this

idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry man who is now chief

executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry.¶ Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billion

barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less

than half of what actually exists.¶ The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time

high, sending jitters through the market and prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase

supply to push down costs.¶ Flying into Japan for a summit two days after prices reached a record

$139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries yesterday discussed an action plan to ease

the crisis.¶ Explaining why the published estimates of proven global reserves are less than half the

true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers were glad to go

along with under-reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil

industry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision

makers in both the companies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil

reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said.¶ Dr Pike's assessment does not include

unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit.

Peak oil theory wrong - multiple reasons

Hossein-zadeh 8 *Ismael is a professor of economics at Drake. “Are they really oil wars?” Asia Times. 6/25/8.http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html] RLY

Peak Oil theory is based on a number of assumptions and omissions that make it less than

reliable. To begin with, it discounts or disregards the fact that energy-saving technologies have

drastically improved (and will continue to further improve) the efficiency of oil consumption.

Evidence shows that, for example, "over a period of five years (1994-99), US GDP expanded over

20% while oil usage rose by only 9%. Before the 1973 oil shock, the ratio was about one to one."

[4]¶ Second, Peak Oil theory pays scant attention to the drastically enabling new technologies

that have made (and will continue to make) possible discovery and extraction of oil reserves

that were inaccessible only a short time ago. One of the results of the more efficient means of

research and development has been a far higher success rate in finding new oil fields. The success

rate has risen in 20 years from less than 70% to over 80%. Computers have helped to reduce thenumber of dry holes. Horizontal drilling has boosted extraction. Another important development

has been deep-water offshore drilling, which the new technologies now permit. Good examples

are the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and more recently, the promising offshore oil fields of West

Africa. [5]¶ Third, Peak Oil theory also pays short shrift to what is sometimes called non-

conventional oil. These include Canada's giant reserves of extra-heavy bitumen that can be

processed to produce conventional oil. Although this was originally considered cost inefficient,

experts working in this area now claim that they have brought down the cost from over US$20 a

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/oil-shortage-a-myth-says-industry-insider-842778.html



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html





barrel to $8 per barrel. Similar developments are taking place in Venezuela. It is thanks to

developments like these that since 1970, world oil reserves have more than doubled, despite the

extraction of hundreds of millions of barrels. [6]¶ Fourth, Peak Oil thesis pays insufficient

attention to energy sources other than oil. These include solar, wind, non-food bio-fuel, and

nuclear energies. They also include natural gas. Gas is now about 25% of energy demand

worldwide. It is estimated that by 2050 it will be the main source of energy in the world. A

number of American, European, and Japanese firms are investing heavily in developing fuel cells

for cars and other vehicles that would significantly reduce gasoline consumption. [7]¶ Fifth,

proponents of Peak Oil tend to exaggerate the impact of the increased oil demand coming from

China and India on both the amount and the price of oil in global markets. The alleged disparity

between supply and demand is said to be due to the rapidly growing demand coming from China

and India. But that rapid growth in demand is largely offset by a number of counterbalancing

factors. These include slower growth in US demand due to its slower economic growth, efficient

energy utilization in industrially advanced countries, and increases in oil production by members

of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia, and others.¶ Finally, and perhaps

more importantly, claims of "peaked and dwindling" oil are refuted by the available facts and

figures on global oil supply. Statistical evidence shows that there is absolutely no supply-

demand imbalance in global oil markets. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of Peak Oiland champions of war and militarism, the current oil price shocks are a direct consequence of the

destabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the Middle East, not oil shortages. These include

not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the threat of a looming war against Iran. The

record of soaring oil prices shows that anytime there is a renewed US military threat against Iran,

fuel prices move up several notches.

We will never run out of oil

Mann 13*Charles is a contributing editor for The Atlantic. “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” 4/24/13. The

Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-

oil/309294/?single_page=true] RLYAt the same time, the industry learned how to burrow farther into the Earth, opening up

previously inaccessible deposits. In 1998, an oil rig near the Kern River field drilled thousands of

feet deeper than any previous attempt in the area. At 17,657 feet, the well blew out in a classic

gusher. Flames shot 300 feet in the air. The blast destroyed the well and everything else on the

site. Even after the fire burned out, petroleum flooded from the hole for another six months.

Energy firms guessed that the blowout hinted at the presence of big new oil-and-gas deposits.

Earlier assessments had missed them because of their great depth. Investors rushed in and

began to drill.¶ To McKelveyan social scientists, such stories demonstrate that oil reserves should

not be thought of as physical entities. Rather, they are economic judgments: how much

petroleum experts believe can be harvested from given areas at an affordable price. Even as

companies drain off the easy oil, innovation keeps pushing down the cost of getting the rest.

From this vantage, the race between declining oil and advancing technology determines the size

of a reserve—not the number of hydrocarbon molecules in the ground. Companies that

scrambled to follow the Kern River gusher found millions of barrels of deep oil, but it was mixed

with so much water that they couldn’t stop the wells from flooding. Within a few years, almost all

the new rigs ceased operation. The reserve vanished, but the oil remained.¶ This perspective has a

corollary: natural resources cannot be used up. If one deposit gets too expensive to drill, social

scientists (most of them economists) say, people will either find cheaper deposits or shift to a

different energy source altogether. Because the costliest stuff is left in the ground, there will

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/?single_page=true






always be petroleum to mine later. “When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?” asked

the MIT economist Morris Adelman, perhaps the most important exponent of this view. “The

best one-word answer: never.” Effectively, energy supplies are infinite.



NATO solves terrorism

New NATO policies solve terrorism

Santamato and Beumler 13

Institute for National Strategic Studies¶ National Defense University¶ The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) isNational ¶ Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes ¶ the Center for Strategic Research, Center for

Complex Operations, ¶ Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for ¶ Technology and National Security Policy,

and Conflict Records ¶ Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who ¶ comprise INSS and its subcomponents

execute their mission by ¶ conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in ¶ conferences, policy support, and

outreach.¶ The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary ¶ of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, and the Unified ¶ Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU ¶ and to perform outreach to

other U.S. Government agencies and the ¶ broader national security community.As the new guidelines unfold, describing and defining the operational framework in which ¶ the Alliance will develop its contribution to

countering terrorism, they translate into policy ¶ NATO’s innovative approach to security introduced by the 2010

Strategic Concept.¶ To begin with, the guidelines have the great merit of not shying away from the

intrinsic ¶ complexity of dealing with the terrorist threat and recognize from the outset that the

primary ¶ responsibility in countering terrorism rests with “civilian” law enforcement and judicial

authorities. The key word in this respect is complementarity. With its new policy guidance, NATO accepts that its role in countering thethreat complements, and is complemented by, the mandates ¶ of other national and international organizations.¶ Another important aspect of

the guidelines is the introduction of a broader concept of ¶ countering terrorism, through the inclusion of the notions of prevention and

resilience.33 In enlarging the concept, the guidelines expand the extent of NATO’s contribution to

countering terrorism, as defined by the Lisbon Summit Declaration, beyond deterrence, defense, disruption, ¶ and protection.34 This

is also consistent with NATO’s approach to emerging security challenges, ¶ as introduced by the

Alliance Cyber-Defense policy.3510 ¶ Also worthy of notice is the inclusion, at the end of paragraph 4, of the guidelines’

goal to ¶ enable a more effective use of NATO resources through clear direction, enhanced

coordination, ¶ and greater consistency of efforts. This reference is intended to meet the Strategic Concept’s ¶ commitment

to “continuous reform towards a more effective, efficient and flexible Alliance, so ¶ that our [NATO] taxpayers get the most security for the

money they invest in defense. The stated aim of NATO’s Policy Guidelines on Counterterrorism is to move

beyond a ¶ mere restatement of the Strategic Concept and to avoid defining NATO’s role in

counterterrorism in a way that may limit its contribution. The aim is to anchor NATO’s

counterterrorism ¶ activities to its stated core tasks of collective defense, crisis management, and

collective security, ¶ thus reaffirming its ideological adherence to a comprehensive approach to crisis management.37¶ This is an

important aspect of the guidelines. As pointed out by Dr. Jamie Shea, NATO’s Deputy ¶ Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security

Challenges, “The Alliance has learned to ¶ work with the United Nations and its agencies on the ground to integrate civilian priorities ¶ into

military tasks *emphasis added+.”38 The new policy guidelines on counterterrorism confirm ¶ NATO’s ambition to

extend both the concept and the practice of its Comprehensive Approach ¶ to emerging security

challenges.¶ In terms of concept, the guidelines recognize civilian leadership in countering terrorism, ¶ thus inverting the Comprehensive

Approach equation to focus on NATO’s value added to nonmilitary priorities.39 In practice, the guidelines’ aim is to focus not o nly on improved

“awareness” of the threat and on providing “adequate capabilities” to address it, but also on “engaging” ¶ with other partners at the national or

international level. To quote Dr. Shea again, in the future, ¶ “NATO’s military organization and capabilities . . . will need to be coordinated with

domestic police, health, and emergency management agencies and organizations like the European ¶ Union. So, NATO’s progress in practically

embracing the new challenges will depend upon its ¶ capacity for effective networking *emphasis added+.”40¶ Against these premises, the

new approach of the policy guidelines consists in providing ¶ strategic and risk-informed direction to

NATO’s counterterrorism activities based on clearly ¶ identified principles and value-added initiatives

to enhance prevention and resilience.¶ As far as principles are concerned, the policy guidelines rest on three pillars: compliance

¶ with international law, NATO support to Allies, and nonduplication and complementarity.



NATO solves hotspot wars

NATO HIGH FLEXIBLE, SOLVES WMD PROLIFERATION, TERRORISM AND WAR

ROBERTSON, NATO Secretary General, 2003 Lord Robertson, Speech at the 9th Conference de Montreal

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s030506a.htm

In our increasingly globalised world, instability cannot be confined to the areas in which it

originates. It affects us all, wherever we live. Take Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, it exported instability to its neighbours, drugs to

Europe, terrorism and refugees throughout the world. And if the international community does not remain fully engaged, we can expect

the same symptoms of overspill to reappear. The scale of threats has also increased. Today terrorism is more international, more

apocalyptic in its vision, and far more lethal. And despite the best efforts of our diplomats and counter-

proliferation experts, the spread of bio-chemical and nuclear weapons is already a defining security

challenge of this new century. If not addressed, it will put more fingers on more triggers. And

because not all of these fingers will belong to rational leaders, traditional deterrents will not always

deter. All this adds up to a guaranteed supply chain of instability. It adds up to a security

environment in which threats can strike at anytime, without warning, from anywhere and using

any means, from a box-cutter to a chemical weapon to a missile. In the months leading to Prague, NATO’s 19

member countries demonstrated that they understood the nature of this challenge and wereunited in a common response to it. What this has meant in practice for the Alliance can be summarised under three

headings: new roles, new relationships and new capabilities. NATO is worth retaining only if it is relevant. It evolved successfully

in the 1990s to engage former adversaries across the old Soviet bloc and then to deal with instability and ethnic cleansing in the

Balkans. Now NATO is radically changing again to play important new roles in the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

It already provides the common glue of military interoperability without which multinational

operations of any kind would be impossible. Canada’s Joint Task Force 2 and Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry

were able to operate effectively against the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan only because of decades of cooperation in NATO. After

9/11, NATO also played a supporting role in actions against Al Qaida. Most importantly, however, NATO at Prague became the

focal point for planning the military contribution against terrorism, a major new role and one

which no other organization in the world could play. In doing so, we have put an end to decades of arid theological

debate about whether the Alliance could operate outside Europe. NATO now has a mandate to deal with threats from

wherever they may come.

NATO Key to solve or dampen all major global conflicts

HAGEL, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, a Republican, and member of the Senate Committee on Foreign

Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence, 2001 Chuck, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0604/ijpe/hagel.htm

The threat to NATO today does not come from great powers, but from weak ones. Terrorism finds

sanctuary in failed or failing states, in unresolved regional conflicts, and in the misery of endemic

poverty and despair. No single state, including the United States, even with its vast military and economic power,

can meet these challenges alone. The struggle in which we are now engaged is a g lobal struggle that does not readily conform

to our understanding of military confrontations or alliances of previous eras. It is not a traditional contest of standing armies battling over

territory. Progress must be made in these countries with human rights, good governance, and economic reform, beyond military force,before we can expect lasting security and stability. Military power will continue to play a vital role; however, the future success of

NATO will be determined by its members' ability to deepen and expand their cooperation in the

intelligence, law enforcement, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian fields. Adapting to this new

strategic environment will not come easily or cheaply and will require a new NATO strategic doctrine. As the Alliance adjusts to both an

expanded membership and a new global strategic environment, NATO must address the gaps in military expenditures and capabilities of its

members. The tough decisions cannot continue to be deferred. It is essential that NATO members not

allow themselves to drift into adversarial relationships over disagreements. The challenges and

differences that will always exist among members must be resolved inside - not outside — of



NATO. NATO can only be undermined by its own internal distractions. President Bush has offered a

plan for the Greater Middle East that is potentially historic in scope, and conveys the strategic importance of

this region for American foreign policy. America's support for freedom in the Greater Middle East must be matched with operational

programs of partnership with the peoples and governments of the region to promote more democratic politics and more open economies.

NATO is critical to this success. Let me suggest five specific areas where NATO can play a larger role in

bringing security and stability to the Greater Middle East: Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, the

Mediterranean, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Tom Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the NewYork Times, has described this era in world politics as a "hinge of history." And Turkey hangs on that hinge. Our course of action with Arab

and Islamic societies must emphasize building bridges rather than digging ditches — and the NATO Alliance can provide that mechanism.

As Europe and NATO have reached out to a united Germany and the states of the former Warsaw Pact, we must now ensure that we apply

the same inclusive approach to Turkey. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO. Its government has been a strong and

honest force for the people of Turkey. It deserves credit and recognition for this effort. Turkey is also a cultural and geographic bridge to

the Arab and Islamic world. By drawing Turkey closer, the Atlantic Alliance will have a better chance of

encouraging continued political and economic reforms and improving the prospects for resolution

of disputes involving that country. If we were to push Turkey away, we would jeopardize our

interests in bringing peace and stability to the entire region. In Afghanistan, the Loya Jirga recently

completed drafting a new constitution that sets a course for elections later this year and holds the promise of a democratic transition and

the rule of law. The government of President Hamid Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have come a long way in the past two years. But the job in Afghanistan is far from complete. Reconstituted Taliban and al-Qaeda forces continue to

threaten the fragile progress that has been made there.



NATO solves German prolif

Perception of a weak NATO causes German proliferation.

GOSE USAF, 1996 MAJ MARK N. THE NEW GERMANY AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE http://www.fas.org/news/germany/gose.html

Various interviews and surveys suggest that German political leaders and the overall population alike believe

that the uncertainty of the near future in Europe clearly dictates caution and that the West should remain extremely wary of forcing real

changes within the current alliance structure. Advocates of this option assume that downsizing the existing German forces to meet new

budgetary and political demands can be done while still relying on the traditional NATO model. The focus then is on making little change,

but if needed, making change in small increments. In addition, this "continuity model" dictates that limited nuclear deterrents remain on

German territory as both a sign of "trust" in the new Germany as well as a continued indication of US and

NATO commitment to the defense of Germany. This option then is predicated upon a continuation

of a viable and robust NATO, able to cope with the changing security equations in Europe. To

accomplish that, the United States must stay coupled to Europe and the alliance. In this situation, there is little to no German motivation

for obtaining unilateral nuclear capability. Option 2: Prepare for the End of NATO This option recognizes that NATO may decrease in

importance as it tries to adapt to the new security environment in Europe or that it may even lose its raison d'etre as a military entity. The

alliance may become more of a political consultative mechanism in the shortterm and may fade away completely in the longterm.

Reliance on American nuclear guarantees would remain as long as the Atlantic alliance endured.

But with the first indications otherwise, the Germans would probably begin serious discussionsabout the future of nuclear deterrence based upon the threat environment at that time. The

possibility of unilateral German nuclear forces would probably enter into these discussions. However,

the rationale or justification for adopting this option would remain relatively benign as long as there were some chance that the alliance

would continue. Thus, given this option, there is low to moderate motivation to actually ob tain nuclear capability; in short, as an issue of

discussion it may become more salient, but resulting actions would probably not occur.

Proliferation causes extinction.

Taylor, Senior Writer with the National Journal and contributing editor at Newsweek, 20 02Stuart Jr., Legai Times, September 16, L/N

The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation another five or ten

potentially unstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one ormore bombs will be set off on our soil by terrorists or terrorist governments. Even an airtight missile defense

will be useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. Unless we get serious about stopping

proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states where every crisis

threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day," and

where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations," So writes

Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful

Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

http://www.fas.org/news/germany/gose.html

http://www.fas.org/news/germany/gose.html



NATO k/t to hegemony

Collapse of NATO cohesion kills U.S. hegemony

Binnendijk and Kugler 4 Theodore Roosevelt Chair in National Security Policy and Direction of the Center

for Technology and National Security Policy and Distinguished Research Professor at the Center for Technology andNational Security Policy with specialty in U.S. defense strategy, 2004 (Hans and Richard, “The Next Phase of

Transformation: A New Dual-Track Strategy for NATO” from Transatlantic Transformations, SP)

The damaging effects of NATO collapse would extend far beyond the war on terrorism into the

strategic realm of traditional security affairs. For the United States, loss of NATO would be a more

serious setback than advocates of unilateralism realize. At a minimum, the United States would lose

influence over Europe’s evolution and would face even greater anti-Americanism. In other regions, the

United States might not have its wings clipped to the degree envisioned by some Europeans—a global

superpower has many other friends—but it would suffer from the loss of political legitimacy that European

and NATO support often gives to its endeavors in the Middle East and elsewhere . Although France,

Germany, and a few others criticized the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, fully 75 per cent of current and

prospective NATO members gave vocal political support to it. Such strong support would be less likely in a

world without NATO. Militarily, the United States would lose valuable infrastructure in Europe that ishelpful in projecting power to distant regions. The United States also would be damaged in crises and

wars that require allied force contributions. In theory, the United States could still draw upon friendly

European countries to create ad hoc coalitions of the willing. But if NATO no longer exists, few countries may

be willing to join U.S.-led coalitions. Also important, their military forces might be less able to work

closely with U.S. forces because NATO no longer would provide them the necessary interoperability.



NATO solves Russia/Europe War

NATO solves Russia war and Central European conflicts

Ball, British International Studies Association, 1998 (Christopher L., “Nattering NATO negativism? Reasons why

expansion may be a good thing,” Review of International Studies,http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0260210598000436 , SP)

If Russia is potentially hostile, other scholars call for expansion only if Russia actually behaves aggressively. In

essence, they call for a tit-for-tat strategy of cooperating by not expanding NATO now, but expanding it later if

Russia proves aggressive.18 The trouble with this strategy is that the barnyard door is closed after the horses have

left. Once Russia has became clearly aggressive, it may be too late to deter it. First, Russia might

already have formed a paper-tiger image of the West, and not believe that any new commitments are

credible.19 Second, psychological theories provide some evidence that earlier deterrent commitments

are more likely to be heeded than threats made after a challenger is committed to use force.20 After

leaders decide to challenge, they may have a motivated error to discount the credibility of deterrent threats. A

NATO commitment might fail if Russia were already committed to advance. Third, trying to develop an

effective defence plan to deter Russia might prove difficult over a short period. The necessary

weapons interoperability, doctrines, and training might be so disparate that fast and effectivecooperation would be impossible. While the Partnership for Peace programme would help alleviate this

problem, it is not a substitute for the coordination that would occur under NATO. The West might be forced to

rapidly deploy large units in Central Europe during a crisis. But placing large NATO forces in these

countries during a crisis might trigger a war, not deter one. Of course, expansion opponents could point out

that deterrence may be dangerous where domestic political instability or strategic vulnerability lead to motivated

and cognitive distortions.21 Instead of dissuading a potential challenger, they may magnify the incentives to

challenge. In this case, the expansion of NATO will prompt Russian challenges. But it is unlikely that

deterrence attempts after the challenge would be any more effective. Expanding NATO later would only

exacerbate any crisis. To argue that NATO can expand later is only compelling as a political cover for

abandoning Central Europe if Russia becomes aggressively revisionist.

http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0260210598000436







China gaining influence now

China is filling the void of US decrease in Latin America

Mallen 13 (Patricia Rey Mallen; two BAs from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, in Media & Film

Studies and Modern Languages, and an MA in International Reporting from CUNY Graduate School ofJournalism; 6-28-13; “Latin America Increases Relations With China: What Does That Mean For The

US?”; 7-12-13)

As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower, China is

gaining influence in its hemispheric "backyard," Secretary of State John Kerry's unintentionally insulting

designation for Latin America.¶ China has had its sights on Latin America for the past decade and is now

positioning itself as a competitive trade partner in the region. The populous, rapidly developing Asian

nation covets oil, soybeans and gold, of which Latin America has plenty, and has been slowly but steadily

increasing its presence and its trade with several countries there.¶ The U.S., whose history of blocking

outside political influence in Latin America going back to the Monroe Doctrine, has been directing its

attention elsewhere, as Michael Cerna of the China Research Center observed. “[The U.S.'] attention of

late has been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Latin America fell lower and lower on America’s

list of priorities. China has been all too willing to fill any void,” Cerna said.



Iran Adv XTs





weigh the costs (such as U.S. disapproval, perceptions of hypocrisy, and danger of Iranian covert action)

against the benefits (such as standing up against the U.S. and commercial advantage). For the

foreseeable future, Iran will pursue relations with the region's democracies via a mix of Persian

charm, trade and commercial offers, and secretiveness.

Sanctions are pushing Iran to expand its influence in Latin America

Simeone 13Southcom Chief: Iran Working to Expand Influence in Latin America¶ By Nick Simeone American Forces

Press Service US Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119586

WASHINGTON, March 20, 2013 – U.S. Southern Command’s top officer told Congress today that Iran is actively

working to expand its presence in Latin America to cultivate allies at a time when Tehran is facing

tough U.S and international sanctions for its alleged nuclear weapons program.¶ Marine Corps Gen.

John F. Kelly told the House Armed Services Committee that Iran “has been very, very active over the

last few years” in cultivating diplomatic and cultural ties to the region, especially by befriending

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died earlier this month .¶ “They’ve opened embassies, they’ve

opened cultural centers,” he testified, adding that on the surface, all of this appears to be normal. ¶ “But to what end is obviously the

issue,” he told the House panel.¶ Kelly told lawmakers he could discuss details about what the Iranian government’s goals might be only in a

closed session. He mentioned Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina as countries that have been the target ofIran’s diplomatic and economic outreach.¶ Despite Iran’s outreach to countries that he said have interests unfavorable to the

United States, the general cast Iran’s overtures as being far from successful and described a region as largely uninterested in Tehran’s

diplomatic engagement.¶ “The region as a whole has not been receptive to Iranian efforts,” Kelly said in his prepared testimony. But he

cautioned that Iran’s allies, including Hezbollah, have established a presence in several Latin-American

countries to deadly effect, recalling that Iran and Hezbollah were blamed for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in

Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed more than 80 people.¶ “Proselytizers with ties to global Islamic groups are attempting to radicalize and

recruit among the Muslim communities throughout the region,” he said, adding that the United States and its partners “should be extremely

concerned whenever external extremist groups or state sponsors of terrorism see the Western Hemisphere as attractive or, even worse,

vulnerable.”¶ Kelly pointed out that Venezuelan government officials have been sanctioned for providing financial support to Hezbollah, as well

as for supporting rebels in neighboring Colombia.¶ Kelly said China is another country far outside Latin America that wants to compete with the

United States for influence in the region, and is very engaged economically, “buying commodities in a big way and also investing in port

facilities.” This, he added, is all the more reason for the United States to continue working to strengthen partnerships in the region.

Iran investing billions to improve Latin American relations nowShoichet 12Iran's president looks to Latin America as global sanctions grow¶ By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN¶ updated

3:24 PM EST, Sun January 8, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/08/world/meast/iran-latin-america-

ties

(CNN) -- Beef from Brazil is on Iranian dinner tables. An Iranian-built hospital treats patients near Bolivia's capital.

Iranian-funded factories dot the Venezuelan countryside.¶ Iran has forged hundreds of agreements

with Latin American nations and pledged billions of dollars to fund them.¶ More deals could be in

store this week as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad embarks on a trip that starts in

Venezuela on Sunday and includes stops in Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.¶ Well before the Iranian leader's arrival

in Caracas, his plans for a Latin America tour grabbed global attention as tensions grow between many Western powers and Iran over the

nation's nuclear program.¶ "As the regime feels increasing pressure, it is desperate for friends and flailing

around in interesting places to find new friends," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters

Friday.¶ But analysts say Ahmadinejad's visit is the latest step in a longstanding, calculated effort to shore up support in the region.¶ As Iran

strives to improve its image, get around stiffening sanctions, dampen America's global influence and secure a stronger foothold in the United

States' backyard, relationships with Latin American countries have become increasingly important.¶ Iran's

state-run Press TV described cooperation with Latin American nations as one of the "top priorities of

the Islamic Republic's foreign policy" in a recent article about this week's trip.¶ "Iran has an extremely active

diplomatic move afoot," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington.¶

'Cultural ties'¶ Last month, a film portraying the life of Mary and the birth of Jesus from an Islamic point of

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119586






view beamed out over international airwaves -- in Spanish.¶ The movie was the first program aired on

HispanTV, according to a report in the Tehran Times.¶ And the target audience was thousands of miles away from the government-

sponsored broadcasting hub in Iran's capital.¶ At a ceremony marking the station's official launch last month, HispanTV's managers

said the new Spanish network aims to paint a true picture of Iran and link the Islamic republic with

Latin America.¶ Other Spanish-language channels are "not independent and only serve the interest of the United States and certain

allies," said Mohammed Sarafraz, director of Iranian broadcasting's world service, according to Press TV. "It's all about cultural ties

between Iran and the Spanish-speaking community," network manager Ali Ejaredar told a Press TV reporter.¶ Online

previews of upcoming programming include videos showing scenic stretches of the Iranian countryside, bustling marketplaces and Persian

calligraphy. An analyst on one program criticizes Western imperialism, saying "five countries cannot decide the destiny of the world." A guest

on another show slams U.S. immigration laws.¶ Spanish-language headlines on the network's website last week described Israeli spies, foreign

intervention in Syria, a report that Japan plans to "disobey" U.S. sanctions against Iran and an allegation that airport security screening

machines in the United States cause death.¶ Stephen Johnson, who directs the Americas program at the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, compared Iran's efforts to use the media to improve its image

abroad to the U.S.-government-funded Voice of America radio network.¶ "They're taking a page out of our

playbook," he said.¶ Despite Iran's overtures, there are still rifts to overcome, Johnson said.¶ Some high-profile missteps have accompanied

Iran's increasing forays into Latin America, he said. A requirement that female employees wear the hijab at an Iran-funded hospital in El Alto,

Bolivia, drew criticism from local officials. Uruguay's foreign minister condemned statements by an Iranian ambassador who told reporters in

the South American country that figures saying that millions died in the Holocaust were false.¶ Last year, Iran received the lowest ranking out of

nine countries in the Latinobarometro public opinion survey, based on interviews of more than 20,000 residents in 18 Latin American countries

(not including Cuba). Only 25% of those surveyed said they viewed Iran as "good" or "very good," while 72% said they viewed the United States

positively.¶ "I think with Iran, it's a question of trust as to what are they up to, and what are their nuclear objectives," Johnson said.¶



AT: Iran DA



AT: Iran DA---Pressure Now

High pressure from new round of sanctions in the squo

Layla Oghabian 07/11/13 Escalating Iran Sanctions Could Damage Hopes for New Beginning,

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/jul/1095.html Washington, DC - On Monday, July 1 new Executive and Congressional sanctions on Iran, put in place

before Iran’s recent elections, came into force. These new sanctions target the shipping and

automobile sectors, financial transactions involving gold, and holdings of Iran’s currency, the rial.

These latest sanctions come amid a growing debate over whether sanctions could undermine

diplomatic opportunities and moderates within Iran in the wake of Iran’s recent elections. However,

there is little sign that the sanctions will abate, with the House of Representatives considering a floor

vote on new, sweeping sanctions in the weeks before Iran’s President-elect, Hassan Rouhani, even

enters office.¶

Pressure now—brand new sanctions

World Bulletin 7-9-13US intensifies pressure on Iran with new set of sanction,

shttp://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=112781

The US administration has announced a new wave of Sanctions against Iran implemented on July 1, aiming to

dissuade Tehran from pursuing a nuclear program that the West suspects is meant to produce

weapons.¶ With the 9th package of new Sanctions on Iran approved by US President Barack Obama, the US aims to reduce

global trade with Iran in various sectors, such as the automotive and petro-chemical industries, targeting Iran’s second largest

source of foreign revenue.¶ The new Sanctions also target Iran’s Rial currency for the first time by prospecting financial restrictions on the

banks making larger transactions with Rial, and on individuals and institutions possessing sheer volumes of Rial. The goal is to reduce the

amount of Rial in global financial transactions.¶ With the aim of restricting Iran’s capacity to overcome Sanctions, the US also prohibits the

selling and transferring of precious metals. As of July 1, it is only possible to purchase oil and/or natural gas if the

customer pays the price in an open bank account which Iran could use by selling or purchasing legal

goods and service.¶ Sanctions include some restrictions on energy, port management, transportation

and the ship building sectors. The 9th package also contains punishment for the companies selling or supplying graphite, aluminum,

steel and products related to ship building and nuclear energy to Iran.

Pressure now, won’t solve

ZeeNews ‘13 US sanctions complicate nuclear issue: Iran, http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/us-sanctions-

complicate-nuclear-issue-iran_859746.html

Tehran: Iran has criticised the latest US sanctions which came into effect Monday, and said that imposing fresh

sanctions only complicates its nuclear issue. ¶ "There is no doubt that the imposition of new sanctions is a failed policy, and

we are surprised to see that the US government and its allies repeat the wrong and failed policy," Xinhua reported, citing an Iranian foreign

ministry spokesperson. ¶ The new US sanctions, aimed to put further pressure on Iran over its controversial

nuclear programme, ban gold sales to and trades in gold with the Islamic republic, and put furtherembargo on its shipping and automobile sectors. ¶ To circumvent Western financial sanctions which restrict money return in

exchange for energy exports, Iran is believed to have received gold from its natural gas and oil customers.¶ ¶ "The intensification of

sanctions is not a solution to Iran's nuclear issue and will not help settle it," spokesperson Abbas Araqchi said,

adding that "lifting sanctions can help resolve the issue and serve as a confidence-building measure"



AT: Iran DA Plan k/t solve Iran nuclearization

Oil dependence forces policy choices to prevent Iran nuclear program solvency

Hannah ’12

John Hannah is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. How Oil DependenceUndermines America’s Effort to Stop the Iranian Bomb, 15 Oct

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/how-oil-dependence-undermines-americas-effort-to-stop-

the-iranian-bomb/#sthash.UHO2Ad80.dpuf

Concerns about oil prices have often badly distorted U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The most

acute example is the effort to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. U.S. policymakers have

long known that the most effective step we could take against the mullahs is to cut off Iran's oil sales and

starve them of the enormous revenues they need to keep their repressive regime afloat. Yet for years,

first President Bush and then President Obama fiercely resisted sanctioning the Islamic Republic's petroleum sector.

The reason? Because they quite legitimately feared that removing Iranian crude from the market would disrupt

global supplies and trigger a devastating price shock. Only in late 2011, with Iran rapidly approaching the nuclear

threshold, did Congress finally steamroll the administration by forcing through legislation that targeted Iranian oil. Even

then, implementation of the sanctions was watered down. The administration was given a six-month grace period to

assess the possible impact that sanctions would have on the global oil market. And rather than demanding that customers of

Iranian oil end their purchases entirely, countries were granted waivers from U.S. sanctions if they only

"significantly reduced" their buy -- which in practice required them to cut back between 15 and 20 percent. While the U.S. effort, together with

complimentary EU sanctions, have no doubt had a major effect on Iran's economy -- reducing its oil exports by as much as 50 percent -- a full

embargo would have been far more impactful and the obvious course of action for Washington to

pursue if not for the countervailing concern about oil markets. In the meantime, the Iranian regime continues to

pocket perhaps $3 billion per month from the million or so barrels of oil that it still exports daily, all the while pressing ahead with its nuclear

program.



No Iran Strikes Now

The U.S. will not strike Iran

Wood 12

David Wood. 2/15/12. “Iran Nuclear Threat Brings No U.S. Enthusiasm For A Military Strike”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/iran-nuclear-threat-us-military_n_1277566.html

WASHINGTON -- The threat of punishing U.S. military strikes underlies Washington's campaign to halt

Iran's nuclear weapons program. But there is no enthusiasm evident within the U.S. military for a war

many believe would be messy, bloody, unpredictable and ultimately inconclusive. Seeking to prevent

Iran from building nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama has focused on coordinating international

economic pressure against Iran and moved to strengthen economic sanctions just last week. But he

warned in the Jan. 24 State of the Union address, "Let there be no doubt: American is determined to

prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that

goal." It's a truism of diplomacy to never to make a threat that you're not prepared to carry out. There is

no doubt that if ordered, the U.S. military would launch devastating attacks against Iran. Whether such

strikes would come along with or instead of Israeli attacks, tactical planning is already under way, as is

done routinely for a variety of potential military operations the Pentagon might be ordered to carry out,

senior officers said. "If called upon, I have no doubt that the armed forces of the United States will deal

with whatever contingencies might unfold there," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last

week when asked about a possible military confrontation with Iran. But Gen. Martin Dempsey, the

crusty Army general who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff , told National Journal last month that a war

with Iran "would be really destabilizing ... I personally believe that we should be in the business of

deterring [war] as a first priority," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/obama-iran-executive-order_n_1257186.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/dempsey-premature-to-use-military-force-against-iran-20120126

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/dempsey-premature-to-use-military-force-against-iran-20120126

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/obama-iran-executive-order_n_1257186.html



AT: China DA



US pushing out China now

US trying to pushout China now

Padgett 5/27 (Tim, He is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America

and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, for Newsweek as itsMexico City bureau chief , “Why China Is Behind Fresh U.S. Moves In Latin America”,

http://wlrn.org/post/why-china-behind-fresh-us-moves-latin-america)

As a result, the Obama Administration may be more eager than usual to re-engage Latin America and the

Caribbean. The President’s aides argue he was preoccupied with U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in his first term, not to mention the A rab

Spring; but now that so many Latin American countries have become global economic players, say analysts, he understands that

strengthening ties with them helps the U.S. as well .¶ ¶ “The Administration suddenly realizes there is now an economic

power broker element in Latin America,” says Christopher Sabatini, senior director of policy and the Americas Society and Cou ncil of the

Americas in New York.¶ ¶ Colombia just finished the first year of a free trade agreement with the U.S. Now it hopes Biden will announce during

his visit next week that Washington is set to help the South American nation take part in bigger global initiatives like the Trans-Pacific

Partnership (TPP) and win membership in the exclusive, Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).¶ ¶ A

trade and investment gathering in Miami Beach this month hosted by the Colombian Proexport Agency drew a larger

than usual

crowd thanks in no small part

to the buzz about renewed U.S. outreach to Latin America and the

Caribbean.¶ ¶ If that outreach is really serious -- and given the U.S.‘s disappointing track record in its own hemisphere, it’s better to take a wait-

and-see approach -- it could mean a bigger role for Miami as the business nexus of the Americas.¶ ¶ ¶ South Florida trade with Latin

America is already at record highs, topping $60 billion last year. “Miami is very importan t,” says Juan Carlos

Gonzalez, Proexport’s vice president for foreign investment. “It is a major gateway for the U.S. and Latin America.” There

are of course skeptics. I asked Robert Pastor, a former White House national security advisor for Latin America and now an international

relations professor at American University in Washington, D.C., if he thinks the U.S. is doing enough to keep itself relevant in the Americas.¶

“No it’s not,” he says. “President Obama’s trip (to Mexico and Central America) is a good first step, but he needs to do a lo t more to open up

and show America’s interest in re-engaging with the rest of South America.”¶ Pastor has a point: for decades, Latin America has

heard a lot of rhetoric from the U.S. about engagement -- the kind Biden offered the Council of the Americas in

Washington recently, when he declared that the hemisphere “matters more (to the U.S.) today because it has more potential than any time in

American history.”¶ Maybe this time, China has provided enough incentive for Washington to turn that

rhetoric into reality.

The administration is increasing Latin American economic engagement in the squo

Goodman 13 (Joshua, He is a reporter for Bloomberg News in Rio de Janeiro, “Biden Circles Xi as U.S.

Duels China for Latin America Ties” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/biden-circles-xi-as-u-

s-duels-china-for-latin-america-influence.html) Biden’s tour, which began May 26 in Colombia, included a “frank” and at times “brutal” discussion

about trade, economic growth and security with 15 Caribbean leaders in Trinidad yesterday, Prime

Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said, without giving more details. The leaders signed an accord to

boost investment and economic cooperation.¶ “Our country is deeply invested and wants to be more

deeply invested in the region,” Biden said in Port of Spain. Yesterday’s accord “will give us all a vehicle

to overcome special, specific, practical barriers to trade and investment. Our goal is not simply growth,but growth that reaches everyone.”¶ In Colombia, Biden said a one-year-old free-trade agreement

between the two countries is “just the beginning,” citing a doubling of the period for which entry visas

are valid and efforts to expand trade ties further.¶ State Visit¶ The outreach follows President Barack

Obama’s visits in May to Mexico and Costa Rica and precedes talks at the White House in June with the

leaders of Chile and Peru. In October, Obama will host Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to a state

dinner at the White House.¶ U.S. business with the region is brisk even in the absence of a region-wide

free-trade agreement that the U.S. pursued for more than a decade and that anti-U.S. allies of the late



Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez helped bury in 2005.¶ Buoyed by bilateral agreements signed since

then with Peru, Panama and Colombia, U.S. exports to Latin America have more than doubled since

2000 to a record $400 billion last year. The region last year bought 26 percent of U.S. exports, an

increase from 22 percent in 2000.



AT: Renewable Turn



Renewable don’t solve

Renewable energy will not solve climate change

AP '13 "Renewable Energy Won’t Stop Climate Change According to Truthout Interview with Scholar and

Author." Http://www.ereleases.com/ . Associated Press, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 July 2013. <http://www.ereleases.com/pr/renewable-energy-

wont-stop-climate-change-truthout-interview-scholar-author-134921>.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 9, 2013 /PRNewswire/ – Renewable energy is neither clean nor a solution to climate

change according to a new Truthout interview with Ozzie Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of

California – Berkeley and author of the book Green Illusions. Instead of “hyping so -called green energy,” Zehner advocates

redirecting focus to the impacts of a growing human population and consumption. “If we want to

address climate change and the many other consequences of energy production,” remarks Zehner, “we’ll

need to greatly reduce both consumption and the number of people consuming over time.” (Photo:

http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130409/PH90943-a) (Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130409/PH90943-b) Zehner

argues that “there is no such thing as clean energy, but there is such a thing as less energy.” He highlights the disadvantages of

renewable energy technologies such as solar cells, wind turbines, biomass, and electric cars. For instance, he claims, “we

are now learning that the solar cell industry is one of the fastest growing emitters of virulent

greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has a global warming potential 23,000 times higher thanCO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” “There is an impression that we have a choice between

fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines,” Zehner remarks. “That choice is an illusion.” He identifies how

alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels throughout their lifecycles. “Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil

fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular

output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at

all times. Most significantly, alternative energy financing relies on the kind of growth that fossil fuels

drive.” This critique comes on the heels of an Op-Ed by economist Paul Krugman, entitled, “Renewable Energy’s Not -So-Bright Side,” in which

he claims to be “skeptical” about the affordability of “running an all- renewable economy.” Zehner agrees, “there’s a misconception that once

alternative energy technologies get off the ground, they can fly on their own. But alternative energy technologies are better understood as a

product of fossil fuels.” According to Zehner, if there is a silver bullet to address climate change, it is “to envision a prosperous, yet smaller and

less-consuming populace.”

Renewables don’t solve – reducing consumption levels amid population increases is

necessary

Girod, Van Vuuren and Herwich 2013 Girod, Bastien, Detlef P. Van Vuuren, and Edgar G.

Hertwich. Girod - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Van Vuuren - Copernicus Institute of

Sustainable Development. Hertwich - Industrial Ecology Program and Department of Energy and Process

Engineering,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology. "Global Climate Targets and Future Consumption

Level: An Evaluation of the Required GHG Intensity."Http://www.sustec.ethz.ch/ . N.p., 31 Jan. 2013.

Web. 12 July 2013. <http://www.sustec.ethz.ch/people/bgirod/Girod_2013_eva_GHG_intensity.pdf>. This study evaluated the climate mitigation challenge from¶ a consumption perspective, providing a somewhat different¶ perspective on the

mitigation challenge than the usual¶ national- and production-oriented perspectives. Our analysis suggests that a reduction in GHG

intensity of today’s products¶ and consumption patterns by a factor of five is required to be¶ in line

with the 2 C climate target and reduce emissions to¶ 2.1 tCO2-eq. per capita by 2050. Thereby a factor

two stems¶ from the projected increase of consumption level driven by¶ growing population and rising

income levels. Rising income¶ implies the increased intake of animal-sourced calories for¶ food, as well

as increases in air and car travel, cooling demand¶ in shelter and increasingly GHG intensive goods.¶

Compared to the global average, high-income regions¶ must achieve stronger reductions of GHG emission intensity¶ because of these regions’

higher baseline GHG intensity. This¶ is amplified if emissions are allocated equally per capita.¶ In this case, high-income regions must achieve

considerably¶ lower GHG intensities as a result of their high consumption¶ level. A per capita allocation therefore also presents a¶ challenge for

international trade because products that are¶ consistent with global climate goals in low-income regions¶ have too high GHG emissions for



high-income regions.¶ Comparing the GHG intensity with the available and¶ possible future product modification reveals that in many¶ cases,

the climate targets on consumption level can be¶ reached by choosing available products based on

low-carbon¶ technology. However, for meat consumption and air travel,¶ reducing GHG intensity in

order to achieve the 2 C climate¶ target is challenging, and therefore the promotion of changing¶

consumption patterns in these categories might be required.



Military won’t switch to renewables

Military doesn’t care about clean tech- they won’t stop burning coal

Ahearn 6/18/13 Ashley Ahearn got her masters in science journalism at USC, and is now a multimedia journalist, based in Seattle at

KUOW Public Radio. http://earthfix.kuow.org/contributor/ashley-ahearn/

The federal agency in charge of approving Northwest coal export terminals delivered a setback for environmentalists, telling a

congressional panel Tuesday morning that it will not be considering the area-wide effects of transporting coal, or

the global impact of burning it in Asia. The US Army Corps of Engineers is overseeing the environmental review for

the three terminals proposed for Washington and Oregon waterways. Together they could bring 100 million tons of coal a year

to the Asian markets from the Powder River basin of Wyoming and Montana. “The appropriate application of our regulations

have lead us to the conclusion that the effects of the burning of the coal in Asia or wherever it may be is too far

removed from our action to be considered as an indirect effect or a cumulative effect of our action

itself ,” Jennifer Moyer told the House Energy and Power Subcommittee. Moyer is acting chief of the regulatory

program for the US Army Corps of Engineers. The corps also announced that it will not conduct an area-wide

environmental impact assessment. That would take into consideration the cumulative regional impacts of exporting coal through

the Pacific Northwest.



AT: Russia CP



Russia can’t invest

Russia’s economy is faltering, preventing any investment in Venezuela

Rose, 5/22(Scott, Writer for Bloomburg News, “Russia Faces Widening 2014 Budget Deficit, Siluanov

Says,” 5/22/2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/russia-faces-widening-2014-budget-deficit-siluanov-says.html) Russia’s federal budget deficit will probably widen next year more than previously planned as a

weaker economy risks erasing 650 billion rubles ($20.8 billion) in revenue, Finance Minister Anton

Siluanov said. The shortfall will stem from reduced oil and gas revenue as well as a drop in other

earnings, Siluanov told reporters today at the lower house of parliament in Moscow. Spending plans

already set in the three-year budget for 2014 and 2015 won’t be reduced, meaning the deficit will

probably increase, he said. The economy of the world’s largest energy exporter, which counts on

income f rom oil and gas sales for about half of the budget’s revenue, is expanding at the weakest pace

since a 2009 contraction. Weakening growth is hurting tax intake this year, which may keep the

government from sending planned extra revenue to the Reserve Fund, Andrei Makarov, a lawmaker

with the ruling United Russia party, said at a hearing today. “The forecast we adopted indicates lower

budget revenue, because economic growth and the volume of imports are revised downward, while the

ruble’s exchange rate is seen stronger,” Siluanov said.

More evidence – recession is coming

Weaver, 5/17(Courtney, “Russian growth declines to slowest rate since 2009 ,” 5/17/2013,

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/646b6c68-bf03-11e2-a9d4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2YrUUIHsX) Russia’s economy grew at 1.6 per cent in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, its slowest

growth rate since 2009, on the back of a fall in investment and lower commodity prices. Friday’s data,

from Russia’s State Statistics Service, is significantly better than the 1.1 per cent growth figure estimated

earlier this year by the Russian economy ministry and beat market expectations. However, Russia is still

looking at significantly reduced economic growth for 2013, with most economists slashing full-year

forecasts. The economy ministry estimates growth will reach just 2.4 per cent for 2013, while last weekthe European Bank for Reconstruction and Development halved its own forecast to 1.8 per cent.

Economists polled by Reuters gave a more optimistic consensus forecast of 2.9 per cent. While

economists first began warning of a slowdown in Russia last autumn, concerns were compounded in

the first quarter of this year, after the country reported close to 0 per cent GDP growth in February,

prompting the economy ministry to warn of a recession.



AT: Keystone XL DA



UQ —No Keystone XL

Keystone XL will be rejected—new Obama rhetoric

Sexton 6-25

John, 2013, “Obama Tees Up Rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline”http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/25/Obama-Tees-Up-Rejection-of-the-Keystone-XL-

Pipeline

In his speech on climate change Tuesday, President Obama seemed to make a turn on whether

or not to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built.¶ President Obama has not previously

declared himself on the issue of allowing Keystone XL, but today he said "allowing the keystone

pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our national interest." The

President added "the net effects of the pipelilne's impact on our climate will be critical to

determining whether this project goes forward."¶ While this is far from a promise to reject the

pipeline it does seem to tee up the primary objection of organizations opposed to its

construction, i.e. that the Canadian tar sands are a dirty energy which harm the environment. ¶ A

Sierra Club handout on the Keystone XL reads "The tar sands are the dirtiest and most carbon

intensive form of oil on earth. Production of a barrel of oil from tar sands (including extraction

and refining) is estimated to release at least three times the greenhouse gas emissions per barrel

as producing a barrel of conventional crude oil. On a lifecycle basis, greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions of tar sands are 17% greater than the average barrel of crude currently "¶ So if the

determination whether or not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline hinges on its impact on the

climate, the President seems to be clearing a path for groups like Sierra to push the argument

they are already making, i.e. that it would be bad for the environment.¶ The President's

statement does have one possible loophole. The real debate is whether or not blocking the

Keystone XL pipeline will make a "net" difference. Pipeline proponents point out that the tar

sands will be processed by Canada whether or not the oil produced flows south to the United

States or out of Canada some other way.¶ The Sierra Club argues this is not the case, "Without the

Keystone XL pipeline, the level of expansion sought by the tar sands industry would not occur. TheCanadian tar sands are currently landlocked in Alberta and all other possible routes to export the

crude are facing resistance."¶ So who will the State Department ultimately believe. Will they

believe the Prime Minister of Canada who says the production will be going forward one way or

another or will they believe the Sierra Club who is suing the administration and promising

"resistance."¶ It's worth noting that the Sierra Club's opposition is not merely to the fractional

difference in extra carbon Keystone XL may represent. Sierra wants to see an end to all "dirty"

energy production, including natural gas. In other words, if it really mattered to Sierra that tar

sands are 17% dirtier it ought to matter that natural gas is more than 17% "cleaner" (than oil). It

does not. Sierra has an all-of-the-above solution to carbon based energy: Stop it all.¶ The

President has not committed himself to siding with the Sierra Club and their allies on Keystone

XL, but his speech does seem to take a step in that direction. If reducing the CO2 concentrationin the atmosphere means more than producing energy or creating jobs, then the outcome is fairly

predictable.

Obama will reject Keystone XL—environment

Webster 6-25Stephen, 2013, “Obama hints that Keystone XL may be rejected”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/25/obama-hints-that-keystone-xl-may-be-rejected/



Speaking to Raw Story, climate activism group 350.org spokesperson Daniel Kessler said Obama’s

comments Tuesday reached “11″ on a one-to-ten scale measuring his level of surprise. “Based on

the president’s own criteria, it’s very unlikely that he could approve the premise of this

pipeline,” he said. “His criteria seems to be if it leads to a net increase of emissions, and

everybody — including the industry — thinks this will lead to an increase in emissions.”¶ Rachel

Wolf, a spokesperson for the anti-Keystone group All Risk, No Reward Coalition, reacted similarly.

“With this promise to the American people to reject the pipeline if it will increase climate

pollution, the President has taken a huge step towards rejecting Keystone XL, given that

evidence has already shown that the pipeline will increase GHG emissions and have serious

climate consequences,” she told Raw Story in a prepared statement.¶ The oil this pipeline is meant

to carry is Canadian tar sands, which requires a much more energy-intensive process to mine,

liquify and transport. It all adds up to about 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than

average light, sweet crude, according to Scientific American.¶ Added, Canada has such a large

reserve of tar sands, it’s been called the second-largest standing pool of trapped carbon energy

left on Earth. Tapping that energy would add massively to greenhouse gas pollution, as the

industry is aiming to produce 6 million barrels of tar sands oil per day by 2030. The numbers are

so daunting that 29 of the nation’s leading scientists joined together earlier this month and issued

an open letter beseeching Obama to turn down the pipeline.¶ The letter specifically calls out aState Department review that concluded in 2011, finding that the pipeline would not significantly

exacerbate the climate crisis. However, critics of that assessment noted that it assumes Canada’s

tar sands will be tapped with or without the Keystone XL pipeline’s construction, effectively

negating the need to even run the equation on how much trapped carbon could potentially be

unleashed.¶ Media reports later revealed that the State Deptartment allowed pipeline owner

TransCanada to screen applicants looking to conduct the environmental impact study. That

drew the ire of two members of Congress, who demanded an investigation into allegedly

improper relationships between State Department employees and TransCanada lobbyists. That

probe is still ongoing at the Office of the Inspector General.¶ Reacting to the speech, former Vice

President Al Gore breathlessly praised the president’s resolve to tackle climate change, calling it

“by far the best address on climate by any president ever.”





The future of oil sands development depends not on whether Keystone XL is approved. It depends on a

sustained high price for waterborne crudes. With heavy Canadian oils trading at a greater than $40/bbl discount to Brent in 2012, it’s no

wonder that rail transport of oil in western Canada is also skyrocketing. Over the past two years —

from the April 2011 through April 2013 — the volume of oil shipped by rail in western Canada nearly

quadrupled, rising from less than 46,000 bpd to more than 177,000 bpd .

Status quo transport projects solve oil sands transportChristian Science Monitor July 8, 2013The Keystone XL pipeline is irrelevant, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-

Voices/2013/0708/The-Keystone-XL-pipeline-is-irrelevant

Logistical constraints haven’t thus far prevented oil sands production from growing exponentially for

the past two decades. In just the past 10 years, Canadian oil sands production has grown by 1 million

bpd. This didn’t happen because Canada had a million barrels of spare pipeline capacity 10 years ago. It

happened because many logistical projects were executed as production increased.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0708/The-Keystone-XL-pipeline-is-irrelevant






Alternative Refining Solves Keystone XL

Expanding Midwest and West Coast Refining and Rail Capacity Solve for Keystone XL

Christian Science Monitor July 8, 2013

The Keystone XL pipeline is irrelevant, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0708/The-Keystone-XL-pipeline-is-irrelevant

One variant of the argument against rail replacing Keystone XL has been to look at only the oil flowing

from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. Since that is a much smaller number than what the Keystone XL would

transport, the argument is that rail is therefore simply incapable of replacing Keystone XL. That misses

a very important point, because it only counts oil that is getting to the Gulf Coast. Oil that is

transported by rail to a Midwestern or West Coast refinery — possibly backing out crude being piped

up from the Gulf Coast, wouldn’t be counted in this scenario. But it’s not that the oil must flow to the

Gulf Coast. It must simply flow far enough from Alberta to make it economical to ship it. Refiners all

over the US are installing heavy crude capabilities, and rail can (and does) move this crude from

Alberta to those facilities.







US-Canada Relations Resilient

US-Canada relations resilient – absolutely zero risk of a breakdown

Canada International 11

Canada International, Canada and the United States: No two nations closer,http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/can-am/Closer-etroites.aspx?view=d

Canada and the United States enjoy a bilateral relationship unique in the world. It is forged by

shared geography , similar values , common interests , deep social connections and powerful,

multi-layered economic ties . The result is a long-standing, deep and enviable partnership.¶

Little wonder, then, that the first foreign visit a newly elected U.S. president makes is very often

to Canada. The visit is more than mere symbolism. It reflects the significance and durability of a

relationship that has spanned more than a century.¶ To appreciate the depth and value of the

Canada-U.S. relationship, it is important to consider it in three dimensions—economically, socially

and militarily.¶ The Canada-U.S. economic relationship is by far the largest in the world. Trade

between Canada and the U.S. dwarfs that of any other bilateral trade relationship. Trade in goods

and services between the two countries totalled $645 billion in 2010 —more than $1.7 billion ingoods and services each day. The two economies have become so integrated, so seamless, that

countless firms have developed internal production value chains that operate back and forth

across the border.¶ Moreover, Canada is the largest energy supplier to the U.S. In fact, Canada

exports more oil to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Canada is also a major

supplier of uranium for U.S. nuclear reactors, and Canadian natural gas and electricity are integral

to U.S. energy security.¶ But what is often not understood or appreciated is that Canada is also a

huge market for U.S. exports—the biggest market for the U.S. by far. For example, the U.S. sells

more to Canada than to the U.K., Germany, Japan and China combined. The Canadian market for

U.S. exports is bigger than that of the entire European Union.¶ Those large, macroeconomic facts

reflect the depth and breadth of the relationship at a social level. Indeed, every day, more than

200,000 people cross the shared border. The two countries are intimately linked by family ties,have similar immigrant cultures, and embrace common political and democratic values of

freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. ¶ Since the Ogdensburg Agreement of

1940, which called for closer Canada-U.S. military cooperation, Canadian strategy has been that

the two countries must defend the continent through joint efforts. This partnership has

reinforced Canada’s national sovereignty and has provided Canada with security in times both

of trouble and of peace.¶ Over the years, the Canada-U.S. relationship has deepened through a

shared commitment to build a world of peace and security. During the first and second world

wars, and again in the Korean War, Canadian and U.S. soldiers fought and died together. Today,

they are working together to help bring peace, stability and a decent life to the long-suffering

people of Afghanistan.¶ The framework of the unique Canada-U.S. relationship has been far

more than a century in the making. It reflects our shared commitment to the environment, andincludes the Boundary Waters Treaty, as well as agreements on migratory species, air quality, acid

rain and joint stewardship of the Great Lakes. It includes a 50-year binational commitment to

NORAD’s defence of North American air space, and partnership in NATO. It is also embodied in

the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was based on a historic, initial Canada-U.S. free

trade agreement.¶ But the true strength and resilience of the relationship is perhaps best

illustrated when Canada and the U.S. disagree. As sovereign nations, with at times divergent

interests, the two countries are sometimes confronted by difficult issues. Disagreements, such



as those on softwood lumber and on beef imports, have tested the relationship. But on every

occasion, because they are good neighbours and have so much in common, solutions have been

found. At its core, the Canada-U.S. relationship is so strong , so mutually important, that the

two nations realize the common interests that unite them are far greater than the irritants

that may momentarily divide them.¶ There will certainly continue to be times when Canada and

the U.S. disagree. No relationship with the depth, complexity and scale of these two countries’can be trouble-free. But the positive aspects of the relationship far outweigh the negative—and

enable the two countries to work together to overcome them .

Relations are resilient.

Koring ‘9 Paul Koring, Globe and Mail Update, “Canada Expects Better Border Relations”. 3/16/2009.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090316.wborder0316/BNStory/International

/home

Barack Obama's arrival in the White House, coupled with harsh economic realities, may herald a

new era in better Canada-U.S. co-operation on the border, security and the need for unhindered

trade flows, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said today. “I sense a real opportunity tostrengthen our relationship” with the arrival of the Obama administration, he said in an interview

at the start of the three-day visit to Washington that will include sessions with Homeland Security

Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder. Although Canadian governments

co-operated closely with the former Bush administration and never publicly complained about the

imposition of tough new border crossing requirements in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks, ministers in Ottawa have seized on the change in Washington to try and revisit a host of

bilateral issues. For Mr. Van Loan, those are “largely issues of border security ... where we have

been unsuccessful for the past while,” although he declined to finger the Bush administration

specifically.



No Arctic War

No Arctic war—regulation and cooperation

Mahony 13

Honor, 3-19-13, “Fears of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'” http://euobserver.com/foreign/119479This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable

to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict.¶ But this is nonsense, says Nil

Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert.¶ Most resources have an owner¶ "There is a

general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an

ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets

there first. That is completely false," he said.¶ He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated

region," with international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12

nautical miles off their coast.¶ On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic

zone "where you own every value in the water and under the seabed."¶ "Up to 97 percent of

energy resources is actually belonging to someone already," says Wang.¶ He suggest the actors

in the region all want to create a business environment, which requires stable politics and

security.¶ But he concedes there are "risk factors." These include "ambiguous communication" (so

that there is an impression of a security conflict), and possible fishing wars as fish stocks move

further north because of rising temperatures into areas with no fishing rules.¶ A fall-out in

relations between the China and the US could also impact the Arctic region but the "Arctic itself

will not create conflict."

No country is willing to start the conflict

Merchant 12Brian, December 2012, “So Who's Going to Start the Oil War in the Arctic?”

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/so-who-s-going-to-start-the-oil-war-in-the-arctic

Who’s it going to be? Who’s going to kick off the armed conflict over all those precious oil and

gas reserves in the Arctic?¶ Russia? Nah, Putin’s steely villainy is just a show. Norway? Denmark?Nope—too Scandinavian, too neutral, too peaceful. Canada? Please. So how about the ol U.S. of

A.? We do like to toss our military might around, and our trigger finger’s probably getting pretty

itchy, what with the drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq.¶ Chances are, it’s not going to be

anybody; there will likely be no warfare in the Arctic anytime soon, despite Russia’s insistence

on pissing everyone off by lowering its flag onto the ocean floor there, “proving” it has a claim to

the land. And that’s valuable land. Some 13% of the world’s proven oil reserves remain stored

away up there, and a full 30% of the gas. As climate change melts away the sea ice and opens up

access, corporations and governments are increasingly bullish in their efforts to secure the rights

to that land. And so far, there’s no unified framework in place to sort out who gets to drill

where—the U.N. wants northern countries to agree on one by 2013.¶ But still; militaries are

mobilizing. A report surfaced last summer called Climate Change and International Security: theArctic as a Bellwether, and it concluded that: “Although the pursuit of co-operation is the stated

priority, most of the Arctic states have begun to rebuild and modernise their military capabilities

in the region. The new military programs have been geared towards combat capabilities that

exceed mere constabulary capacity.”¶ And there’s more: “States such as Norway and Russia are

building new naval units designed to engage in high-intensity conflicts. While this capability may

be understood as prudent, the ability of rivals to intimidate or subdue with sophisticated weapons

systems could, if collegiality falters, undermine diplomacy and stability in the region.”¶ Hear that?





to operate in the North at all. This includes not only the sovereign rights of border patrolling,

coast guarding, and air policing, but also the provision of Search-and-Rescue (SAR) capabilities.

Since an SAR agreement has been negotiated through the Arctic Council during the Conference of

Nuuk in 2011, this task is of particular importance.

Venezuela Affirmative Wave 2 - JDI 2013

Documents