Table of Contents

Inherency Extensions.............................................................................................. 6
AT: Squo Wind power coming now.......................................................................7
Soft Power Advantage Extensions.........................................................................10
Soft PowerAT: Squo Solves Climate Leadership..............................................11
Soft PowerAT: No Impact to US legitimacy.....................................................12
Soft PowerAT: Cant Overcome Political Polarization.......................................13
Soft PowerAT: Terrorism Impossible................................................................14
Soft PowerAT: Prolif is slow............................................................................. 15
Soft PowerAT: Prolif deters war.......................................................................16
Soft PowerAT: Diseases are short term...........................................................20
Soft Power1ar--AT: Squo Solves Climate Leadership.......................................21
Competitiveness Advantage Extensions................................................................26
Competitiveness: AT: Dept. Of Interior.............................................................27
CompetitivenessAT: Alt Causes......................................................................28
Competitiveness: AT: No Trade Shut-Down.......................................................29
Competitiveness: AT: Economic Power Not Zero-Sum......................................30
CompetitivenessAT: No Correlation Between Competitiveness & Growth......31
Energy Independence2ac Answers.....................................................................32
Energy IndependenceAT: Costs a Lot.............................................................33
Energy IndependenceAT: No oil Wars.............................................................34
Energy Independence: AT: Tech Solves.............................................................35
Energy Independence: AT: Resource Scarcity...................................................36
Energy IndependenceAT: Interdependence....................................................37
Warming Advantage Extensions............................................................................38
WarmingAT: Wind power wont solve warming...............................................39
WarmingAT: Transmission & Grid Flaws..........................................................40
WarmingAT: Not sufficient to replace oil & natural gas..................................41
WarmingAT: No Impact to Warming................................................................42
WarmingAT: Previous Spikes Disprove............................................................43
Warming: AT: Irreversible.................................................................................44
Warming: AT: China Alt Cause..........................................................................45
Warming AdvantageAT: China & India1ar....................................................46
Economy Advantage.............................................................................................. 50

Economy AdvantageAT: Economic Decline Not Stop War...............................51

Economy AdvantageAT: Moral Hazards..........................................................52
EconomyAT: Price Volatility............................................................................ 53
Oceans Advantage Extensions.............................................................................. 54
OceansAT: Wind Disrupts Ocean Flows...........................................................55
OceansAT: Invasive Species Turn....................................................................56
OceansAT: Fishery Collapse............................................................................58
OceansAT: Oceans are Doomed.....................................................................59
OceansAT: Oceans are Resilient.....................................................................60
OceansAT: Alt Causes..................................................................................... 61
OceansAT: Invasive Species Turn1ar...........................................................62
OceansInvasive Species ExtensionsInvasive Species Good.........................64
Oceans 1ar: Overfishing Now............................................................................ 69
Solvency................................................................................................................ 74
AT: No Installation vessels................................................................................. 75
AT: Tech not ready............................................................................................. 76
AT: Economics Deters Investment.....................................................................77
AT: Reducing Regulation Isnt Enough...............................................................78
Solvency: Extensions Economics Deters Investment.........................................80
Topicality Answers.................................................................................................... 87
Development Answers........................................................................................... 88
Its Answers............................................................................................................ 90
Non-Military Answers............................................................................................. 92
Oceans Plural Answers.......................................................................................... 93
OceansAT: Ocean Isnt EEZ................................................................................ 94
Subsets T............................................................................................................... 95
Substantially Means 50% Answers........................................................................96
Increase Means Make Greater Answers.................................................................97
Disad Answers.......................................................................................................... 99
China DA Answers (Front-Line)............................................................................ 100
1ar: Non-UniqueChinese wind energy slow now...........................................103
1ar: Non-Unique: US funding offshore wind power now.................................105
1ar Extensions: China Growth Slow Now.........................................................106
1AR Link TurnUS Offshore Wind Boosts Cooperation.....................................112
1ar: No Lash Out/Instability.............................................................................113

Law of the Sea Treaty Answers (2ac)...................................................................115

1ar: No Ratification......................................................................................... 117
1ar: Navy......................................................................................................... 118
1ar: Deterrence Works.................................................................................... 119
NOAA Trade-off DA Answers (2ac).......................................................................126
1ar: Non-Unique: Just Funded Offshore Wind.................................................129
1ar: Massive Expansion of Ocean Policy..........................................................130
1ar: No tradeoff............................................................................................... 131
Oil DA Answers (2ac)........................................................................................... 132
1ar: Wind trades-off with coal.........................................................................135
1ar: Sanctions will strangle Russian economy.................................................136
1ar: Oil prices down now.................................................................................138
Natural Gas Prices DA Answers........................................................................... 139
Politics NSA DA Answers (2ac)............................................................................. 143
1ar: Non-Unique: Just gave $150 million........................................................150
1ar: Vote Not Till September........................................................................... 151
1ar: NSA Bill Wont Pass Now..........................................................................152
1ar: Obama Has No PC Now............................................................................ 153
1ar: Extensions Obama Immigration...............................................................158
Politics Iran Answers (2ac)...................................................................................159
Iran Politics Answers......................................................................................... 160
1ar: Reid will block the sanctions....................................................................165
1ar: Obama will veto....................................................................................... 168
1ar: ExtensionsIsrael wont attack Iran........................................................169
1ar: Iran will be deterred................................................................................. 173
1ar: Will Never Pass......................................................................................... 175
Spending DA Answers (2ac)................................................................................176
1ar: Deficit Out of Control............................................................................... 179
1ar: AT: DA Turns Case.................................................................................... 183
1ar Deficit Spending Key to Growth.................................................................184
Whales DA Answers.......................................................................................... 186
CP Answers............................................................................................................. 193
Prizes CP Answers............................................................................................... 194
1ar: Prizes Wont Solve the AFF.......................................................................196
1ar: Prizes Wont Solve....................................................................................197

1ar: Links to Politics......................................................................................... 199

K Answers............................................................................................................... 200
Eco-Phenomenology K Answers...........................................................................201
1ar: Particularity the Best Standard................................................................204
1ar: Ontology shouldnt be first.......................................................................205
1ar: Permutation Extensions........................................................................... 206
1ar Tech Good.................................................................................................. 207
Apocalyptic Rhetoric K Answers..........................................................................208
1ar: Particularity the Best Standard................................................................210
1ar: Apocalyptic Rhetoric Good.......................................................................211
Capitalism K Answers.......................................................................................... 212
1ar: Particularity the Best Standard................................................................215
1ar: Alt will Fail................................................................................................ 216
1ar: Root Causes Wrong.................................................................................. 217
Exploration K Answers......................................................................................... 218
Development K Answers..................................................................................... 220
1ar: Particularity the Best Standard................................................................223
1ar Extensions: Permutation........................................................................... 224
Carpentry Kritik Answers..................................................................................... 225

Inherency Extensions

AT: Squo Wind power coming now

(--) Extend our Woody 14 evidencewe produce not a single
watt of electricity from offshore wind now because
bureaucratic restrictions are preventing solvencyprefer our
evidenceit is 2 years newer.
(--) All their arguments prove their disads are non-unique:
Weve tried various initiatives for offshore wind, but they
havent worked, this non-uniques their disads while not solving
the case.
(--) No offshore wind in the status quo legal entanglements
and long approval process states wont enforce their own
laws.
McKelvey 8/2/2014 (Wallace, Reporter for The Press of Atlantic City, 0802-14, Federal leases make offshore wind farm likely, but hurdles remain,
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/federal-leases-makeoffshore-wind-farm-likely-but-hurdles-remain/article_f74561b4-1a98-11e4b384-0019bb2963f4.html, AS)
offshore wind leases may help New Jersey become a leader in renewable energy after four
years of halting efforts at the state level, but many bureaucratic and legal
entanglements remain. Under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM,
two leases across nearly 344,000 acres about 7 miles off Atlantic City would be auctioned and
developed. Actually getting the energy back to shore and to consumers, however,
would require a long approval process through federal and state agencies .
The federal government has upheld its end of the deal, said Doug OMalley, director of
Federal

Environment New Jersey. Now the pressure is really ratcheted up on the Christie administration to finally comply
with their own law.

(--) Federal action key for offshore wind experience and

jurisdiction
McKelvey 8/2/2014 (Wallace, Reporter for The Press of Atlantic City, 0802-14, Federal leases make offshore wind farm likely, but hurdles remain,
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/federal-leases-makeoffshore-wind-farm-likely-but-hurdles-remain/article_f74561b4-1a98-11e4b384-0019bb2963f4.html, AS)
I know New Jersey and many areas try to run before they walk, she said. When youre dealing with something as

its a big challenge; (the state) does not have a lot of

experience with that. Moriarty, of the BOEM, said the process includes an environmental review that
examines those kinds of issues, as well as extensive opportunities for public comment. The project is in
federal waters, but it does affect local communities, as well, Moriarty said. Were cognizant of that, and we
unpredictable as the ocean,

want to hear from them. Public comments will also be taken in advance of the lease auction through Sept. 19. The
BOEM is holding a public seminar Wednesday to explain the auction process and answer questions from the

offshore wind is critical because of the larger

ecological challenges looming over the horizon. If were serious about fighting
climate change, we need to be doubling down on offshore wind, he said .
potential bidders and the public. OMalley said

(--) No US offshore wind now.

Milford 13 (Lewis, October 4, 2013, Offshore Wind in Europe: Lessons for
the US, founder and president of Clean Energy Group (CEG), and the founder
of Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA). Both nonprofit organizations are
recognized nationally and internationally as leaders in clean energy
innovation, policy and finance.,
http://theenergycollective.com/lewmilford/282836/offshore-wind-europelessons-us, DSS)
There are a lot of great things Europe has that the U.S. doesn't -- comfortable taxis, good
table wine, Idris Elba -- and then there's offshore wind, lots and lots of offshore wind. I spent
last week in Europe hearing from key offshore wind leaders -- from top officials in industry, government and finance
-- about how they built a large, successful offshore wind industry. I learned some key lessons, and heard some
precautions, about how we should go about offshore wind development in the U.S. I listened to them with a wary
ear. There are many differences between the U.S. and Europe on energy policy and, on some issues, we in the U.S.
will never go Europe's way. Nevertheless,

in the area of offshore wind, U.S. energy

policymakers can learn a lot from the lessons Europe has to offer .

(--) Obstacles in squo- only USFG can overcome

3BL Media 7/22 (3BL Media 7/22/14, First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Wins
Federal Funds, Courtroom Fights, http://cleantechies.com/2014/07/22/first-us-offshore-wind-farm-wins-federal-funds-courtroom-fights/, SSN)
Offshore wind advocates see Cape Wind as the vanguard of a critical, and huge,
source of green energymuch of which happens to be located in areas like the Northeast coast, which lies
close to millions of energy consumers. (See related: Banking on Connections to Spur Offshore Wind.) Todays
announcement of a conditional commitment to the Cape Wind project demonstrates
our intent to help build a strong U.S. offshore wind industry , said Secretary of Energy Ernest
Moniz in a July 1 statement. DOE estimates that offshore winds near the nations coasts could provide a potential
4,000 GW of electricitya staggering amount thats four times todays total nationwide generation capacity. To
date, all that power remains untapped. If it comes online, Cape Wind would be a small operation in terms of the
national grid but a large local player, able to provide some 75 percent of the electricity consumed on Cape Cod,
Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard. If

built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing

ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant
U.S. offshore wind industry. The lessons that could be learned from this project can
help catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind
resources, said Peter Davidson, executive director of the DOE Loan Programs Office. As weve seen with
onshore wind and utility-scale solar, as more projects are built, prices come down. Davidson added. His
departments Wind Program has also elected to fund three projects, for deployment by 2017, that can help drive
offshore wind development from small scale demonstrations to commercial scale operations. (Those projects are
Dominion Virginia Power, Fishermens Energy Atlantic City (NJ) Windfarm, and Principle Power (OR) Windfloat.) In
Europe, commercial offshore wind is more than two decades old and the booming industry is the fastest growing
power sector. According to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), 73 offshore farms in 11 nations currently
produce more than 7,300 MW and have capacity for some 27 terawatt hours. Thats enough power to supply 7
million homes, or the population of the Netherlands. Sixteen additional farms that are under construction will

Construction of the first

commercial offshore wind operation in America involves endemic challenges , but
Cape Wind also has faced a very determined human opposition . Detractors have included a
provide an additional 4.9 gigawatts of power capacity. High-Profile Opponents

whos who of those living or summering along these scenic shores. (Related: Cape Wind Deadline: Headwinds for

Notables leading the fight against Cape Wind included the late
Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy and his nephew, environmental lawyer
Offshore Turbines.)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The bipartisan opposition has also included billionaire
businessman and Cape Cod denizen William Koch. Koch told CommonWealth
magazine last year that he had put well over $1 million into fighting Cape Wind as
one of the backers of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. His aim, he said, has
been to delay, delay, delay. Much of this opposition was focused on preserving
the classic coastal views and aesthetics that some fear will be marred by the
offshore installation of the 440-foot (135-meter) turbines. But the projects potential
environmental impacts also drew detractors and spawned years of analysis and study. Most environmental
groups have come to support Cape Winds ability to produce clean energy, and been
satisfied that environmental impacts can be mitigated. For example, a decade of study
convinced the once-skeptical Massachusetts Audubon that the project would pose no undue threat to birds and
other wildlife. And in 2012 Cape Wind and other wind developers signed an agreement with environmentalists to
mitigate underwater sound and the impact of ship traffic on migrating, feeding, and breeding right whales in the
North Atlantic. (Related: As U.S. Eyes Offshore Wind Development, Whales Get New Protections.) In recent years
much Cape Wind opposition has centered on the higher costs consumers will be asked to pay for electricity
generated offshore. Utilities NSTAR and National Grid have contracted to buy Cape Wind power at 19 cents per
kilowatt hour, with a 3.5 percent increase each year. Those contracts cost considerably more than land-based
power, but are in line with the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that on a per-megawatt-hour basis,
new offshore wind energy will cost 2.6 times more than onshore wind power and 3.3 times more than advanced
natural gas plants. The high costs dont sit well with those opposing Cape Wind. In 2010, Cape Wind signed
exorbitant price contracts with the Massachusetts utilities and it became very clear that this power wasnt cheap at
all, Alliance President and chief executive Audra Parker told National Geographic last year. At that point,
opposition started to increase across Massachusetts among people and business concerned with the possibility of

We believe that there are many obstacles that will prevent [Cape
Wind] from ever being built; financial obstacles, legal challenges, and growing
objections to that specific project in that specific location at that specific cost , she
rising electric bills.

added. (See related stories about wind energy concerns, Federal Study Highlights Spike in Eagle Deaths at Wind
Farms, Wind Farm Faces Fine Over Golden Eagles Death, and Hope for Stemming Wind Energys Toll on Bats.)

But a legal challenge to that power purchase, brought by the Alliance, the Town of
Barnstable, and other local groups, was recently quashed, another in the growing
string of Cape Wind courtroom victories. In May a U.S. District Court judge ruled
against the suit which sought to cancel the power purchase agreement with the
state of Massachusetts, leaving the 15-year agreements in place. An appeal of the
federal court decision is pending. Cape Winds Rodgers acknowledged that current costs are higher
than other forms of energy, but he stressed that Cape Wind is worth it as an investment in a
future of clean, unlimited energy .

Off-shore wind needs more investment

McDonnell 13 (McDonnel, James, Why the US still doesnt have a single
offshore wind turbine, 2/28/13, The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/28/windpowerrenewableenergy, McDonnell is a journalist for the Guardian Environment
Network, LL)
Despite massive growth of the offshore wind industry in Europe, a blossoming array of land-based wind turbines
stateside, and plenty of wind to spare, the US has yet to sink even one turbine in the ocean. Not
exactly the kind of leadership on renewables President Obama called for in his recent State of the Union address.
Light is just beginning to flicker at the end of the tunnel: On Tuesday, outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a
gathering of offshore industry leaders he was optimistic the long-embattled Cape Wind project would break ground
before year's end. And in early January industry advocates managed to convince Congress to extend a critical tax
incentive for another year. But

America's small yet dedicated entrepreneurial corps of offshore

developers are still chasing "wet steel," as they call it, while their European and
Asian colleagues forge ahead on making offshore wind a basic component of their
energy plans. So what's the holdup? Here's a look at the top reasons that offshore wind remains
elusive in the US: 1. Begging bucks from Uncle Sam: The industry breathed a sigh of relief this
year when Congress re-upped the Production Tax Credit, which recoups wind developers 2.2
cents for every kilowatt-hour of power they produce, and the Incentive Tax Credit, which pays back 30 percent of a
wind project's construction costs. It might sound like chump change, but the PTC alone amounts to $1 billion a year,

they hardly put

wind on a level playing field with the lavishly subsidized (and lushly lobbied) fossil fuel
industry. That's especially a problem for offshore wind, says Thierry Aelens, an
executive with German developer RWE. Higher construction and transmission costs make electricity
and industry advocates insist that wind would hit the doldrums without these subsidies. Still,

from offshore over twice the price of onshore in the US, he says, a tough pill for state regulators and utility
operators to swallow, especially given the low cost of natural gas made possible by fracking. Today renewables

the industry needs better

financial backing from the feds to help it compete with fossil fuels , Aelens says. "Germany
startups rely heavily on private investment to get off the ground, but

is a fully subsidized system. Which technology get supported is fully in the hands of the government."

Soft Power Advantage Extensions

Soft PowerAT: Squo Solves Climate Leadership

(--) Their evidence says that Obama is putting in place the
building blocks for a climate treatynot that it will pass or the
US will complyextend our Romm evidence that we need to be
a leader in green technology for moral leadership.
(--) U.S. climate leadership low in the squo.
Climate Central 7/22/2014 ["Falling Behind: U.S. among the Least Energy
Efficient of the World's Largest Economies." Falling Behind: U.S. among the Least
Energy Efficient of the World's Largest Economies. Climate Central, 22 July 2014.
Web. 30 July 2014. <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/22/falling-behind-u-samong-the-least-energy-efficient-of-the-worlds-largest-economies/>.] J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L.
J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L.
Falling behind: U.S. among the least energy efficient of the worlds largest economies By Climate Central Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:16
EDT Share on facebook 166 Share on twitter 80 Share on google_plusone_share 0 google plus icon Share on print Share on email
carstraffic-afp 57 Print Friendly and PDF Email this page Originally published at Climate Central Germany is the global leader in

the U.S., with its ingrained car culture, is among the least energy efficient of the
worlds largest economies. Thats the conclusion of a new report released by the American Council for an Energyenergy efficiency, and

Efficient Economy, which ranks the worlds 16 largest economies based on 31 different measurements of efficiency, including
national energy savings targets, fuel economy standards for vehicles, efficiency standards for appliances, average vehicle mpg, and
energy consumed per square foot of floor space in residential buildings, among other metrics. Credit: ACEEE The ACEEE report
ranked the U.S. 13th overall, with Germany, Italy, smaller European Union nations, France and China making up the top five most
energy efficient economies in the world. Using energy more efficiently is a critical step countries can take to reduce their fossil fuels
consumption and its related climate change-driving carbon dioxide and methane emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency used state energy efficiency standards to help set CO2 emissions reductions goals for each state in the agencys proposed
Clean Power Plan, announced in June. The U.S. was the 9th most energy-efficient economy in the ACEEEs 2012 ranking, which

the U.S. has

made very little progress toward using energy more efficiently , the 2014 report says. This
year, the U.S. took a major hit for its lack of a national energy savings plan or national
greenhouse gas reduction plan, and its ongoing resistance to public transit . Americans
criticized the country for focusing more on road construction than expanding public transportation. Since then,

drive more than 9,300 miles per year, more than citizens in any other major world economy, according to the report. Australians,
ranking second-to-last for annual per-capita vehicle miles traveled, drive 6,368 miles per year. India tops the list, driving 85 miles
per year per capita, followed by China with 513 miles per year. Americans also ranked last for the percentage of their travel
accomplished using public transit 10 percent, tying with Canada. Residents of China use transit 72 percent of the time, followed
by Indians, who use transit 65 percent of the time. The U.S. scored well for its energy efficiency tax credit and loan programs. And, it
scored well for efficient ovens and refrigerators. Were a leader in appliance and equipment standards, said the reports lead
author, ACEEE national policy research analyst Rachel Young. The U.S. took a hit in the ACEEE global energy efficiency survey
because of Americans resistance to using public transportation. This is a New York City subway train, the busiest subway system in
the U.S. Credit: Tim Adams/flickr The report called EnergyGuide appliance labels and Energy Star labels best practices for
voluntary appliance and equipment standards. The ACEEE gave the U.S. credit for energy efficiency standards included in residential
and commercial building codes in many states, but criticized the country for not having adequate national building standards in
place. Young said the U.S. may improve in the energy efficiency rankings if the Clean Power Plan is finalized because a state may be
able to increase the efficiency of its power plants and buildings as ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power
plants. The rule could spur greater investment in energy efficiency throughout the country, she said. By contrast, Germany scored
well in nearly every category in the survey, including spending on energy efficiency measures, aggressive building codes, and the
countrys tax credit and loan programs. Germany has set a national target of a 20 percent reduction in primary energy consumption

The U.S. is one of only two countries in the survey

with no national energy savings plan or greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan.
below 2008 levels by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050.

Soft PowerAT: No Impact to US legitimacy

(--) Our impact isnt legitimacyour impact is moral power to
persuadeextend our Lagon evidence that soft power is
necessary to catalyze solutions to terrorism, prolif, and
disease.

Soft PowerAT: Cant Overcome Political

Polarization
(--) This is just proof of the need for offshore wind energyit
just says that Obama cant win support for his cap & trade
initiativethats why we need offshore wind.

Soft PowerAT: Terrorism Impossible

(--) Our Hellman evidence answers this85 national security
experts think an attack involving a nuclear explosion will
happen in the next ten years.

Soft PowerAT: Prolif is slow

(--) Their evidence is from a Newsweek staff writer, our
evidence is from the Oppenheimer Institute for Science and
International Co-operation.
(--) Our evidence says every country that develops nuclear
weapons is a threat due to accidental war or nuclear terrorism
answering their deterrence arguments.

Soft PowerAT: Prolif deters war

(--) Extend our Wolfe evidence, hes the director of the
Oppenheimer Institute for Science and International Cooperationevery nation that develops weapons is a risk to
extinctionprolif causes war by accidents and terrorism, which
you cant deter.
Proliferation risks extinction
Carroll, a scholar at Suffolk University 2014
(James Carroll, 8-4-14, The Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/03/the-next-nuclear-age-tooclose/p2Pl4vKInBMQ5SMXATWdhN/story.html, CX)

The little-noted underside of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is the pressure it adds
toward a broader proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East . That concern has
been necessarily centered on Iran. Despite the Gaza war, Qatars Hamas-promoting mischief, the ongoing collapse
of Syria, and new chaos in Libya, negotiations with Tehran about its nuclear program are still set to resume next
month a process Secretary of State John Kerry calls a path forward, but which an embattled Israeli Prime

There is nothing funny, though, about

the prospect of failed talks with Iran, and the unleashed nuclear arms race that
would surely follow in that contentious region. Not long ago, Iran seemed the cutting edge of the
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu derided last week as a joke.

worlds nuclear peril, but that was before Ukraine. Now leaders of that beleaguered nation express open regret at
their countrys 1994 decision to forgo its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal then the third largest on the planet. Vladimir
Putins appetite for aggression would certainly have been dulled by a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent a lesson not
lost on other nations, especially in Asia, where the nuclear issue remains lively. As the Iran negotiations resume in
September, Indias new prime minister, Narendra Modi, will meet with President Obama in Washington, and Modis
nuclear purposes, too, will be on the agenda. When it comes to the super-weapon, a chain reaction ties India to

But the worlds precarious nuclear

balance is threatened above all by the new belligerence of Russias Putin. Openly
China and Pakistan, which remains hellbent on adding to its arsenal.

second-guessing Mikhail Gorbachevs historic steps back from the abyss, he has resuscitated a Cold War conviction
that nukes are essential to Moscows global and regional sway. Last week, the US State Department formally
denounced Russia for violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the pillar of the arms reduction
regime that ended the US-Soviet stand-off, and defined a reimagined international order for a generation.
Meanwhile, Russian aggressiveness is generating counter-moves in Washington, where those in the Pentagon and
in Congress who have long distrusted President Obamas emphasis on de-nuclearization are ascendant. Not long
ago, mutual Russian-American reductions by 2018 to levels of about 1,000 warheads, from current levels of more
than 7,000, seemed possible. For America, that would have meant elimination of most, if not all, land-based ICBMs,
a cutback on nuclear-armed submarines, and a restricted bomber force a long overdue right-sizing of US strategic
power and military spending.

Such reductions would have kept alive the hope of avoiding

wholly reinvented nuclear arsenals on both sides, but the reinvention is in gear now,
and Obamas goal of moving from an orgasmic overkill capacity to one of minimal
deterrence seems trumped by events over which he has no control. And count on it:
if the United States and Russia resume their nuclear competition, the race will be
joined by every nation capable of running . In that context, the Iran negotiations represent an
immediate opportunity to build a last-ditch firewall, which is why the Obama administration has refused to give up
on reaching a deal. For all of its dangers, the first nuclear age was organized around a precious international
consensus, embodied in the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, that the demonic weapon must be corralled. The
fact that there are only nine nuclear-armed nations today and not 15, or 20, or 50 represents the Cold Wars
one clear legacy of hope. But that communal restraint presumes an ongoing and universal commitment to disarm,
even if in stages, over time.

Obamas vision of a nuke-free world, articulated so

passionately in Prague in 2009, was not a fanciful dream, but a hard-headed

description of the one and only acceptable future that lies ahead of the human
species.

Proliferation risks miscalculation and accidental war.

Daily Tribune, 2010 (Daily Tribune, Credible Newspaper source, 5-3-10,
Philippines to rally UN members to commit to nuclear disbarment, Lexis) AJ
Jr.

"It is in our national interest that there is a balanced implementation of all three pillars of the treaty, namely nuclear
disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. On nuclear disarmament, it would
be for the good of our country and all our people if this most deadly and destructive weapon is eliminated once and
for all to ensure that there is no nuclear exchange in our region or anywhere else in the world, given the almost
global presence of the Filipino," Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo said in a statement before departing for
New York yesterday. "The implications of this conference in terms of promoting international peace and security
cannot and should not be underestimated. Non-proliferation is just as important for

the spread of

nuclear weapons can lead to imbalances and raise insecurities of

nations, thus increasing the threat of miscalculation and war with the
use of such weapons," he added.

Proliferation increases the risk of war

Quek 12 (Kai, Ph.D., MIT (Political Science); B.A., Cornell University (Economics &
Government) , 2012, Nuclear Proliferation and the Risk of Nuclear Conflict:
Experimental Tests, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117364,
AS)

How does nuclear proliferation affect the risk of nuclear war ? The question
implicates human survival but is difficult to study, given that observations of nuclear war do not exist in
6. Conclusion

the real world. As a result, our empirical knowledge on this topic is limited. I use experimental games with nuclear
options to circumvent the observational constraint and construct empirical tests. The main findings are as follows:
(1) Decisions are mostly peaceful at N = 2 despite the existence of nuclear options with a relative first-strike

An individual actor is less likely to choose the nuclear option when it

knows that the number of nuclear actors is small, and more likely to choose the
nuclear option when it knows that the number of nuclear actors is large . (3) A jump in
the number of nuclear actors in crisis increases the proportion of decisions in which
the nuclear option is chosen. (4) Interactions between alliance groups are more
peaceful when they have second- strike counter value capabilities . (5) Nuclear
framing has no significant effect on the use of nuclear options in the experiments
implemented. To my knowledge, this is the first randomized experiment in political
science that studies the relationship between nuclear proliferation and the risk of
nuclear conflict." In a fortunate world where nuclear war remains unobserved, there is strong justification for
advantage. (2)

an experimental approach on theoretical, practical, and ethical grounds. Empirically, the use of a controlled
experiment also allows for a clean identification of the causal relationship, which is hard to achieve with
observational data due to potential confounders.

Prolif leads to war

Spring 12 (BS, 6/26/12 http://dailysignal.com/2012/06/26/nuclear-proliferationstill-leads-to-instability/, Baker Spring is the F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National
Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation.)

In his recent article in Foreign Affairs, Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability,
Kenneth N. Waltz is swimming upstream against the consensus position regarding the instability stemming from
nuclear proliferation. In this case, the consensus position is right, and Waltz is wrong. The international nuclear
nonproliferation regime is based on the logical proposition that with each additional nuclear-armed state, not to
mention non-state actors, the deterrence dynamic becomes marginally more complex and diminishes the prospects

The Heritage Foundation has conducted two

table-top exercises to explore the prospects for maintaining nuclear stability in
proliferated settings. The results of these exercises bolster the consensus view that
nuclear proliferation can lead to unstable outcomes. Managing deterrence in a proliferated
for maintaining both crisis and arms race stability.

setting is a daunting task. The first exercise examined crisis stability issues. There were nuclear weapons
exchanges in two of the four iterations of the exercise. While there were a variety of contributing factors to the

it can be very difficult to perform the

juggling act of deterring two or more simultaneous nuclear threats that result from
proliferation. For example, deterring a threat from North Korea toward South Korea
may undermine the effort to deter a threat from China toward Taiwan. The second was
unstable outcomes, two stand out. The first was that is that

that the coalition dynamic became too complex to manage. For example, attempts by a more senior partner in a
nuclear coalition to restrain his junior partner can be interpreted as an invitation for aggression by an opposing
coalition against the junior partner. The second exercise examined arms race stability issues. Here, it becomes clear

as the appetite for obtaining nuclear weapons grows, so does the appetite for
obtaining more of them. In this case, the real-world experience along the bilateral
lines of the Cold War showed that the U.S. and Soviet policies of nuclear deterrence
led to rapid growth in nuclear arsenals on both sides. Balancing may have led to
some level of crisis stability, but it certainly did not lead to arms race stability. There is
that

one implicit point in Waltzs article, however, that deserves favorable consideration. This point is that the U.S. and
its allies must demonstrate that they have the ability to respond effectively to the circumstance of proliferation and
maintain their security. Some members of the nonproliferation consensus believe that the only answer to the
problem is to move immediately to nuclear disarmament. On this point, this faction of the nonproliferation
consensus is wrong. Such fatalism is likely to prove to be, well, fatal. Demonstrating the determination to respond
effectively to proliferation can and should be seen as means for discouraging it. It is logical for would-be
proliferators to draw the wrong conclusion from the argument that the only answer to proliferation is disarmament,
which is that the West has no effective means for responding to nuclear weapons. There should be little doubt that
the task of managing deterrence and stability in a proliferation will prove daunting, but it is one the U.S. and its
allies must do their best to address.

Nuclear proliferation leads to regime instability, nuclear

accidents, and nuclear terrorism
Maass 12 (Richard, Nuclear Proliferation and Declining U.S.
HegemonyRichard Maass Graduated with a Ph.D., from the University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, Dissertation: To Conquer Land or People:
Regime Type and the Targets of Territorial Expansion Instructor, He now works
in the Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
IN teaching International Security (49-student lecture) and Power and
Conquest in the Modern World ZJN)

th
On August 29, 1949, The Soviet Union successfully tested its first nuclear fission bomb, signaling the end of U.S. hegemony in the international arena. On September 11 , 2001, the worlds
single most powerful nation watched in awe as the very symbols of its prosperity fell to rubble in the streets of New York City. The United States undisputedly has a greater share of world
power than any other country in history (Brooks and Wolforth, 2008, pg. 2). Yet even a global hegemon is ultimately fallible and vulnerable to rash acts of violence as it conducts itself in a
rational manner and assumes the same from other states. Conventional strategic thought and military action no longer prevail in an era of increased globalization. Developing states and irrational

nuclear proliferation has exponentially

increased states relative military capabilities as well as global levels of political instability . Through ideas such as nuclear peace theory,
actors play increasingly influential roles in the international arena. Beginning with the U.S.S.R. in 1949,

liberal political scholars developed several models under which nuclear weapons not only maintain but increase global tranquility. These philosophies assume rationality on the part of political
actors in an increasingly irrational world plagued by terrorism, despotic totalitarianism, geo-political instability and failed international institutionalism. Realistically, proliferation of nuclear

). Nuclear security threats arise in four

forms: the threat of existing arsenals, the emergence of new nuclear states, the
collapse of international non-proliferation regimes and the rise of nuclear terrorism .
[weapons]constitutes a threat to international peace and security (UN Security Council, 2006, pg. 1

Due to their asymmetric destabilizing and equalizing effects, nuclear weapons erode the unipolarity of the international system by balancing political actors relative military power and security.

Regime stability in both these proliferating and existing nuclear states constitutes a
major international security issue. Command and control issues (meaning nuclear arsenals
vulnerability to accidental and unauthorized use) cause special concerns. If the the assumptions of rational framework theory dont hold, it raises doubts
about Nuclear Proliferation and Declining U.S. Hegemony whether any state can build a large nuclear arsenal that is completely secure from accident

Emerging nuclear states often lack the financial resources needed

to produce safe weapons designs. The international communitys non-proliferation posture also strongly inhibits the ability to
conduct full-scale nuclear weapons tests, preventing the development of effective and safe designs. Combined with the domestic
instability present in many proliferating states, this lack of testing makes accidental
detonations become extremely plausible. Domestic stability is critical, as political unrest can increase the risk of nuclear
(Sagan and Waltz, 2003, pg. 73).

weapons accidents by encouraging unsafe transportation, or testing operations(Sagan and Waltz, 2003, pg. 82). During Chinas Cultural Revolution,
Marshal Nie Rongzhen launched a test missile eight hundred kilometers across China, armed with a live nuclear warhead, to display the successes of its
nuclear program (Sagan and Waltz, 2003, pg. 82). Nies decision shows that newly proliferating states may determine their actual behavior by the illogical
objectives of military organizations within those states. The parochial interests of these military organizations may not coincide with national interest, and
so lead to accidental uses of nuclear weapons. This further degrades deterrence measures despite rational state interests to the contrary. Strict military
control over nuclear arsenals also creates both domestic and international security hazards, as military officials and weapons operators in limited combat
theaters have different interests than civilian politicians charged with implementing policy. Steve Sagan describes the mentality of military officials in
terms of their own interests: Even when a professional military service acts in relatively rational ways to maximize its interests---protecting its power, size,
autonomy, or organizational essence---such actions do not necessarily reflect the organizational interests of the military as a whole, much less the national
interests of the state (Sagan and Waltz, 2003, pg. 52). Military leaders minimize diplomatic considerations in any given conflict, focusing instead on their
ultimate objective, victory. Soldiers train to win; they ignore secondary considerations and repercussions. During Chinas proliferation in the 1960s, senior
U.S. military officials advocated a preemptive destruction of its developing arsenals, arguing that the attainment of a nuclear capability by Communist 49
Insights China will have a marked impact on the security posture of the United States and the Free World (Sagan and Waltz, 2003, pg. 192). Military
officials view proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons by other states as detrimental to U.S. national security and relative power

Increasing radicalism and militant insurgency makes securing and ensuring the
stability of existing nuclear arsenals absolutely imperative . Terrorism poses the single largest threat to
U.S. hegemony. Believing acts of mass destruction can create the global conflict they seek, modern terrorist groups fuel fear in a global audience. Scholars
Charles Ferguson and William Potter note the following in their 2004 study The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism: Todays terrorism is often fueled by
extremist religious ideologies that rationalize destruction, vengeance, and punishment as both necessary ends in themselves and as tools to achieve a
better world (Ferguson and Potter, 2004, pg. 190). 52 Nuclear Proliferation and Declining U.S. Hegemony Several Islamist terrorist groups currently seek to
obtain nuclear arms as a means to achieve their political and social objectives; existing stockpiles with deteriorating safeguards present a prime source for

Should one such group eventually obtain a nuclear weapon, the U.S.
would be hard-pressed to take any sort of action to prevent a nuclear attack . Terrorists
these groups proliferation.

possess neither physical assets to protect nor a home address, and are thus extremely difficult to deter. Securing both developing and existing stockpiles
needs to become a security imperative if the U.S. wishes to avert nuclear catastrophe. Terrorist organizations need not seize a nuclear weapon, however.

). A terrorist
organization need only steal or purchase either twenty-five kilograms of highly
enriched uranium, or HEU, or eight kilograms of plutonium, to construct a gun
assembly type bomb, similar to the one dropped on Hiroshima in World War II . Though
only eight states currently possess nuclear arms (North Korea is excluded as its weapons total is uncertain), fifty states have access
to highly enriched weapon-grade uranium, or HEU. As of 2003, conservative estimates place the global stock of weapon-grade plutonium and highly
Weapon-grade plutonium would suffice for the construction of a nuclear device (Ferguson and Potter, 1989, pg. 190

enriched uranium at 3,730 metric tons, with a bomb equivalent of 304,800 (Cirincione, 2007, pg. 190). Allison claims that the science for bomb
construction is in the public domain, meaning an organized and well-funded group could feasibly construct a bomb within five years of obtaining fissile
material (Allison, 2004, pg. 12). Ultimately, a dedicated and devoted organization will inevitably obtain a nuclear weapon and be able to use it without
fear of retaliation (Trachtenberg, 2002, pg. 146). Allison states the following in his book regarding the likelihood of a nuclear terrorist attack: Given the
number of actors with serious intent, the accessibility of weapons or nuclear materials from which elementary weapons could be constructed, and the
almost limitless ways in which terrorists could smuggle a weapon through American bordersa nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is
more likely than not (Allison, 2004, pg. 15). 53 Insights Should a militant group gain control of a nuclear weapon, either through construction or seizure,
deterring its use would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. A nuclear terrorist attack on U.S. soil will be inevitable if the current non-proliferation
policies are maintained. Counteraction and Reformation of Policy The threat of nuclear terrorism is currently on the rise; however, preemptive measures
can be taken to prevent such a catastrophe. As the sole international hegemon, the U.S. needs to rethink its role as an advocate and enforcer of nonproliferation. A bipolar power structure no longer exists in world politics; the U.S. sits alone atop global hierarchy. The United States needs to take an
active role in non-proliferation and change the way it conducts international political discourse in the second nuclear age. Today, the nuclear threat posed
by other nuclear-armed states is being eclipsed by a new threat, that of nuclear instruments in the hands of non-state, terrorist organizations (Ferguson
and Potter, 2004, pg. 318). Terrorism comprises the greatest threat to U.S. primacy; Washington needs to adapt its policies in a manner that allows it to
maintain and resolve diplomatic relations with irrational political actors. It would be impossible for the U.S. to monitor all nuclear arsenals and prevent

proliferation on a state-by-state case. Regulating fissile materials at the source would be the simplest and most inexpensive means to prohibit nuclear
terrorism. Obtaining fissile materials, or an actual weapon, poses the greatest problem for terrorist groups seeking to gain possession of a nuclear weapon.
Restricting the flow and spread of fissile materials means terrorists can neither purchase nor steal a nuclear weapon. In addition, Graham Allison asserts
that in order to fully prevent nuclear terrorism and regulate the flow of fissile materials, the United States must adopt a policy of three nos; no loose
nuclear weapons, no nascent nuclear weapons and no new nuclear weapons states. The international community must agree to secure existing arsenals
to a sufficient standard to prevent theft. Secondly, states cannot be allowed to construct enrichment facilities capable of creating HEU. Third, other states
cannot develop nuclear weapons.

Soft PowerAT: Diseases are short term

(--) This evidence talks about how disease affects species
generallyour evidence is specific to how disease affects
humans and the possibility of a new disease.

Soft Power1ar--AT: Squo Solves Climate

Leadership
(--)US Leadership increase key to climate control
Larkin 6/20 (Amy Larkin, writer for the guardian and author of the Environmental
Debt, Jun 20, 14, Radical cooperation is the only answer to climate change chaos,
The guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2014/jun/20/climate-change-us-leaders-global-treat-low-carbon-future,
gkms-sd)
If the US president were to ask Americans to lower our energy usage by 20% in the next
year, I am certain we could do it. Courageous cooperators are legion . They come in pin-striped
suits, overalls, lab coats, nurses uniforms, skinny jeans, and aprons. They are found in classrooms, garage labs,

The worlds largest cities have

already banded together through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group . But in
the US, our leaders have not asked us to step up, nor is there federal coordination of
wide-ranging efforts. In 1989, 46 countries brought the Montreal Protocol into force (now ratified by 197
nations), pledging to eliminate CFCs that were burning a hole in the ozone. At the time, industry fought
against that radical cooperation with much the same language that is being used
today. The CEO of chemical giant Pennwalt talked of economic chaos if CFCs were phased out, and DuPont
warned that entire industries could fold. None of this ensued. And if there were no Montreal Protocol, CFCs
would have caused utter devastation. Climate change is a similarly dire threat and the clock is ticking. Our last
chance for a global deal - the UN Framework on Climate Change's meeting in Paris in 2015 - is drawing
near. The worlds scientists have weighed in clearly, stating that greenhouse gas emissions need to
peak this decade, otherwise the stability of our climate and weather systems are in
dire jeopardy. Only a global treaty on climate that incentivizes a decarbonized economy can chart this course.
Voluntary and good corporate actions will simply not suffice to reach the
fundamental changes necessary. This climate treaty will only pass if the peoples and businesses of the
world assure their governments that they support it. This is the radical cooperation needed to
transition the worlds economy to a low-carbon future.
farms, and even occasionally government offices. They are everywhere.

America cant lead in climate change 7 reasons

Klein 6/5 (Ezra Klein, 6-5-14, 7 reasons America will fail on climate change,
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5779040/7-reasons-America-fail-global-warming, smt)
If you were going to weaponize an issue to take advantage of the weak points in the American political system to
highlight all the blind spots, dysfunctions, and irrationalities you would create climate change. And then you

We've waited so long that what America needs to

do is really, really hard and maybe impossible Two_degrees In the early 1990s, scientists
would stand back and watch the world burn. 1)

converged on 2C as the level of warming the world could (probably) safely endure. "We said that, at the very least,
it would be better not to depart from the conditions under which our species developed," Hans Joachim
Schellnhuber, one of the scientists who helped devise the 2C limit, told my colleague Brad Plumer. "Otherwise we'd
be pushing the whole climate system outside the range we've adapted to." There's disagreement as to whether that
actually is a safe level of warming. "Two degrees is actually too much for ecosystems," wrote George Mason
University's Thomas Lovejoy in the New York Times. "A 2-degree world will be one without coral reefs (on which

we've waited so long to begin

cutting emissions that two degrees looks flatly impossible. We're on track for 4C of warming
millions of human beings depend for their well-being)." Either way,

which is nearly the temperature difference between the world now and the Ice Age. That's a nightmare for the
planet. The World Bank tried to model it and realized that they had no idea what would happen or whether
humans could manage. There's "no certainty that adaptation to a 4C world is possible," they concluded. In April
2014, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that to stay below the 2C limit, global

greenhouse-gas emissions would have to fall between 1.3 percent and 3.1 percent each year, on average, between
2010 and 2050. And because the US is such an aggressive emitter, the adjustment would have to be sharper here.

The world isn't going to sharply cut emissions this year. It isn't going to
sharply cut them next year. And every year we wait the adjustment gets more
violent and more impossible. "Ten years ago, it was possible to model a path to 2C without all these
It gets worse.

heroic assumptions," says Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Plumer. "But because we've
dallied for so long, that's no longer true." This is the awful math of climate change now: the question isn't whether
we'll fail. It's how badly we'll fail. It increasingly looks like success is holding warming to 3C rather than 4C or
worse. That is to say, we are redefining success as a milder strain of failure. 2)

The people most affected

by climate change don't get a vote

This map from Standard & Poor's lays out the shocking unfairness
of climate change: The US, which has historically been the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions (though
China passed us in 2006), is one of the countries least affected by global warming. As my colleague Matt Yglesias

"very few of us are subsistence farmers. Relatively few of us live in river

deltas, flood plains, or small islands. We are rich enough to be able to feasibly undertake massive
explained,

engineering projects to safeguard our at-risk population centers. And the country is sufficiently large and sparsely

almost all
Americans live incredibly carbon-intensive lifestyles . We drive in big cars and live in big homes
populated that people can move around in response to climate shocks." But globally speaking,

and fly on big planes and eat lots of meat. We buy lots of stuff and go lots of places and produce lots of waste and
use lots of fuel. In 2010, Americans emitted about 17.6 tons of carbon dioxide per person. India, by contrast,
emitted about 1.7 tons of carbon dioxide per person. Yet India is bright red on that map of carbon vulnerability while
the US is deep, calming green. Carbon emissions disproportionately benefit the US and disproportionately harm
countries that are not the US. Yglesias put it well: "Our political system is reasonably well-designed to handle local
threats to local interests. But the reality of the climate change problem is much scarier than that it's a global

We're bad at
sacrificing now to benefit later Climate change is already causing problems around the world (these nine
threat to worldwide interests, and the people with the most at stake don't get a vote." 3)

maps show how it's already affecting the United States). But this is the drizzle before the storm. As you can see on
the Congressional Budget Office's chart of projected temperature increases, climate change doesn't steadily ratchet
up the pain. Temperatures don't rise by 0.2C in this decade, and then 0.2C in the next decade, and then 0.2C in
the decade after that, and so on. Instead, temperatures rise slowly at first and then begin accelerating as the

The structure of the problem doesn't mesh

well with the strengths of the American political system. Major policy changes tends
to happen in American politics when the pain of inaction dwarfs the pain of action at
that moment. Health-care reform, for instance, was meant to address the pain the uninsured were facing. The
earth's natural defenses get overwhelmed or cooked.

bank bailouts and the stimulus were aimed at a financial meltdown happening that second. The Medicare
Prescription Drug Benefit passed because seniors were crying out for prescription drug coverage. Tax cuts are so
popular because having more money now is way more appealing than having less money now. Global warming isn't
like that. The pain of doing something serious about the problem is upfront. But the worst effects of global warming
won't be visible, even in America, for a long time to come. The true crisis is abstract while the sacrifice required to

The American political system is not good at trading sacrifice now to

prevent crises later. 4) The effects of global warming are not easily reversible In May,
prevent it is tangible.

the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters reported that a major section of West Antarctica's ice sheet
was melting into the ocean. "Together, the papers concluded that six large West Antarctic glaciers appear to be in a
state of irreversible decline," reported Brad Plumer. "These glaciers will eventually melt entirely and take parts of
the ice sheet with them, leading to an additional 4 to 13 feet of sea-level rise." Their total collapse will likely take

The American
political system is designed to move slowly. The Founders feared haste, and so they made it,
centuries, but the more rapidly we warm the planet, the more quickly they'll drip into the ocean.

except in the rarest circumstances, impossible. As Sven Steinmo and Jon Watts wrote in their seminal essay "It's the
Institutions, Stupid," "the game of politics in America is institutionally rigged against those who would use
government for good or evil. James Madison's system of checks and balances, the very size and diversity of the
nation, the Progressive reforms which undermined strong and programmatic political parties and the many
generations of congressional reforms have all worked to fragment political power in America." But most issues can
wait. American presidents tried and failed for 80 years to create a national health system. The uninsured paid
dearly for their failure, as did the wallets of American workers. But that failure didn't make it impossible to cover the
uninsured in 2014. Similarly, America doesn't always pay down its debts in a timely fashion. That can lead to higher
interest rates and even inflation. But the problem is solvable whenever the country decides to solve it. For most
issues, failure in the past doesn't undermine success in the future. Climate change isn't like that . Once
the West Antarctica glaciers slip into the ocean they're gone. Once the carbon and the methane is released into the

atmosphere we have no way to recapture it. Once the oceans rise and the permafrost melts we have no way to turn
back the clock. As tremendous as our mastery of nature often appears, we are outmatched on the geologic scale. If
climate change were an issue like health-care reform or the budget deficit I wouldn't be a pessimist. My skepticism
that we will act with sufficient force soon doesn't translate into a belief that the world won't want to act with force
later. But climate change has a "game over" quality to it. Once we've filled the atmosphere with 800 or 1,000 parts
per millions of carbon dioxide the consequences are out of our control.

5) The Republican Party has

gone off the rails on climate change

In 1989, Newt Gingrich was one of 25 Republican co-sponsors of

the Global Warming Prevention Act, which said "the Earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate
by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid
population growth in many regions." Top Republicans continued to fret over climate change in the 1990s and the
2000s. Sen. John McCain, for instance, introduced the first cap-and-trade bill into the US Senate. In Days of Fire, his
history of George W. Bush's presidency, Peter Baker records Bush's mounting alarm towards the end of his
presidency: [Bush] found the science increasingly persuasive and believed more needed to be done. The end of his
presidency loomed, and he did not want to be known as the president who stood by while a crisis gathered. Now he
bristled not at the Hollywood types but at the notion that he did not care. In the past eighteen months, he had cited
the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time, convened a conference of major
world polluters to start working on an international accord to follow Kyoto, and signed legislation cutting gasoline
consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases. He even invited his old rival Al Gore for a forty-minute talk
about global warming. In 2008, the McCain/Palin ticket ran on a platform that included a robust cap-and-trade plan.
Asked at the vice-presidential debate whether she believed in capping carbon emissions, Palin's answer left no room
for ambiguity. "I do," she said. She didn't. For her first major statement after the election, Palin wrote an op-ed in
the Washington Post to "make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be: I am deeply
concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our
economy." It was Palin's position, not John McCain's, that captured the Republican Party. In 2010, Rep. Bob Inglis lost
a primary challenge to a Tea Party candidate largely because he believed in global warming. "Saying that to the
conservative base was rather dangerous," he says. "I knew it at the time. But now I really see how dangerous it was
and maybe how perceptive in terms of political acumen people like Gingrich and McCain were. I think if Newt were
on the phone with us, he'd say 'how did it work out for you, Bob?'" There are political stances that minority parties
take that are relatively easy to unwind when they regain power. Democrats always criticized Bush's "tax cuts for the
rich," leaving themselves ample room to craft more progressive tax rebates. Republicans have hewed to "repealand-replace" as their response to Obamacare, making it clear that they want to pass a health reform of their own.
But the GOP hasn't simply opposed Obama's bills. They've abandoned their own legislation and even begun
questioning the very fact of climate change. "I think it's an inexact science," McCain said in 2010, "and there has
been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change."
They've left themselves little room to enact sensible policies when they regain power. The chilling effect of the
GOP's increasingly radical position is clear: when some of the right's smartest policy thinkers came together to pen

The international
cooperation required is unprecedented, and maybe impossible In 2006, China passed
the United States as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide. And their
emissions aren't projected to peak until 2030. They talk about capping carbon
emissions, but as Plumer writes, there's little reason to be optimistic. "So far, when China has had to
choose between economic growth and cutting its emissions, it usually chooses
growth." At the same time, the hope is that India will continue to develop and Indonesia will
continue to develop and Brazil will continue to develop and Sub-Saharan Africa will see growth
a governing agenda for reform conservatism, they didn't mention global warming at all. 6)

surge. All that development is carbon intensive, at least using current technologies. If all goes well for the world's
poor it's going to go very badly for the planet. This is climate change's ugliest tradeoff: it pits our most fundamental
economic goal against our core environmental imperative. In the modern world, better lives are more carbonintensive lives. As people get richer they want to eat meat and drive cars and live in bigger homes and travel to
wonderful places. They know that America powered its growth with cheap fossil fuels and they don't find it very
credible when we warn them against doing the same particularly when we're not radically upending our lives and
our economy to transition to renewable fuels. In a dangerous but brilliant essay, Chris Hayes builds on work by Bill
McKibben to put numbers to what we're asking countries and companies to do. The basic estimate is that we can
safely burn about 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide by midcentury. But experts think there's about 2,700 gigatons of
carbon dioxide in proven fossil fuel reserves and much more might yet be discovered. Consider what that means:
The work of the climate movement is to find a way to force the powers that be, from the government of Saudi
Arabia to the board and shareholders of ExxonMobil, to leave 80 percent of the carbon they have claims on in the
ground. That stuff you own, that property you're counting on and pricing into your stocks? You can't have it. Given
the fluctuations of fuel prices, it's a bit tricky to put an exact price tag on how much money all that unexcavated
carbon would be worth, but one financial analyst puts the price at somewhere in the ballpark of $20 trillion. So in
order to preserve a roughly habitable planet, we somehow need to convince or coerce the world's most profitable
corporations and the nations that partner with them to walk away from $20 trillion of wealth. The nearest thing to

an economic analogue in American history, Hayes argues, is abolitionism. But this isn't just about America. This
carbon is locked underground in China and Uzbekistan and Iran and Russia and Nigeria and Venezuela. It's owned
by energy companies, in some cases, but it's owned by nations in others. The kind of international cooperation
(and, perhaps, international redistribution) required to pass, implement and verify viable carbon caps is completely
unprecedented, at least outside of wartime. 7) Geoengineering is nuts "We don't know who struck first, us
or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky," says Morpheus. "At the time, they were dependent on
solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the
sun." I think of that speech from The Matrix every time I hear people talk about blasting sulfates into the
atmosphere to combat the consequences of global warming. It is easy to imagine a future in which the effects of
climate change are considered the horrifying prelude to whatever insane thing we tried to do to reverse climate
change. And forget the technical leaps. Imagine the geopolitics. Who gets to decide how much
sulfate to blast into the atmosphere? Who stops Kiribati from just going it alone because their island is in danger of
being wiped out? What if Russia decides they like the new climate, and the agricultural possibilities it unlocks,

it's hard to believe that the consequences of the huge,

unpredictable changes to the global climate can be safely reversed by further
efforts to make huge, unpredictable changes to the climate.
better? Not to be a killjoy, but

US behind in climate leadership

Lefton 14 (Rebecca, 2-27-14, U.S. Falling Behind As Other

Countries Pass Climate Legislation, New Survey Shows,

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/27/3338011/countriesclimate-legislation/, ekr)
Out of 66 countries representing 88 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, 61
of them have legislation aimed at cutting carbon pollution and promoting clean energy
sources, according to an annual audit of climate change legislation released Thursday. The bad news? None of
the bills in the United States include targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Countries
addressing climate change are doing so because it is their national interests, the GLOBE Climate Legislation Study
found, a collaboration between the Globe International and the London School of Economics. In addition to reducing
the threat posed by unchecked greenhouse gases, nations are benefiting from improved energy security as a result
of decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels, costs savings from enhanced energy efficiency, and stronger
economic competitiveness. The GLOBE study is a call to legislators to implement climate change-related legislation

We need an international movement to pass climate

legislation, and nowhere is that movement needed more than here in the United
States, said U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). The GLOBE study shows legislators around the world
that will yield similar benefits.

are taking active steps to develop significant national legislation and I urge colleagues here in the United States to

Aside from modest legislation aimed at increasing

clean energy sources, the U.S. does not have a comprehensive climate change law.
acknowledge the movement and take action.

US Climate Leadership Faltering

CPR 2012 (Center For Progressive Reform, Reclaiming Global Environmental
Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental
Treaties Founded in 2002, the Center for Progressive Reform is a nonprofit research
and educational organization comprising a network of scholars across the nation
dedicated to protecting health, safety, and the environment through analysis and
commentary.
http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/International_Environmental_Treaties_120
1.pdf ZJN)
For more than a century, the United States has taken the lead in organizing international responses to international
environmental problems. The long list of environmental agreements spearheaded by the United States extends
from early treaties with Canada and Mexico on boundary waters and migratory birds to global agreements

In the last two decades,

U.S. environmental leadership has faltered . The best known example is the lack
of an effective response to climate change, underscored by the U.S. decision not to
join the Kyoto Protocol. But that is not the only shortfall. The United States has also
failed to join a large and growing number of treaties directed at other environmental
threats, including marine pollution, the loss of biological diversity, persistent organic
pollutants, and trade in toxic substances. In this paper, we urge the U.S. government to ratify ten of
restricting trade in endangered species and protecting against ozone depletion.
however,

these treaties. We focus on these agreements not only because they address important environmental problems,
but also because they do not cause the fierce partisan debate that has unfortunately hampered U.S. policy toward
climate change. All ten of these agreements enjoy bipartisan support. All ten have been signed by the United
States: five by Republican administrations and five by Democratic administrations. Signatures alone do not make
these treaties binding. The treaties must also be ratified, which generally requires that the Senate provide its advice
and consent by a two-thirds vote. In some cases, implementing legislation must be enacted by both houses of
Congress. It is here that the process has broken down. The Executive Branch has sent each of these agreements to
the Senate, albeit sometimes after a lengthy delay.1 But the Senate has given its advice and consent to only one,
which nevertheless still awaits the necessary implementing legislation. Both the Executive Branch and Congress
have contributed to this problem. In some cases, presidential administrations have failed to urge prompt approval
of an agreement or to propose implementing legislation. In others, the Senate or Congress as a whole has failed to
act despite encouragement from the Executive Branch. Although the reasons for the delays vary from treaty to
treaty, the delays are alike in their unconscionable length. As Table 1 shows, the United States signed eight of the
treaties more than a decade ago. A ninth treaty has been waiting nine years. The average time since signature is 13
years, and the average time for those pending Senate approval is more than eight years.

US climate leadership is low

Robinson 14(David robinson4/7/14, US climate change policy
and the power sector, http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/EV-61.pdf, AED)
First, reductions in CO2 emissions from the US power sector are likely to be modest ,
at least from a European perspective. If successfully introduced, the EPAs proposed
performance standards for existing power stations imply a reduction in US power
sector emissions of 18 per cent in 2030, compared to 2012. Under the proposal, the
EPA expects coal and gas each to generate at least 30 per cent of US electricity , so
the US will rely on these two fuels for at least 60% of its generation. Second,
achieving EPA objectives for CO2 emissions reduction will be difficult, which partly
explains why the targets are modest. There is no bipartisan consensus on the need
to address climate change in the US. Furthermore, there will be strong opposition
from states whose compliance costs are high and from the directly affected
producers and consumers of coal and coal-base electricity. Litigation and delay is
likely. A change in the Senate majority or in the party holding power after the next
presidential election could slow the process further or even lead to the
abandonment of the approach taken by the current administration. Third, the
prospects for coal and natural gas in the power sector depend not only on EPA
regulations, but also on electricity demand, the growth of renewables and the
relative cost of natural gas and coal.

US climate leadership key to international climate action.

Blesdoe 7/16 (Paul Bledsoe, 7/16/14, Ambitious US emissions pledge can lead
to global climate agreement, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energyenvironment/212316-ambitious-us-emissions-pledge-can-lead-to-global, an energy

expert with the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Clinton Administration official,
kc)
The Obama administrations recent policies to combat climate change, including
draft EPA regulations to limit emissions from existing power plants released last
month, have put the U.S in its strongest-ever domestic position on the issue . These
efforts set the stage for America to make an ambitious new international emissions
commitment, which in turn will provide the U.S. the moral authority to press hard
for an international climate agreement next year, without which 97 percent of
scientists say we risk runaway climate change impacts around the world. American
emissions have now fallen to their lowest level in 20 years, through a combination
of effective policies and market changes, and are on pace to meet the commitment
President Obama made in 2009 to cut emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by
2020. When Obama first announced this goal, skeptics of climate action like former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said such policies would be economically ruinous and
job-killing. Indeed, critics on both right and left contended that Obamas pledge
was not supported by policy proposals, and could not be achieved. Yet here we are
five years later, right on track.

Competitiveness Advantage
Extensions

Competitiveness: AT: Dept. Of Interior

(--) This is an ad hom at bestwind provides jobs and bolsters
the economy allowing to boost competitiveness.

CompetitivenessAT: Alt Causes

(--) These only describe the status quothe plan overcomes
them by incentivizing wind power which provides jobs and
boosts the economy.

Competitiveness: AT: No Trade Shut-Down

(--) Our evidence cites empirical studies as to how
protectionism increases in a world of declining
competitivenessprefer our evidence it is a study.

Competitiveness: AT: Economic Power Not ZeroSum

(--) Our argument is that the perception of competitiveness
decline causes protectionismthe actual economic theory is
irrelevant.

CompetitivenessAT: No Correlation Between

Competitiveness & Growth
(--) This is irrelevantour argument is that perceived declines
in competitiveness cause protectionismwhether it is actually
good for the economy is irrelevant.

Energy Independence2ac Answers

Energy IndependenceAT: Costs a Lot

(--) This is irrelevant to the advantagewind trades off with
foreign sources of energyeven if its more expensive than
other forms of energy, this doesnt matter.

Energy IndependenceAT: No oil Wars

(--) Oil wars are empirically provenWeve invaded Iraq twice,
we went into Libya for oil, etc.

Energy Independence: AT: Tech Solves

(--) We agree that tech solvesoffshore wind is the technology
that solves the AFF but were holding it back with bad
regulations.

Energy Independence: AT: Resource Scarcity

(--) Their evidence assumes waternot oiloil has caused wars
in Iraq and Libya.

Energy IndependenceAT: Interdependence

(--) This interdependence hasnt checked waroil wars are
caused empirically in Iraq and Libya.

Warming Advantage Extensions

WarmingAT: Wind power wont solve warming

(--) Their evidence assumes onshore wind, not offshore
extend our Thaler evidence that offshore wind has a capacity
four times the nations present electric capacity.

WarmingAT: Transmission & Grid Flaws

(--) Their evidence assumes onshore windoffshore wind is
right by the coast and the energy can be directly transferred
there.
(--) Offshore wind solves transmission problems:
Michael P. Giordano, 2010 (University of Richmond Law Review, March
2010, Accessed 7/27/2014, rwg)
Onshore wind resources have the potential to supply much of the nation's energy needs, but the
challenge of transmitting electricity from remote onshore sites to large load centers limits
the use of land-based wind turbines. n7 In contrast, offshore wind resources "are located in
relative proximity to the country's largest centers of electricity use ." n8 "The [DOE]
estimates that the wind resources along American ocean and Great Lakes coasts are
capable of providing 900,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity - an amount nearly equivalent to
the nation's current total installed capacity." n9

WarmingAT: Not sufficient to replace oil &

natural gas
(--) Assumes onshore, not offshore windoffshore solves
energy needs:
Jeffrey THALER 12 Visiting Professor of Energy Policy, Law
& Ethics, University of Maine School of Law and School of
Economics (Jeff Thaler, FIDDLING AS THE WORLD BURNS: HOW CLIMATE
CHANGE URGENTLY REQUIRES A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS, Jeff Thaler University of Maine School of
Law September 17, 2012 Environmental Law, Volume 42, Issue 4,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148122, Accessed
7/27/2014, rwg)
Thus, Part III focuses on one promising technology to demonstrate the flaws in current licensing permitting regimes,
and makes concrete recommendations for reform.16 Wind power generation from onshore installations is proven
technology, generates no greenhouse gases, consumes no water,17 is increasingly cost-competitive with most
fossil fuel sources,18 and can be deployed relatively quickly in many parts of the United States and the world.19

Offshore wind power is a relatively newer technology, especially deep-water floating projects,
and is presently less cost-competitive than onshore wind.20 However, because wind speeds are on
average about 90% stronger and more consistent over water than over land, with
higher power densities and lower shear and turbulence ,21 Americas offshore
resources can provide more than its current electricity use.

WarmingAT: No Impact to Warming

(--) This evidence is from the Idsosthey are anti-warming
hacks who take money from the fossil fuel industry.
(--) Extend our Ansley evidenceit quotes 2000 experts from
around the world who say warming risks human extinction.

WarmingAT: Previous Spikes Disprove

(--) Extend our Ansley evidenceit quotes 2000 experts saying
current levels of warming risk human extinction.

Warming: AT: Irreversible

(--) Extend our Revell evidenceeven if some warming is
inevitableif we can stave off the tipping pointwe can
prevent catastrophic warming.
(--) Even if some warming is inevitable, the risk of catastrophic
warming can be reduced through sustained cuts in emissions:
Taber D. Allison, Terry L. Root, and Peter C. Frumhoff 2014 (American Wind
Wildlife Institute, Stanford University, Union of Concerned Scientists,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1127-y/fulltext.html,
Accessed 7/27/2014, rwg)
Even if we stabilized atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases at todays
levels through immediate and deep reductions in emissions, surface temperatures would continue
to rise for decades as excess heat now contained in the deep ocean is released to the atmosphere. Adapting
to further climate change is unavoidable, but the risks of potentially catastrophic
warming can be reduced through deep and sustained cuts in emissions.

Warming: AT: China Alt Cause

(--) Extend our Thaler evidenceoffshore mitigates effects
from climate change.
(--) U.S. energy leadership motivates India and China.
The Times of India 06/06/2014 [PTI. "'Obama's Emission Policy to Motivate
India and China' - The Times of India." The Times of India. The Times of India, 06
June 2014. Web. 30 July 2014.
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Obamasemission-policy-to-motivate-India-and-China/articleshow/36135289.cms>.] J.L. J.L.
J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J.L.
Obama's emission policy to motivate India and China' PTI | Jun 6, 2014, 11.15AM IST WASHINGTON: The Obama administration's new
ambitious carbon emission standard has put US in a strong position with the G7 countries and it would motivate countries like China

the United States, through the Climate Action Plan,

demonstrating the means by which we are going to reduce our emissions, it put us
in a strong position together with G7 countries to work with nations like China and
India and others who have to similarly take bold action and articulate how they are
going to reach their emissions reduction target as well, the Deputy National Security
Advisor, Ben Rhodes said yesterday. Rhodes was talking to White House reporters travelling with US President, Barack
and India to do similar bold actions, the White House has said. "What

Obama in France. On Monday, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced to cut carbon emission from existing
power plants, which is the single largest source of carbon pollution in the US, by 30 per cent by the year 2030. It also announced to

US described
this as its leadership role in the world. "The US is setting a responsible example. We
will need leaders and people around the world to do the same," the US Secretary of
State, John Kerry, wrote in an op-ed in Financial Times this week. Rhodes said a number of
cut by 2030 particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit. The

world leaders present at G-7 meeting in Europe this week welcomed the US step in this regard. "A number of the leaders made a
point of welcoming the President's new effort on climate change. We think that it will help, because it gives concrete meaning to the
commitments we made at Copenhagen about how we are going to reach our emissions reduction target," he said. "So we do feel
there is some momentum on the climate change issue, given again our clear roadmap for reducing our emissions. And there is more
work to be done for sure, both domestically and with other international partners," he said. "The key principle here is that every

And, again, if the G7 can lead, we will be better

able to bring China and India with us," Rhodes said .
nation has got to step up to the plate in its own way.

Warming AdvantageAT: China & India1ar

(--) Extend our Times of India evidenceby demonstrating how
we are going to reduce our emissionsit puts the US in a
strong position to work with China & India as to how to reduce
their emissions.
(--) Plan convinces India & China to come on board:
Richard Harris, 11/26/2013 (staff, NPR, What's In It For U.S. To Cut
Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/26/246408000/whats-in-it-for-u-s-to-cutgreenhouse-gas-emissions, Accessed 7/28/2014, rwg)
there is a rationale for the United States
to show some leadership. "I don't think the political message is what India and
China need to hear," she says. "I think they just need to see and we haven't shown it yet, but
the hope is that we will show it eventually that we can produce low-carbon energy cheaply."
Looked at that way, it seems futile to try. But Wolfram says

(--) China and India will model USs ways to limiting carbon
emissions
Dave Levitan 14 (Posted 6 Jun 2014 | 21:00 GMT, China to Follow U.S. on
Limiting Carbon Emissions?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/china-to-follow-us-on-limitingcarbon-emissions, EHS/MKS)
Advocates for action on climate change have long urged the United States to make
the first major move in limiting carbon dioxide emissions, with the hope that other
big emitters around the world would follow suit. That seems to actually be
happening now: only days after the United States announced a new rule that will cut
emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, China made some noise about
instituting a carbon cap of its own. As the Guardian reported on Tuesday, He Jiankun, chairman of
China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference that the Chinese government plans
to limit the country's emissions both "by intensity an absolute cap." That would be huge, if
truedeveloping nations like India, as well as China, have long promised only to limit
carbon emissions based on intensity, meaning as a function of the country's
economic growth. But China passed the United States way back in 2006 to become the world's champion in
CO2 emissions; reducing the total amount is the only thing the atmosphere and a warming planet care about. But
we can't rejoice just yet. There is no official word out of China, and He did backtrack later in the day saying he was
merely stating his personal views rather than any official position. And of course, the specific level of any absolute
cap will be critical to assessing whether it will really help. China's previous CO2 goal was a 40 to 45 percent
reduction in carbon intensity, compared to 2005 levels, by 2020. The country did launch a pilot carbon trading
program in Shenzhen last year, but again, an absolute limit on emissions country-wide would represent an
enormous shift in policy. If China does set a cap, and the United States pushes ahead with its new 30 percent
reductions from power plants rule, the landscape will be dramatically different as countries head to Bonn, Germany,
for this year's round of climate talks. The talks in past years have ranged from downright useless to mildly
promising (very mildly), but with the two biggest CO2 culprits in the world on board for actual, meaningful
reductions, there may be a chance to convince others to jump in as well. As noted by Quartz this week, India in
particular remains an outlier, and will account for a huge proportion of emissions increases in the 2020 to 2040
range. Nothing concrete is expected out of Bonn this year, but there is optimism that next year's talks, COP21 in
Paris, will result in a firm agreement. In a teleconference last year, The United Nations' top climate official Christiana
Figueres stressed that no country was doing enough just yet on this front, and added some confusing explanations
for why the last time there was optimism surrounding these negotiations, at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, it was

an abject failure: "What is very different is that we all went to 2009 having made our own decision that
governments had to come to an agreement. But there was actually no commitment of governments to come to an

How exactly coal-dependent

countries like China will limit and eventually diminish their emissions is still up in the
air, of course. But even mentioning an absolute cap is big step from where we've been.
agreement." So, we had to agree to agree before actually agreeing.

(--) China will model US climate policy

Phillips 6/3/2014 (ARI PHILLIPS, masters degrees in journalism and global
policy studies, JUNE 3, 2014, One Day After U.S. Announces Emissions Target,
China Says Carbon Cap Is On The Way, The Think Progress,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444105/china-carbon-cap-2/, gkms-sd)
One day after the United States proposed rules to limit the amount of carbon
emitted from existing power plants, China said it will limit its total CO2 emissions for
the first time, likely starting in 2016 with the announcement of their next five-year
plan. China, the worlds biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and the U.S., the second
biggest, account for about 42 percent of global emissions. The back-to-back
signalling of serious domestic efforts to reduce emissions could signal a muchneeded boost of momentum at the upcoming U.N. climate talks in an effort to
establish a post-Kyoto global commitment. However the statements, which come
from He Jiankun, chairman of Chinas Advisory Committee on Climate Change, are
without specific detail or commitment and merely offer speculation on Chinas
approach to regulating GHGs going forward. According to Reuters, He told a
conference in Beijing on Tuesday that an absolute cap on carbon emissions will be
introduced later this decade.The government will use two ways to control CO2
emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap, He said. The
cap will be the first time China, which has been plagued by air pollution from coalburning power plants as well as the impacts of climate change in the form of heat
and drought, has publicly committed to limiting emissions. Right now China is only
attempting to limit carbon intensity which means as the economy expands carbon
emissions can continue to grow. A peak on overall emissions would help separate
economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. Whats going on is that the
Chinese government has publicly announced that they are in the process of drawing
up new plans for the next five-year plan, said Melanie Hart, director of the China
energy and climate policy program at the Center for American Progress. These
plans are macro-level guides for the economy, including energy and climate: What
Beijings climate modelers are trying to do now is to figure out when Chinese
emissions will naturally peak under a business as usual scenario. They are tracking
past emission patterns in Europe, the United States and other developed nations to
figure out at what point in the industrialization process emissions naturally peak and
when that is likely to happen for China.

(--) The US plan to cut its carbon emission is unlikely to serve

as a template for China
Nan and Holdstock 5/6 (Xu and Nick, 5-6-14, China cant follow the US on
climate change, say experts , https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/7026-China-cant-follow-the-US-on-climate-change-say-experts/en, ekr)

President Obamas recent announcement that the US will seek to cut carbon
emissions by imposing tougher restrictions on coal-fired power stations has been
received with cautious optimism by many climate policy observers. In addition to
reducing its own emissions (the US is the world's second largest emitter of CO2),
observers hope other countries will commit to similar reductions, especially China,
which has been the world's largest emitter since 2006. But reaction to the
announcement within China has been mixed. Li Junfeng, Director of the National
Centre for Climate Change Strategy, said that the plan takes action on climate
change without putting employment or the US economy at risk. This is political
manoeuvring by the Democrats, something both parties need to do in the run-up to
the mid-term elections. Li also questioned the feasibility of implementing the plan.
Obama has bypassed Congress to act alone, but without full legislative force. The
move allows individual states to set their own rules, and so far at least three have
said they will not do so. Yang Fuqiang, a Senior Adviser to the National Resources
Defense Council, echoed Lins reservations. Obamas move is backed by civil
society and the ordinary people, but there is still obvious resistance. It remains to
be seen if the programme will actually be implemented. Its unclear whether China
will follow the US example. While there has been speculation that an absolute cap
on carbon emissions might feature in Chinas next Five Year Plan (covering 20162020), there has been no official confirmation. Li believes the announcement will
not change Chinas climate policy: China has already made its intentions for 2020
clear. But he made the point that the US and China face different constraints when
it comes to altering their energy strategy. [The US] already has the technology
and resources to do this; whether it actually does or not is just a political
choice. But in countries such as China and India, the technology isnt
there, so the politicians do not have the same choices. Emissions cuts cant
happen without improvements to the energy structure. In China the people wont
allow us to keep relying on coal; but it cant be removed from our energy make-up.
This is something the policy-makers need to think about. China cant try and
keep up with the US on this. But some Chinese experts believe that the US
approach can still prove a beneficial example for China. Wang Yi, Director of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Policy and Management, believes that
although China needs to focus on reducing pollution, this will inevitably involve
reducing CO2 emissions. As for the setting of binding emissions targets, Wang
believes this could still happen in a gradual fashion. China could also refer to the
US approach and implement staged total caps but not as a single measure, in
combination with specific roadmaps. There is no point in lofty goals which cannot be
achieved. We should just keep working, slow and steady.

(--) US Climate Change can Spur change in China and India

Ball 6/2/2014 (Jeffrey, 6/2/14, Obamas Climate Change Plan Could Spur
Change China and India, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117970/obamasclimate-change-plan-could-spur-change-china-and-india, mls)
Lots of numbers are being lobbed about Monday after the Obama administration rolled out its climate-change plan.
But to assess the moves environmental impact, consider a single figure: 1 percent. Thats the rough proportion of
yearly global greenhouse-gas emissions that the new EPA plan is projected to cut by 2030if the plan survives a

raft of inevitable challenges and is implemented in its proposed form. That doesnt mean partisans on the right are
correct when they call the administrations plan environmentally meaningless, and it doesnt mean partisans on the
left are wrong when they call it Obamas biggest move on climate change so far. What it means is that nothing the
United States does on its own will do much about climate change. For all the domestic fights the administrations
proposal will touch off, the move will have essentially no impact on global warming unless it prods other countries
the developing nations that will emit virtually all of the projected increase in global greenhouse-gas output in
coming yearsto radically clean up their acts. Will it do that? Doubtful. U.S. carbon emissions were dropping long
before todays announcement. The administrations new policy calls for the U.S. to cut greenhouse-gas emissions
from the power sector 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. According to federal figures, emissions from U.S.
power plants already fell 15 percent between 2005 and 2013. And though those emissions were expected to
bounce back somewhat over the next decade and a half, the government was projecting even without the action
announced today that theyd be 8 percent below 2005 levels in 2030. Why? U.S. electricity demand has basically
flat lined, and power companies have been switching from coal to natural gas, which fracking has made cheaper

carbon emissions have been soaring in the

developing worldchiefly in China and India. That growth is expected to vastly outweigh the
emission declines in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. History suggests the U.S. isn't likely to
persuade other countries to do anything on climate change that those countries
dont already regard as in their national interestsand for reasons far more
immediate than climate change. To be sure, throughout years of international climate negotiations,
diplomats from plenty of countriesChina, India, Saudi Arabia, even the European
Unionhave cited Americas reluctance to curb its greenhouse-gas output as a big
reason they arent doing more themselves. But that anti-American blame game is largely political
and which burns about twice as cleanly as coal. Yet

rhetoric, intended to placate nationalistic constituencies back home. The notion often repeated by U.S. advocates of

a signal U.S. climate push would give the U.S. some

decisive new moral authority that would persuade other countries to cry mea culpa and
slash their own emissions in a paroxysm of concern for the glaciers is wishful thinking, if
more-aggressive climate actionthat

past is prologue. Decisions about what to do on climate change are made chiefly on economic, not environmental,
grounds. Thats because the environmental threat of global warming is tough to visualize and because capital
investments in decarbonizing the energy system are likely to be so mind-bendingly large. The real question about
the impact of the administrations new climate proposal is whether it will lead other countries to decide that curbing
their carbon output is in their economic interest in a way that, before Mondays announcement, they believed it
wasnt. Markets are powerful motivators. Over the past decade, even as China surpassed the U.S. as the worlds
largest greenhouse-gas emitter, it became the worlds largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels. But China
hasnt built up its renewable-energy industry chiefly because it wants to curb its carbon emissions. It has done so
because it has targeted renewable energy as economically strategic: a sector it wants to dominate because it
believes these technologies will grow into big global industries. Tellingly, China has ramped up these industries in
the absence of any aggressive climate move by the U.S., though it has done so in large part to exploit a market

a new U.S. climate plan telegraphed to China

and other developing countries that the U.S. is likely to buy or make more of these
clean-energy wares, it could prompt them to ramp up those industries more. Yet wind
spurred by climate policies in Europe. To the extent

and solar power remain a tiny slice of global energy production. Theyve made no huge dent in global greenhousegas emissions so far.

What would be more significant for the climate is if the Obama

administrations new policy led developing countries to change the way they use
fossil fuelscoal, oil and natural gaswhich will, according to most estimates, continue to provide the bulk of
global energy for many decades to come. Chinas fleet of coal-fired power plants already is one of the worlds most
efficientmeaning that, on average, it produces a lot of electricity for every bit of coal it burns, according to the
International Energy Agency. Thats because China has been busy for years shutting down its oldest, dirtiest coal
plants and replacing them with newer, cleaner versions. As with its wind and solar push, though, China hasnt done
this chiefly to curb climate change, and it has done it in the absence of any big U.S. climate policy. Chinas main
motive: To scrub its infamously brown skies, a serious public-health and thus domestic political threat. Those coalfired power plants arent coughing out just carbon dioxide, an invisible, odorless gas. Theyre also spewing the
pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, which are all too easy to see and smell. But

Obama's climate plan

could spur action in developing countries

in at least two ways. It could accelerate efforts to drive

down the cost of the holy-grail technology known colloquially as clean coal and formally as carbon capture and
sequestration. The idea is to make coal a climate-friendly fuel by capturing the carbon dioxide from coal-burning
power plants and shooting it underground for storage instead of sending it into the air. So far, the technology
remains a science project. But

its conceivable the new U.S. climate push could spur more

work on itnot just in the U.S, but also in the developing world.

Perhaps likelier, the climate

plan could accelerate nearer-term shifts to lower-carbon energy in China and other coal-reliant exporting nations by
raising fears there of a U.S. trade crackdown. Theres long been political talk in Washington that, if the U.S. slapped
carbon constraints on its industry before China did, the U.S. might seek to compensate by hitting Chinese
manufacturers with a carbon tariff on products they ship to the U.S. Its not at all clear such a move has political
legs; as an ongoing tariff war between the U.S. and China over solar panels shows, U.S. industry often divides over
tariffs, because many U.S. firms depend on foreign companies as suppliers. But the protectionist chest-thumping in
Washington has registered in Beijing. Its partly why China has begun experimenting in a handful of provinces with
trading so-called carbon credits, or permits to pollute. In their broad structure, those systems resemble the cap-andtrade carbon constraints that the administrations new climate policy may spur in some U.S. states. If they
expanded in China, they might prod more-efficient coal-fired power plants, the development of Chinas prolific
shale-gas resource, and redoubled efforts at energy efficiency. One percent matters in milk and in American politics.

Advocates of
a federal push to cut U.S. emissions have claimed it would prod developing
countries to do even more. Now comes the test.
It matters in global warming only if it catalyzes much bigger action on the other side of the globe.

Economy Advantage

Economy AdvantageAT: Economic Decline Not

Stop War
(--) Extend our Royal evidenceit cites robust statistical
evidence proving economic decline solves war.

Economy AdvantageAT: Moral Hazards

(--) Government regulations are in the way and removal is
needed to solvethats our Schroeder evidence.
(--) Federal incentives are key to solveour Giordano evidence
says that government support is necessary to provide for
offshore wind power.

EconomyAT: Price Volatility

(--) Evidence assumes onshore and not offshore wind
(--) Extend our Schroeder & Giordano evidencewe need to lift
government regulations & provide government support to
cause commercialization.

Oceans Advantage Extensions

OceansAT: Wind Disrupts Ocean Flows

(--) Extend our Casey evidenceit is four years newer and cites
a study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University that
says wind power promotes ocean biodiversity.

OceansAT: Invasive Species Turn

(--) Their evidence non uniques thisit says that ballast water
and boat hulls lead to invasive speciesthat makes it try or die
for the AFF to protect marine biodiversity.
(--) Non-unique: invasive species now
Slate 13 (Christie Wilcox, author of Discover magazine's Science Sushi blog
and a Ph.D. candidate in the cell and molecular biology department at the
University of Hawaii, where she studies the protein toxins in venomous fish,
07-01-13, The Worst Marine Invasion Ever
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/lionfish_in
vasion_the_invasive_fish_are_eating_so_many_native_species_that.html, AS)
Though comparing invasions is a lot like debating if hurricanes are more devastating
than earthquakes, its pretty safe to say that lionfish in the Atlantic is the worst
marine invasion to datenot just in the United States, but globally. Lionfish also win
the gold medal for speed, spreading faster than any other invasive species . While there were
scattered sightings from the mid-1980s, the first confirmation that lionfish were becoming established in the
Atlantic Ocean occurred off of North Carolina in 2000. Since then, they have spread like locusts,
eating their way throughout the Caribbean and along every coastline from North Carolina to Venezuela, including
deep into the Gulf of Mexico. When lionfish arrive on a reef, they reduce native fish populations by nearly 70
percent. And its no wonderthe

invasive populations are eight or more times as dense

than those in their native range, with more than 450 lionfish per hectare reported in
some places. That is a lot of lionfish.

(--) Extend our Casey evidenceit cites a new study from the
Marine Institute at Plymouth University that the net effect of
offshore wind power is a positive impact on the marine
environment in several ways.

(--) Turn: Invasive species goodbolsters ecosystems:

KEIM 11

(Brandon, Science journalist Reporter, Sometimes Invasive Species Are Good,

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/good-invasives/ , Wired, ASM)

Invasive species are the stock villains of conservation biology, disrupting

ecosystems and throwing native populations into disarray. But in certain cases,
theyre actually quite beneficial, and perhaps its time to recognize that. In
California, for example, native butterflies feed on non-native plants. In Puerto Rico,
alien trees help restore abandoned pastures to a condition suitable for native plants.
Even the much-maligned zebra mussel helps filter toxins from lakes . We predict the
proportion of non-native species that are viewed as benign or even desirable will
slowly increase over time, write ecologist Martin Schlaepfer of the State University
of New York and colleagues in a paper published Feb. 22 in Conservation Biology.
According to Schlaepfers group, biologists are often biased against invasives, and
decline to notice or report instances of beneficial invasions. They support their
unorthodox perspective by reviewing dozens of papers on plants and animals
introduced, accidentally or otherwise, outside their historical ranges. A variety of
underappreciated invasive roles are described: providing ecosystem services,
replenishing human-damaged regions, and generally helping to sustain some
semblance of natural health even as many ecosystems struggle to survive .

Schlaepfer and colleagues admit to a certain bias of their own. Negative roles
listed here are not exhaustive and include only those that directly oppose the listed
positive roles, they write. Many of the non-native species listed have other
negative effects on conservation objectives. Their goal, however, isnt to do a
conclusive analysis of the pros and cons of invasives, but to encourage a more
open-minded consideration of benefits and not just cost for species often
described in militarized, even xenophobic terms. After all, many now-beloved native
creatures were once invasives. Among them are dozens of honeybee species
introduced to North America since the 16th century. Far from declaring war on bees,
people now worry that these invading aliens might vanish.

OceansAT: Fishery Collapse

(--) Their evidence says that current trends cause fishery
collapsemeaning the turn is non-unique.
(--) Non-unique & turn: fisheries will collapse now and
stopping warming saves them:
Fox 2011 (Fox, Emily,Plenty of fish in the sea? Not anymore: World fish stocks to
be wiped out by 2050, 5/11/2011, Express UK, Emily Fox is the Deputy Online
Editor for Express CO)
More than 85 percent of the world's fish supplies have already been fully exploited
according to scientists - and by 2050 the stocks will be entirely exhausted. Jonathan
Baillie, director of the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said today: "More than one billion
people use fish as their primary source of protein. "15 percent of the world's fish are already endangered and most
of the top predators like tuna and salmon have experienced declines of 90 percent of higher. "Currently we are
fishing to a rate where the fish cannot replenish themselves and we are drastically depleting the biological diversity
in the ocean. "If we continue, in the future there will be fish in the ocean but they will be smaller and not the fish we
are used to. We are fishing to a rate where the fish cannot replenish themselves and we are drastically depleting
the biological diversity in the ocean Jonathan Baillie, director of the Zoological Society of London There will be more
jellyfish and crustaceans instead of larger fish. What we will be able to get out of the ocean will change a lot." The
figures come as scientists launched Project Ocean - a campaign to prevent overfishing and other methods such as
bottom trawling which destroys thousands of kilometres of seabed each year. Professor Baillie added: "Currently

"Some 85
percent of the world's fish stock is already fully or over-exploited and by 2050 the
world's fish stocks will have collapsed entirely, if we don't take action." He went on:
only 1 percent of the world's oceans are protected, we would like to increase this figure to 30 percent.

"There will be 9.2bn or even 10bn people on the planet in 2050, those people will need to be fed and if we destroy
the fisheries that will only put more pressure on the landscape which means remove the remaining forests to grow

Greenpeace also today backed the campaign. Biodiversity

spokesman Willie MacKenzie said: "If we don't change our ways a world with no fish is
where it is going. "Atlantic Salmon is commercially extinct, cod off the Grand Banks and eels are now hugely
crops and increasingly biofuel usage."

endangered. What used to be relatively common species of fish have got down to very low levels. "We hunt fish
rather than harvesting them - the ones we like to eat are high up on the food chain which has a drastic impact on
the eco-systems. "There are solutions and ways to do it better and this is something which we can effect. One of
the biggest things we can do to change the situation, is as a consumer by being selective." Tuna and salmon are
two of the most endangered fish species in the world's oceans. Years of badly managed and over-fishing has left
tuna in trouble and even previously healthy fisheries are now under pressure. Of the 23 commercially exploited
tuna stocks globally, at least nine are classified as fully fished, four are classified as overexploited or depleted.
Three stocks are classified as critically endangered and a further three a vulnerable to complete extinction. The UK
is the second highest consumer of tinned tuna in the world. In 2006 alone, the country consumed the equivalent of
more than seven hundred million tins of tuna, a total of over 130,000 tonnes and worldwide, the tinned tuna trade
is worth around US$ 2.7 billion per annum. Small fish species are also often targeted, Prof Baille added: "As humans
we have become such effective hunters, we used to think that fish was inexhaustable but we are just hoovering up
all the major fish sources in the ocean. "As larger fish become extinct, there is more and more pressure upon
smaller fish to fill the void." The most caught species on the globe is currently the Peruvian Anchovy - 7 million

- CO2
emissions in the atmosphere are a growing problem, according to some scientists.
Ocean acidification is proving a great problem for fisheries as CO2 levels create
unwelcome habitats in coral reefs across the globe.
tonnes were caught in 2006 alone. Overfishing is not the only problem for developing fish populations

(--) Extend our Casey evidenceit cites a Plymouth University

study that wind farms provide shelter for fish because it stops
bottom trawling.

OceansAT: Oceans are Doomed

(--) Extend our Casey evidenceits try or die for us and the
Plymouth University study it cites says that offshore wind
helps marine ecosystems in multiple ways.

OceansAT: Oceans are Resilient

(--) Extend our Gregg evidenceits four years newer and says
that oceans are on the verge of collapse.

OceansAT: Alt Causes

(--) This is just uniqueness for usit provides multiple reasons
why the oceans are in trouble nowits try our die for us
extend our Casey evidence and the multiple ways we help the
oceans.

OceansAT: Invasive Species Turn1ar

(--) Extend our non-uniques: their evidence and our Slate
evidence proves invasive species have invaded now:
Paul 6/10/2014 (Kari Paul, staff writer, July 10, 2014, Hidden Cameras Show
Florida's Newest Invasive Species Stealing Eggs, Marshable,
http://mashable.com/2014/07/10/florida-invasive-species/, gkms-sd)
Cameras in Florida have caught tegu lizards stealing eggs from alligator nests, raising
concerns among wildlife officials about the threat the invasive lizard poses to native
species. Researchers at the University of Florida set up cameras monitoring two nests in the Everglades during
the spring and summer of 2013. What they captured confirmed their suspicions: The non-native lizard is
preying on native species' eggs, threatening major ecological damage. SEE ALSO: Giant Snake Opens Door to
Your Nightmares "Between August 12 and 18, we captured images of tegus removing 02 eggs per day until an
examination of the nest on August 19 revealed no remaining alligator eggs," head researcher and University of
Florida professor Frank Mazzotti wrote in the report. "We did not capture images of any other nest predator during
egg incubation." The Argentine black-and-white tegu is native to South America and can reach 4 to 5 feet in length.

The species first arrived in the U.S. in the early 2000 s as a pet, and has become increasingly
common in South Florida after apparently escaping or being released into the wild by pet owners. With the capacity
to lay up to 30 eggs per clutch and the ability to withstand long winters by burrowing, the hardy species has already
seen a population explosion. "Any species that is a predator and eats high up the food chain and is introduced into

The
tegu joins an expanding list of invasive species in Florida including most prominently
a novel environment has potential for causing serious ecological damage," Mazzotti told the Toronto Sun.

Burmese python, which, like the tegu, came to the U.S. as a pet. "South Florida is vulnerable to invasion by nonnative reptiles because it has major sources of non-native species from the pet trade (port of entry, captive
breeders, and animal dealers), peninsula geography, subtropical climate, and large areas of disturbed habitats," the
study said. The Burmese python has already invaded ecosystems in Florida, decimating various native species and
growing large enough to take down prey as big as alligators.

Lionfish mean invasive species are inevitable

USA Today 14 (USA Today, 7-29-14, Ro-o-a-a-r-r! Florida bans damaging
lionfish, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nationnow/2014/07/29/lionfish-florida-ban-friday/13288757/, GIE)
lionfish will go into effect Friday in Florida. The spiny, striped fish is popular in
aquariums but is considered an invasive species and has had a negative impact on
the ecosystem, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the organization behind
A ban on the importation of all

the ban. So what exactly are lionfish and is this an issue elsewhere? USA TODAY Network answers some key

lionfish are native to

the Indo-Pacific region and the Red Sea. The first lionfish was reported in Florida in
1985, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission , and now the
species can be found along much of the Atlantic coastline, including South America. " It's not just a Florida
issue," Amanda Nalley, a spokeswoman for the commission, told USA TODAY Network. " They're found yearround from Texas to North Carolina and have been found all the way up to Rhode
Island" during certain portions of the year, she said. It's unclear whether the lionfish was introduced to the
questions about this colorful fish. Where are they from, and how did they get here? The

Atlantic coast by intentional or unintentional release of imported species, though it's likely the source of the release
was people who had them as pets. "The genetics have been traced back to just a few founding fish that started this
entire invasion," Lad Akins, director of special projects for REEF, a conservation group that studies marine
ecosystems, told USA TODAY Network. Akins compared the lionfish to pythons in Florida. The snake is not native to
the region, but now has an established population because imported animals were released into the wild. Why

lionfish are impacting the

ecosystem in a variety of ways. They eat economically important fish such as
should people care about their population levels? With a voracious appetite,

grouper and snapper when they are small and more vulnerable, meaning that fewer
of those fish make it to maturity, which hurts the fishing industry . Lionfish also eat the prey
that grouper and snapper would have consumed, Edie Widder, CEO and senior scientist of ORCA, an ocean research

Lionfish also eat other species that help

keep the habitat in check, such as Parrot fish, which consume algae, as well as
marine life that is recreationally important, such as small, colorful fish that divers
and snorklers like to look at around reefs.
and conservation organization, told USA TODAY Network.

OceansInvasive Species ExtensionsInvasive

Species Good
(--) Extend our Keim evidenceinvasive species help repair
damage done by humans and bolster ecosystems.
(--) Invasive species can actually be good to the environment
Marris 14 Emma Marris is an environmental writer and reporter. In 2011, she
published her first book, Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World.
The book highlights alternative conservation strategies that do not focus on holding
or returning land to a historical baseline. From managed relocation of species
threatened by climate change to the embrace of so-called novel ecosystems, she
champions a blurring of the lines between nature and people, and a conscious and
responsible care of our humanized planet. Find her on Twitter @Emma_Marris.
[Marris, Emma. "Opinion: It's Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are
Evil." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 24 July 2014. Web. 27 July
2014. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-invasive-speciesconservation-biology-extinction-climate-science/] J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J. L.
J.L. J.L. J.L.
Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders are . How, scientists
at the symposium wondered, do you define "native" on a warming planet, when plants and animals are already
moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider
them "invasive" in their new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to remove
them from their new environsto do so would stymie their chances of adapting to the warmer future we're
creating. And then there are the non-natives that we actually like .

Most domestic crops are exotic in

most of the places they're grown, but there are even wild exotics that "do good,"
forming useful relationships with native species. Edwin Grosholz of the University of
California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On
beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for
the endangered California clapper rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving
bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and poison the spartina
which grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirdssaw clapper
rail numbers go tumbling downward. There are other examples like that. The endangered
southwestern willow flycatcher nests in "invasive" tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers
are now pollinated by the Japanese white-eye birdbecause the native pollinators have been driven extinct by
other non-native species. Should we impose further risk on already endangered natives by severing these
relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of nature and let such "well-behaved" exotics stay? Weirdest of all
is the puzzle of the invasive species that are themselves endangered, like the wattle-necked turtle. Dov Sax, an
ecologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and symposium co-organizer, reported that 15 percent of
mammals and 10 percent of birds that have been introduced in non-native habitats are under threat in their home
ranges. Hippos, vulnerable to extinction in sub-Saharan Africa, are multiplying in the lakes of Colombia, after being
imported by drug lord Pablo Escobar. The red-crowned Amazon parrot is endangered in its home in northeast

Leave
them alone, more and more conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing
obsessively on categorizing species as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an
ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once considered himself an
"invasion biologist"but not anymore. "I am actively trying to get the field to retire
the invader narrative," he said in Missoula. A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing After all,
nativeness is just one environmental value, and arguably not as important as
preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve
Mexico, but flourishes in noisy flocks in cities in California and Hawaii. What do we do with such cases?

biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or evenbrace yourself, now

introducing them on purpose. This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the Aldabra tortoise on
the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that formerly had their
seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that's related to the island's
large tortoisesa non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally introduced in 2004is
now handling some of that work. Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still means focusing on
supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can and should do that
in places where it is feasible and important to us. As native gardening guru Douglas Tallamy has shown us, nothing
beats a native tree for supporting biodiversity. Keeping whole landscapes completely native will require more and
more active management as time goes onbut for some special places, it will probably be worth it. But the weirder,

As climate changes, as the species we've already moved

around establish themselves in their new homes, we'll be called on more and more
to choose between the needs of a threatened species and the historical continuity
of an ecosystem.
tougher cases will keep coming up.

(--) Invasive species are good

Keim 11 (Brandon Keim, 2-28-11, http://www.wired.com/2011/02/good-invasives/,
SSN)
Invasive species are the stock villains of conservation biology, disrupting
ecosystems and throwing native populations into disarray. But in certain cases,
theyre actually quite beneficial, and perhaps its time to recognize that. In
California, for example, native butterflies feed on non-native plants. In Puerto Rico,
alien trees help restore abandoned pastures to a condition suitable for native plants.
Even the much-maligned zebra mussel helps filter toxins from lakes. We predict
the proportion of non-native species that are viewed as benign or even desirable
will slowly increase over time, write ecologist Martin Schlaepfer of the State
University of New York and colleagues in a paper published Feb. 22 in Conservation
Biology. According to Schlaepfers group, biologists are often biased against
invasives, and decline to notice or report instances of beneficial invasions . They
support their unorthodox perspective by reviewing dozens of papers on plants and
animals introduced, accidentally or otherwise, outside their historical ranges. A
variety of underappreciated invasive roles are described: providing ecosystem
services, replenishing human-damaged regions, and generally helping to sustain
some semblance of natural health even as many ecosystems struggle to survive.
Schlaepfer and colleagues admit to a certain bias of their own. Negative roles
listed here are not exhaustive and include only those that directly oppose the listed
positive roles, they write. Many of the non-native species listed have other
negative effects on conservation objectives. Their goal, however, isnt to do a
conclusive analysis of the pros and cons of invasives, but to encourage a more
open-minded consideration of benefits and not just cost for species often
described in militarized, even xenophobic terms. After all, many now-beloved native
creatures were once invasives. Among them are dozens of honeybee species
introduced to North America since the 16th century. Far from declaring war on bees,
people now worry that these invading aliens might vanish.

(--) Invasive Species Good: Improve Biodiversity, help

ecosystem.
Melville, 11 (Kate Melville, 14 February 2011, Invasive plants can improve
biodiversity, ecosystem health,

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20110113220514data_trunc_sys.shtml, source
is Penn State University, Accesses Date 7-30-14, SM)
human-introduced, invasive species of plants can - contrary to
prevailing ideas - have positive effects on ecological communities . The research, published
Scientists have found that

in the journal Diversity and Distributions, has wide implications for the way environmental managers respond to
ecosystem maintenance. "Among conservation biologists, ecologists, and managers, the default approach is to try

Penn
State assistant professor Toms Carlo said. "The fundamental goal is to return a
natural area to its original, pristine state, with the native species occupying the
dominant position in the community. But the problem is that most native
communities already have been changed beyond recognition by humans, and many
native species are now rare." Carlo and his co-researchers wanted to test whether certain wellto eliminate and root out non-native, invasive shrubs - anything that seems to change an ecosystem,"

established, invasive fruiting species have negative or positive effects on bird and fruiting-plant communities. "We
wondered: Are we sometimes doing more harm than good when we eradicate plants that, despite being introduced

To test this notion, Carlo sectioned

off an area of central Pennsylvania known as the Happy Valley region, where honeysuckle - a nonnative fruiting plant that is considered invasive - grows in abundance. They then
assessed the abundance of bird species and fruiting plants - including honeysuckle within the area. After comparing their data with similar data from urban,
agricultural, and forested areas, they determined that the abundance of
honeysuckle predicted the numbers and diversity of birds within the region and even beyond the region. That
is, the honeysuckle and bird communities had formed a relationship known as
mutualism (how two or more species interact by benefiting mutually from each
other's existence). "The abundance of fruit-eating birds in the Happy Valley region is linked to the abundance
recently, have formed positive relationships with native animals?"

of honeysuckle," Carlo explained. "Honeysuckle comprises more than half of all the fruits available in the landscape,
and it benefits birds by providing them with a source of food in the fall. Meanwhile, birds benefit honeysuckle by
dispersing the plant's seeds across a wider geographical area, helping the species to occupy more and more
territory in areas already affected by human activities. Returning this particular ecosystem to its honeysuckle-free
state could harm many species of native birds that now seem to rely on honeysuckle as a major food source in the
fall." The team also tested the honeysuckle's influence, not just on birds, but on other species of fruiting plants.
First, they grew native fruiting plants known as American nightshades in pots in a greenhouse. When the fruits were
ripe on each plant, they then placed them into both honeysuckle-dense areas and areas area without honeysuckle
but dominated by other native and non-native fruiting species. "We chose the American nightshade because it is
native and common in the Happy Valley region," Carlo said. "Also, it is easy to manipulate experimentally, and its
fruits are eaten - and thus dispersed - by native birds." In the area in which honeysuckle grew in abundance, the
rate of fruit-removal of Carlo's American nightshades was 30-percent higher than in the areas without honeysuckle.
Carlo explained that in the honeysuckle-rich area, birds were present in abundance. These birds allowed the
nightshades to receive more seed-dispersal services. "The newly introduced plants piggybacked on the success of
the honeysuckle, which is a common phenomenon because fruit-eating birds usually feed on a variety of fruit. The
same birds that ate the honeysuckle also ate the American nightshade, dispersing the seeds of both plants. It's a
win-win-win for all three: the birds, the honeysuckle, and the nightshades." The study notes that in Pennsylvania,
there are now three to four times more fruit-eating birds such as robins and catbirds than there were just 30 years
ago, especially in landscapes of high human presence. Carlo says that scientists should conclude that, while some
invasive, human-introduced plants are definitely problematic, others could serve to restore ecological balance by
providing essential food resources to native migratory birds that populate areas affected by humans. " Invasive

species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and help restore native biodiversity
in an inexpensive and self-organized way that requires little or no human
intervention," Carlo suggested. Carlo also lamented that attempts to clear areas of invasive species were often
a waste of time and tax dollars. He explained that when managers and agencies attempt to eradicate an invasive
plant from a particular ecosystem, the species often ends up growing back anyway. " Nature

is in a constant
state of flux, always shifting and readjusting as new relationships form between
species, and not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or
created by humans," Carlo said. "We need to be more careful about shooting first and asking questions

later... we should be asking: Are we responding to real threats to nature or to our cultural perception and scientific
bias?"

(--) Invasive Species Helps Restore an Ecosystem

Stokstad, 13 (Erik Stokstad, Apr 3 2013, Hated Invasive Species Helps Restore
an Ecosystem, http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/04/hated-invasivespecies-helps-restore-ecosystem, Staff writer at Science Magazine American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Accesses Date 7-30-14, SM)
It's not quite redemption, but one of most loathed invasive species in the worldthe
European green crab (Carcinus maenas)has had a surprisingly positive effect on
an ecosystem. On Cape Cod, Massachusetts, researchers have found that the crab
is reversing a decades-long trend of damage that another species has inflicted on
salt marshes. It might be the first nice thing that the green crab has done for
anyone. Green crabs are aggressive and have colonized most of the world's
coastlines, where they've chased away or killed native species. "It eats about everything," says marine ecologist
Mark Bertness of Brown University. "In terms of biodiversity, it's hell on wheels." But in New England, green crabs
are now fixing an ecological problem that humans caused. Recreational fishing and crabbing on Cape Cod have

removed most of the native predators that used to eat a common native species
called the purple marsh crab (Sesarma reticulatum). With the predators off their backs, the marsh
crabs are now up to four times more common than before. And they're hungry, feasting on the
tender young shoots of cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), which is the predominant plant in the salt
marshes. In addition, the crab burrows make the soil more likely to erode. Over the past 3 decades, more and more
salt marsh has been laid bare.

But about 3 years ago, Bertness noticed that cordgrass was

starting to recover. "This was quite surprising," he says. Soon, he realized that salt marshes with lots of
green crabs were doing the best. It was a bit odd to find the green crabs there, because these crabs, which invaded
New England more than 100 years ago, tend to live near the shore, where they can hide under rocks. Bertness
thinks that the salt marshes became more appealing for green crabs once the marsh crabs had dug so many
burrows. (Even though predators are half as common as before, both crabs need burrows to escape from birds.) The
5-centimeter-wide green crabs, Bertness figured, would have no trouble kicking the smaller marsh crabs out of their
burrows and making them skitter away. To test the idea that this was how green crabs are indirectly helping the
cordgrass, Bertness and his lab manager, Tyler Coverdale, surveyed 10 marshes on Cape Cod in August 2012.

They found that, in fact, recovering patches of salt marsh did have denser
populations of green crabs. And they confirmed the brutal nature of green crabs: When confined in cages
and pitted one against another, green crabs evicted marsh crabs from their burrows. More than 85% of the marsh
crabs died in the cages, they report online this week in Ecology, which were littered with broken shells and severed
limbs. Just the fear factor alone may have a big effect in reducing herbivory. Another test in a larger enclosure
showed that the presence of a single green crab caused marsh crabs to spend the entire month of the experiment
in hiding. Even if the green crab was locked up in a cage, the marsh crabs rarely dared to venture out. By the end of
the experiment, the marsh crabs had eaten an order of magnitude less cordgrass than they usually did. Once

Bertness says that

many ecologists have a "knee-jerk reaction to invasives" and that removing them
just because they are invasive may not be the best use of limited conservation
funds. "It's important to acknowledge that introduced species will in some cases
provide an unintended benefit, and this is a cool one," says Edwin Grosholz, an
ecologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study. "That means
we have to pay attention as we eradicate species" that have invaded an ecosystem.
But he's not ready to put the green crab on a pedestal. "It may have a positive
effect in New England," he says. "Its track record elsewhere is quite different."
cordgrass gets a break, Bertness says, it can rapidly regrow. What does it all mean?

(--) Invading species arent harmful and arent the problem

Marris, writer for National Geographic 14

(National Geographic, 7/24/14, Opinion: It's Time to Stop Thinking That All NonNative Species Are Evil,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724invasive-species-conservation-biology-extinction-climate-science/, JL)
The turtles came from China, starting in the 1850s, brought by sugarcane farmers who liked them as soup. Today,
they're endangered in China and considered invasivethe term for non-native species that cause undesirable
effectsin Kauai. But conservationists don't believe the animals are safe from hunting in their home range, so
there's little point in boxing them up and sending them back. It's a head scratcher: Should we remove the turtles
from Kauai to preserve the native ecosystem therethe turtles could potentially eat native fishand risk the
extinction of their species, or should we keep them alive in Hawaii? Those kinds of knotty questions are becoming
more commonplace in ecology,

as global change accelerates. And so a new attitude is

emerging that's less reflexively hostile toward invaders . It was much in evidence at a
symposium held last week at the North American Congress for Conservation Biology in Missoula, Montana. I
participated as a journalist but not a disinterested observer: I've argued in the past that it's time for a more
nuanced approach to the non-native plants and animals among us. Invasive species are scary. It was ecologist
Charles Elton, back in the 1950s, who introduced the militaristic "invasion" metaphor to describe exotic plants and
animalsbut there's no question some can be extremely destructive. The brown tree snake has eaten a dozen
kinds of forest birds in Guam to extinction; zebra mussels clog pipes around the Great Lakes; the common house cat
turns out to be, in Australia, a mercilessly effective killer of cute, fluffy marsupials like the bilby and the numbat.

As

scientists have sounded the alarm about these pests, the public has gotten the
message. Citizen groups rip out non-native plants. Native gardens have become
increasingly popular, both as ways to celebrate the unique flora of each region and
as tiny hot spots of diversity. Native trees provide food for native bugs, which feed
native birds. Food chains developed over thousands of years of co-evolution unfold
in our backyards. We're even going native in the kitchen, with fine restaurants increasingly focused around
locally hunted, foraged, and grown ingredients. So we've learned, scientists and lay people alike,
that native species are good and non-natives are bad. Julian Olden, a biologist at the University
of Washington, Seattle, who co-organized the symposium, recently polled nearly 2,000 ecologists. Among his
findings: A substantial number of them said they would immediately eradicate a hypothetical non-native forest
plant, even if it were shown to have no effect on the forest. Olden calls this the "guilty even when proven innocent"

That kind of approach is not very useful on a rapidly changing planet . Exotics
Are Everywhere Climate change is making it harder even to decide who the invaders
are. How, scientists at the symposium wondered, do you define "native" on a warming planet, when plants
and animals are already moving toward the poles or up mountainsides in search of
climate conditions they can tolerate? Should we consider them "invasive" in their
new homes? Regardless of what we label them, conservationists will be reluctant to
remove them from their new environsto do so would stymie their chances of
adapting to the warmer future we're creating. And then there are the non-natives that we actually
like. Most domestic crops are exotic in most of the places they're grown, but there are
even wild exotics that "do good," forming useful relationships with native species .
approach.

Edwin Grosholz of the University of California, Davis, told the recent symposium about one such relationship. On
beaches in his state, non-native spartina grass has become important habitat for the endangered California clapper
rail, a plump shorebird with a downward curving bill more at home on land than in the air. A project to rip out and
poison the spartinawhich grows in dense swaths that exclude many other shorebirdssaw clapper rail numbers
go tumbling downward. There are other examples like that. The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in
"invasive" tamarisk shrubs. Many native (and beautiful) Hawaiian flowers are now pollinated by the Japanese whiteeye birdbecause the native pollinators have been driven extinct by other non-native species. Should we impose
further risk on already endangered natives by severing these relationships? Or should we admire the resilience of
nature and let such "well-behaved" exotics stay? Weirdest of all is the puzzle of the invasive species that are
themselves endangered, like the wattle-necked turtle. Dov Sax, an ecologist at Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, and symposium co-organizer, reported that 15 percent of mammals and 10 percent of birds that have
been introduced in non-native habitats are under threat in their home ranges. Hippos, vulnerable to extinction in
sub-Saharan Africa, are multiplying in the lakes of Colombia, after being imported by drug lord Pablo Escobar. The
red-crowned Amazon parrot is endangered in its home in northeast Mexico, but flourishes in noisy flocks in cities in
California and Hawaii. What do we do with such cases?

Leave them alone, more and more

conservationists are arguing, and stop focusing obsessively on categorizing species

as native or non-native. Mark Davis, an ecologist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, once
considered himself an "invasion biologist"but not anymore. "I am actively trying to get the field to retire the

After all, nativeness is just one

environmental value, and arguably not as important as preventing extinctions and
preserving biodiversity. In some cases we can best serve biodiversity by leaving the non-natives alone or
invader narrative," he said in Missoula. A Good Thing, Not the Only Thing

evenbrace yourself, nowintroducing them on purpose. This is the thinking behind, for example, installing the
Aldabra tortoise on the islands of Mauritius. The islands lost their own large tortoises, and the fruiting plants that
formerly had their seeds moved around by these fruit-loving reptiles have been on the decline. A tortoise that's
related to the island's large tortoisesa non-native from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean that was intentionally
introduced in 2004is now handling some of that work. Most of the time, for the time being, conserving species still
means focusing on supporting them in their historical habitats, planting natives and removing non-natives. We can
and should do that in places where it is feasible and important to us. As native gardening guru Douglas Tallamy has
shown us, nothing beats a native tree for supporting biodiversity. Keeping whole landscapes completely native will
require more and more active management as time goes onbut for some special places, it will probably be worth
it. But the weirder, tougher cases will keep coming up .

As climate changes, as the species we've

already moved around establish themselves in their new homes, we'll be called on
more and more to choose between the needs of a threatened species and the
historical continuity of an ecosystem. Which matters most to you is a personal decision. For me,
though I highly value the particular distribution of life that makes each place unique, species survival trumps
historical fidelity. Ultimately, I care more that species exist than that they stay where they're "supposed" to be. Let
the turtles stay on Kauai. I also believe that hating non-native species is counterproductive and unfair. Even the
deadly tree snakes in Guam, responsible as a species for so many extinctions, are not evil as individuals. They have
no idea they aren't in the right place. They're just snakes being snakes. It makes more sense to be angry at the
humans who moved a harmful species to a new placebut in general, harmful introductions were accidents or were

And most of the extinctions and population declines

that mar our beautiful Earth aren't caused by exotic species . They're due to
development that is destroying habitat, often needlessly. That's the real bad guy. If
you must hate something, hate mindless development. When my kids and I see Queen Anne's
undertaken by people who meant well.

lace by the roadside or the lemony yellow flowers of the common mulleinboth very common non-native weeds in
the United StatesI don't scowl. I don't see those flowers as evil villains or even as a blemish on the landscape.
They're unlikely to drive any other species extinct. They don't know they're on the wrong continent. And no matter
where they are, they're still beautiful.

Oceans 1ar: Overfishing Now

(--) Extend our Fox evidenceit indicates massive overfishing now
and how solving warming is necessary to save fish populations.
(--) Overfishing now

Ross 14(Phillip, 1-14-14, Overfishing Causes Ecosystems To Unravel, Fish

Populations Cant Recover After Tipping Points Reached
http://www.ibtimes.com/overfishing-causes-ecosystems-unravel-fish-populationscant-recover-after-tipping-points-reached, ekr)
As improvements in technology and large-scale fishing methods have made commercial
fishing more efficient, faster and more profitable, fish populations around the world have
suffered. Starting in the early 1800s, humans have harvested several species of fish to the brink of extinction.
Overfishing is an ecological disaster that affects entire ecosystems, and a new study highlights this point in bright,
neon color. Researchers in the U.S. analyzed fisheries data from around the globe, examining the cumulative effect
that occurs when overfishing depletes a particular population. The results of their investigation, described in a
paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in December, underscore the effect
that eliminating one species has on the ecosystem as a whole. When one fish is no longer there, the entire
ecosystem changes, researchers contend, and once that tipping point has been reached, the species can no
longer bounce back. You dont realize how interdependent species are until it all unravels, Felicia Coleman,
director of the Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory and a co-author on the study, said in a
statement. The authors noted one particular example of ecosystem collapse that occurred off the coast of Namibia
in southwest Africa. In the 1970s, the northern Benguela ecosystem completely changed as stocks of anchovy and
sardines plummeted. With anchovy and sardines on the way out, bearded goby and jellyfish stepped in to take their
place. Which animals suffered the most? It was actually the populations of African penguins and Cape gannets that
bore the brunt of overfishing in the region. The birds couldnt survive on goby and jellyfish, and as a result, their
numbers declined by 77 percent and 94 percent, respectively. "When you put all these examples together, you
realize there really is something important going on in the world's ecosystems," Joseph Travis, a biological science
professor at Florida State University and one of the studys co-authors, said in a statement. "It's easy to write off
one case study. But, when you string them all together as this paper does, I think you come away with a compelling
case that tipping points are real, we've crossed them in many ecosystems, and we'll cross more of them unless we
can get this problem under control." Part of the problem, scientists say, is consumer ignorance about the fish they
eat and where it comes from. Also, researchers warn that the fishing industry needs a massive overhaul, otherwise
the worlds food supply will collapse. What we have today are multinational fleets of roving bandits that conduct
serial depletions and move to more productive grounds, Robert Steneck from the University of Maine and a coauthor of the study told Quartz. People in the U.S. are insulated from the reality of overfishing by seeing fish well
stocked in their grocery stores. Overfishing and environmental change have triggered many severe and
unexpected consequences, the authors note in the study. As existing communities have collapsed, new ones have
become established, fundamentally transforming ecosystems to those that are often less productive for fisheries,
more prone to cycles of booms and busts, and thus less manageable. Researchers say a lack of appreciation on
the part of fisheries and their management for the complexity of interspecies relationships is greatly affecting how
we treat our worlds stocks of fish. Ecologists have come to understand that networks of interacting species exhibit
nonlinear dynamics and feedback loops that can produce sudden and unexpected shifts, they wrote. We argue
that fisheries science and management must follow this lead by developing a sharper focus on species interactions
and how disrupting these interactions can push ecosystems in which fisheries are embedded past their tipping
points.

World Fish Stocks are depleted

Palmer 6/20/2014 (Ednal, 6/20/14, Fish Depletion, a reality,

http://www.solomonstarnews.com/viewpoint/private-view/3012-fish-depletion-a-reality , mls)
What can be done to replenish Tuna stocks? Pacific Island people working together to actually conserve and manage tuna cannot do it alone. But island nations could absolutely lead the

Firstly, Pacific tuna stocks are now already at historically low

levels, in other words ocean food supply for islanders is already devastated . Fish depletion is
not caused by overfishing, because when fishing is stopped or reduced the fish populations do not recover as they should. The
way to achieve solutions via the United Nations.

real problem according to evidence of substance is nutrient pollution killing ocean food web nurseries. And consequences impact on seafood dependent island people. But are there
problems and need for solutions or not? Some people fail to see a fish shortage problem. Any islander with work and money to buy alternative food, and who thinks there is no problem
with fish stocks, could return to their village and consider fish and other essential protein food availability. Try fishing and compare the catch to what older people will testify numbers of
fish and fishing were like not that many years ago. Anyone demanding scientific evidence in order for solutions to fish depletion to be put in place, is talking nonsense. There is no sense
in demanding scientific evidence of fish depletion because nobody counted or measured fish stocks in the beginning and its impossible for anyone to count dwindling fish that remain.

Fish catch scientific data is incomplete. Lack of complete data has actually led to historical low levels of world fish and worsening consequences. In reality according to the 15th Principle
of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, full scientific certainty is no longer essential to take action to prevent further damage to the environment. Yet present lack of such action is allowing
nutrient pollution and damage to continue and worsen. Damage from nutrient pollution feeding algae killing seagrass and coral is causing more damage, compounding damage.
Consequences of that damage are increasing and causing poverty and hardship and malnutrition to worsen. In desperation for once staple ocean fish, some Islanders are having to take
the last reef fish to survive. Reef fish are supposed to clean and protect coral reef. Coral is being lost bigtime. Extinction is not the problem. Instinct is driving island people to harvest the
last fish in order to survive. Many islanders have and are still moving into town in search of jobs to survive, resulting in squatters, increased hardship, local objection, fights, unrest.
Immediate concern should be the impact on people and economies and compounding damage and devastation of ocean food web ecosystems. Serious consequences such as food and
land shortage require serious consideration of causes and possible solutions, scientific evidence or not. Politicians and government have been demanding scientific evidence of fish
depletion. But nobody can count fish in the ocean. A fishery agency can just say there is no scientific evidence, and that is enough to stop other agencies proceeding with debate and
solutions. In some countries where the death penalty for crime exists, eye witness accounts can bring a verdict with no scientific evidence whatsoever. Therefore observation and
statements by older islanders should be accepted in order for island nations to manage their own fisheries and ocean ecosystems. With respect, fishery science is about fisheries. A
fishery means the catching of fish. Fishery departments do not manage biodiversity ecosystems but they or another agency should. With fish devastation in reality continuing, onus of
evidential proof of such devastation or not should be the responsibility of true and complete science. Science should scientifically prove no depletion and no need for concern and
solutions, if science can find such proof. Alternately, if empirical evidence of substance can prove beyond reasonable doubt that world seafood sustainability is collapsing unchecked,

Action is needed, already

devastated fish stocks have to be regenerated and sustained in order to sustain
supply. To sustain, means doing something, not just watching, not just monitoring or collecting more and more data, or introducing more useless fishing restrictions that
then surely reality of the situation best be seen and understood. Marine Protected Areas do not stop nutrient laden currents.

cannot be policed in such vast oceans. Yes there are achievable solutions but not before the depletion is seen and embraced through debate about the scale and type of solutions
required. Evidence of substance indicates tuna management and sustainability management should absolutely involve seagrass density and baitfish population regeneration. It is known
that making food available to animals is essential to increase numbers. Many animal species do not even conceive during a food shortage. If an island nation could be made to virtually
teem with baitfish then wild ocean tuna would come to feed and return to that region. Animals are not stupid, they have instinct usually focussed on the source of food. Sanitation and
proper sewage treatment worldwide is needed to reduce the nutrient over-load. Overcoming the dumping of local nutrient matter into island coastal water ecosystems would be a start
to rehabilitate world ocean food supply. Sweeping up leaf and throwing it into nearby water leads to decay and more and more nutrients, almost daily. Rivers run with jungle leaf
nutrients only after rain. Humanity and acute urgency is involved with solutions. Impacted island people need critically urgent employment and income to buy nutritious protein food
immediately. Now, not in years to come because insidious disease including NCD is talking hold due to protein deficiency malnutrition. Developed nations like Australia should
immediately relax their increasingly tough Visa restrictions, especially for Solomon Islanders. Indigenous NZ neighbours enter Australia without need for a Visa. Why is Australia making a
work Visa virtually impossible for Pacific islanders, especially when European backpackers easily enter and stay and work in Australia for two years? Considering damage that major
population sewage and land use nutrient pollution has done to SW Pacific Ocean food web nursery ecosystems since European settlement, real aid for decent seafood dependent
islanders should be made possible. Australia is a virtual island in the SW Pacific. Australian east coast ecosystems cannot be biologically excluded for the SW Pacific Ocean. Sewage from
about 7 billion humans has changed fishing worldwide, ocean currents flow worldwide, including into SW Pacific waters due to NW winds from Asia. Many rivers of the world have become
open sewers. World sewage nutrients bonded to fresh water in ocean surface fresher-waters are driven long distances by surface winds. Sewage is categorically being dumped into ocean
worldwide and outcome includes hardship causing loss of peace. Managing the oceans and peace is UN-UNESCO responsibility. Oceans are not presently managed. There is dire urgent
need for Pacific nations to inform the UN about devastation of fish supply impacting Island people Solutions could include UN guided islander employment projects locally and overseas.
Whole of water ecosystem rehabilitation infrastructure projects are possible. Australia could do with a northern wet season area water-harvesting system with aqueduct to upper
catchment of the Darling River. The Darling already runs to South Australia where water shortage for farmers and the Coorong ocean estuary is often acute. Its all linked. Seabirds
unable to find food in Queensland died along coast all the way to South Australia and around Tasmania. Impacted indigenous workers could be contracted to help build water
infrastructure systems. Such projects to inspire peace and prosperity could be generated via United Nations effort to manage the world ocean, stimulating national economies at the
same time. The UN budget would require stimulus for the purpose. Its possible, not impossible. Nonsense economics about aquaculture or agriculture in limited island jungle or on coral
atolls on this planet, without adequate supply of affordable animal feed and fertilizer, should be vision of the past. Many years have passed trying to develop island agriculture, still
trying. Where would island people obtain feed with essential protein supplement for aquaculture? Fishing restrictions have failed, thus historically low levels of tuna, small fish too. Even
Australia is importing costly fish to feed aquaculture. 70% of Australias fish product is now imported. Australian Pacific waters can no longer supply demand. Pacific coast waters. The
sea is the garden for island people, why damage or let it die. All countries would do well to urgently work together internationally to sustain AFFORDABLE world protein food supply,
especially from oceans. People are turning to increasingly costly poultry and pork in place of fish. Bird and pig and human flu comes to mind. Poverty stricken people cannot usually
afford to adequately eat, so how can they afford to give nutritious food to their backyard-caged animals? . Run down human and also animal immune systems require adequate essential
protein or they begin to fail to control disease. This all has to be managed to manage island food supply. Perhaps bird flu could mutate in caged chicken of a poverty stricken North
Vietnam or island family. Mashed paper dipped with smell of fish could be given as food. Even developed nation practice can involve need, or mean or thrifty farmers severely reducing
cost and quality of feed for animals. Human and animal Immune systems break down due lack of nutrition. Its not rocket science or algebra. There is so much standing in the way of
Pacific nations alone managing seafood sustainability. Nations could work together internationally to reduce nutrient pollution to sustain essential ocean food web ecosystems. Some
politicians think the tasks are too big, but no, the solutions are challenging and worthwhile, absolutely essential too. Not even the developed nation of Australia could do it alone. But SW
Pacific nations have the ability to get debate and teamwork and mandate underway to achieve the type and scale of solutions required. At least to set wheels in motion.

(--) Fish stocks are being destroyed now

WMN 7/11/2014 (Western Morning News, 7-11-14, Study raises new
fears over fish stocks, http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Study-raisesnew-fears-fish-stocks/story-21450498-detail/story.html, GIE)
Scientists at the University of Plymouth have discovered that numbers of sharks,
rays, cod, haddock and other species at the top of the food chain have plummeted in
the English Channel over the last 90 years as fishing hauls have continued to grow in size suggesting that
the fishing industry is gradually fishing down the food chain. Their findings have prompted experts
to call for an end to destructive fishing practices and the introduction of
sustainability measures in the fishing industry . The study, conducted in association with the
research organisation WorldFish, used catch statistics spanning from 1920 through to 2010 to build a picture of how
the composition of landings from the Channel have changed over time. In particular, results showed that
quantities of sharks and rays in catches had fallen from 34% of catch in 1920 to 6% in 2010 and amounts of cod,
haddock and hake had dropped from 48% to just 4% during this period. At the same time, the size of fish hauls
have grown ever-larger, with the UK and France currently landing around 150,000 tonnes of seabed fish and
shellfish per year from the Channel, compared to just 9,000t recorded in 1920 and 51,000t in 1950. According to
researchers, these fishing pressures have resulted in changes to food chains in the Channel occurring at one of the
fastest rates yet recorded among heavily fished regions of the world, which poses serious consequences for the
areas ecosystem. Fisheries typically remove top predators first and as a result their direct competitors and prey
are able to prosper, affecting the overall productivity and ecological stability of the ecosystem, said Plymouth
Universitys Carlotta Molfese. Severe declines in the populations of major predator species have now been
reported around the world. The Plymouth team stressed that, far from being a modern phenomenon, over-fishing
could be traced as far back as the 19th century, but said that geographic expansion into new fishing grounds and
improved technology had fuelled a growth in hauls.

These factors could potentially be

compounded by damage to the marine environment caused by an increase in

dredging and trawling for shellfish , as fishermen seek to counterbalance a lack of finfish. This has
raised questions about the sustainability of industry methods.

(--) Fish stocks crash now

Gosling 14(MG, "Fishing subsidies cut stocks",
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/fishing-subsidies-cut-stocks1.1718238#.U9kJjfldVH8/., Melanie Gosling is an environmental writer, date
accessed 7-30-14 tck)
THE Global Ocean Commission has called on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to
scrap fisheries subsidies one of the main drivers of overfishing and which have led
to the decline and collapse of fish stocks. In its report Global Ocean: From Decline to Recovery,

the commission calls on the WTO to ask member states to adopt urgently a three-step approach to getting rid of
fisheries subsidies as these have led to too many boats chasing fewer and fewer fish. Subsidies have meant the
high seas have become an almost exclusive zone for rich countries to fish. They enable vessels to fish in remote
parts of the ocean where they would not be able to fish economically were they not funded with public money.
The subsidies, particularly fuel subsidies, provide incentives for fishing vessels and have led to a tenfold growth in
the number of boats fishing the high seas. The high seas are the parts of the ocean that do not belong to any
country. In the US in 2000, the bottom trawl fishing vessels made a profit of $60 million and had received
subsidies of $150m. As a first step in dealing with the problem of subsidies, the commission has called on the
WTO to insist that member states fully disclose information about fishing subsidies. The second step would be to
classify the subsidies to identify those that are harmful. The final step would be to place an immediate cap on high
seas fishing fuel subsidies, and to phase these out over five years. The WTO Doha Declaration of 2001 committed
member states to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies. However, the commission said there
was clearly a lack of political appetite to tackle this issue in the WTO. Also, the WTO lacked the expertise to
implement and administer a legally binding agreement to deal with environmentally harmful subsidies in the
fisheries sector. Member states were obliged to report on specific subsidies, but did not. This paradox should be
resolved urgently. The enforcement of the existing WTO obligation should be expedited without delay.
Developed countries granted 70 percent of the subsidies, with Japan, China, the EU and the US being the highest

Subsidies had
distorted the market by lowering artificially the price of fish caught on the high
seas. This put small-scale fisheries at a disadvantage . It also meant that some consumers
ended up paying for fish twice: once at the shop and through their taxes. Subsidies had led to bigger
vessels, which caught 65 percent of the fish caught globally. However, these vessels
employed only 4 percent of the worlds fishers. Also, the quantity of fish caught by
each ship had not been lower. The global fishing fleet was nearly three times the
size necessary to catch global fish stocks sustainably .
spenders.

Rich countries subsidies constituted unfair competition, the commission said.

(--) World Fish Stocks are on the Fall

Vince 12, (Gala, 21/8/12, How the worlds oceans could be running out of
fish, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-offish , BBC, ASM)
Fish are
the last wild animal that we hunt in large numbers . And yet, we may be the last generation to do
It has been some time since most humans lived as hunter-gatherers with one important exception.

so. Entire species of marine life will never be seen in the Anthropocene (the Age of Man), let alone tasted, if we do
not curb our insatiable voracity for fish. Last year, global fish consumption hit a record high of 17 kg
(37 pounds) per person per year, even though global fish stocks have continued to decline. On average, people eat
four times as much fish now than they did in 1950. Around

85% of global fish stocks are over-

exploited, depleted, fully exploited or in recovery from exploitation. Only this week, a report suggested there
may be fewer than 100 cod over the age of 13 years in the North Sea between the United Kingdom and
Scandinavia. The figure is still under dispute, but its a worrying sign that we could be losing fish old enough to
create offspring that replenish populations. Large areas of seabed in the Mediterranean and North Sea now

seas have been expunged of fish using increasingly efficient

methods such as bottom trawling. And now, these heavily subsidised industrial fleets are cleaning up
resemble a desert the

tropical oceans too. One-quarter of the EU catch is now made outside European waters, much of it in previously rich
West African seas, where each trawler can scoop up hundreds of thousands of kilos of fish in a day. All West African
fisheries are now over-exploited,

coastal fisheries have declined 50% in the past 30 years, according

Catches in the tropics are expected to decline a

to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

further 40% by 2050, and yet some 400 million people in Africa and Southeast Asia rely on fish caught
(mainly through artisanal fishing) to provide their protein and minerals. With climate change expected to impact
agricultural production, people are going to rely more than ever on fish for their nutritional needs. The policy of
subsidising vast fishing fleets to catch ever-diminishing stocks is unsustainable. In Spain, for example, one in three
fish landed is paid for by subsidy. Governments, concerned with keeping jobs alive in the fishing industry in the
short-term, are essentially paying people to extinguish their own long-term job prospects not to mention the effect

Artisanal fishing catches half the worlds fish, yet it

provides 90% of the sectors jobs.
on the next generation of fishermen.

(--) Fish stocks are being destroyed now

WMN 14 (Western Morning News, 7-11-14, Study raises new fears over fish
stocks, http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Study-raises-new-fears-fishstocks/story-21450498-detail/story.html, GIE)
Scientists at the University of Plymouth have discovered that numbers of sharks,
rays, cod, haddock and other species at the top of the food chain have plummeted
in the English Channel over the last 90 years as fishing hauls have continued to
grow in size suggesting that the fishing industry is gradually fishing down the
food chain. Their findings have prompted experts to call for an end to destructive
fishing practices and the introduction of sustainability measures in the fishing
industry. The study, conducted in association with the research organisation
WorldFish, used catch statistics spanning from 1920 through to 2010 to build a
picture of how the composition of landings from the Channel have changed over
time. In particular, results showed that quantities of sharks and rays in catches had
fallen from 34% of catch in 1920 to 6% in 2010 and amounts of cod, haddock and
hake had dropped from 48% to just 4% during this period. At the same time, the
size of fish hauls have grown ever-larger, with the UK and France currently landing
around 150,000 tonnes of seabed fish and shellfish per year from the Channel,
compared to just 9,000t recorded in 1920 and 51,000t in 1950 . According to
researchers, these fishing pressures have resulted in changes to food chains in the
Channel occurring at one of the fastest rates yet recorded among heavily fished
regions of the world, which poses serious consequences for the areas ecosystem.
Fisheries typically remove top predators first and as a result their direct
competitors and prey are able to prosper, affecting the overall productivity and
ecological stability of the ecosystem, said Plymouth Universitys Carlotta Molfese.
Severe declines in the populations of major predator species have now been
reported around the world. The Plymouth team stressed that, far from being a
modern phenomenon, over-fishing could be traced as far back as the 19th century,
but said that geographic expansion into new fishing grounds and improved
technology had fuelled a growth in hauls. These factors could potentially be
compounded by damage to the marine environment caused by an increase in
dredging and trawling for shellfish, as fishermen seek to counterbalance a lack of
finfish. This has raised questions about the sustainability of industry methods.

(--) Fish stocks crash now

Gosling 14(MG, "Fishing subsidies cut stocks",
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/fishing-subsidies-cut-stocks1.1718238#.U9kJjfldVH8/., Melanie Gosling is an environmental writer, date
accessed 7-30-14 tck)

THE Global Ocean Commission has called on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to
scrap fisheries subsidies one of the main drivers of overfishing and which have led
to the decline and collapse of fish stocks. In its report Global Ocean: From Decline to Recovery,

the commission calls on the WTO to ask member states to adopt urgently a three-step approach to getting rid of
fisheries subsidies as these have led to too many boats chasing fewer and fewer fish. Subsidies have meant the
high seas have become an almost exclusive zone for rich countries to fish. They enable vessels to fish in remote
parts of the ocean where they would not be able to fish economically were they not funded with public money.
The subsidies, particularly fuel subsidies, provide incentives for fishing vessels and have led to a tenfold growth in
the number of boats fishing the high seas. The high seas are the parts of the ocean that do not belong to any
country. In the US in 2000, the bottom trawl fishing vessels made a profit of $60 million and had received
subsidies of $150m. As a first step in dealing with the problem of subsidies, the commission has called on the
WTO to insist that member states fully disclose information about fishing subsidies. The second step would be to
classify the subsidies to identify those that are harmful. The final step would be to place an immediate cap on high
seas fishing fuel subsidies, and to phase these out over five years. The WTO Doha Declaration of 2001 committed
member states to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies. However, the commission said there
was clearly a lack of political appetite to tackle this issue in the WTO. Also, the WTO lacked the expertise to
implement and administer a legally binding agreement to deal with environmentally harmful subsidies in the
fisheries sector. Member states were obliged to report on specific subsidies, but did not. This paradox should be
resolved urgently. The enforcement of the existing WTO obligation should be expedited without delay.
Developed countries granted 70 percent of the subsidies, with Japan, China, the EU and the US being the highest
Rich countries subsidies constituted unfair competition, the commission said. Subsidies had
distorted the market by lowering artificially the price of fish caught on the high
seas. This put small-scale fisheries at a disadvantage . It also meant that some consumers
ended up paying for fish twice: once at the shop and through their taxes. Subsidies had led to bigger
vessels, which caught 65 percent of the fish caught globally. However, these vessels
employed only 4 percent of the worlds fishers. Also, the quantity of fish caught by
each ship had not been lower. The global fishing fleet was nearly three times the
size necessary to catch global fish stocks sustainably .

spenders.

Solvency

AT: No Installation vessels

(--) We incentivize the creations of such vesselsthats our
Schroeder evidence.
(--) Multiple actors are working on infrastructure for offshore
wind:
Swara Salih, 7/2/2014 (staff writer, Will Offshore Wind Pick up the
Speed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/will-offshore-wind-picku_b_5549967.html; Accessed 7/28/2014, rwg)
Despite these projects' impediments within their states, the federal government is making significant efforts to
establish the infrastructure for offshore wind. The DOI has recently increased the acreage it will lease by more than
742,000 acres, offshore Massachusetts, for commercial wind facilities -- this has nearly doubled the federal offshore
acreage for commercial offshore wind projects. This action will also help Cape Wind, which will most likely buy some

Although the costs remain high along with market uncertainties,

investors, utilities, and the public sector are working to build the infrastructure,
making offshore wind power a more concrete possibility in the U.S .
of these acres for their wind farm.

AT: Tech not ready

(--) Their evidence is three years old and doesnt assume that
we provide incentives for developmentextend our Schroeder
evidence that we bolster the industry.
(--) Sufficient incentives will allow offshore wind expansion:
Swara Salih, 7/2/2014 (staff writer, Will Offshore Wind Pick up the
Speed? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/will-offshore-wind-picku_b_5549967.html; Accessed 7/28/2014, rwg)
However, the wind blows constantly off the coasts, removing the intermittency factor. Countries like Germany,
England and the Netherlands generate hundreds of MW from this source. Yet there are no offshore wind facilities in
the United States. In fact, the first offshore windmill was only installed last year. Studies indicate that the U.S. has

The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, has run multiple

studies that conclude that if we implement sufficient incentivizing measures
now, and utilized all potential capacity, including in the Great Lakes, offshore wind could provide the
U.S. with over 4 million MW by 2030.
simply failed to utilize potential capacity.

AT: Economics Deters Investment

(--) This assumes a world of no financial incentives from the
federal governmentour Schroeder evidence solves this.
(--) Government investment is key to the survival of the
offshore wind industry.
Gosden 13 (Emily, Energy Editor for Telegraph Media Group, September 9 -2013, Offshore wind farms need higher subsidies, says
government adviser, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10296527/Offshore-wind-farms-need-higher-subsidies-says-governmentadviser.html) AJ Jr.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has written to Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, to warn that "required
investment is at risk under current proposals". Proposed reductions in subsidy levels for offshore wind farms this
decade are too severe for the cost reductions that the industry can achieve, it warns. Ministers also appear to have
dramatically scaled back their ambitions for how much offshore wind is wanted in the long-term, undermining
confidence in the sector. This creates a vicious circle whereby developers are reluctant to make the investments
that would be needed to reduce costs, the CCC warns. David Kennedy, chief executive of the CCC, said: "I have
spoken to every major investor and they are all concerned." The Government has insisted it is committed to
offshore wind, despite public disagrements over onshore wind, and claims to have provided a "a stable and certain
regime that is attractive for investors in renewables". Michael Fallon, the energy minister, said recently: "The UK
leads the world in offshore wind power generation with more capacity than the rest of the world combined, and we

Offshore wind is expensive to build and is not

economically viable without subsidies, which are paid for by levies on consumer energy bills.
want to see this sector grow even further."

Ministers say the costs of offshore wind must fall dramatically and in late June unveiled proposed reductions in
subsidy levels or "strike prices" over the rest of the decade. "The proposed strike prices for offshore wind start at a
broadly appropriate level but then fall more rapidly than the evidence suggests is achievable," Lord Deben,
chairman of the CCC, writes. "This would put required investment... at risk." Under the proposals, wind farms that
start running between 2014-15 and 2015-16 would be offered 155 for every megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity
generated over a 15-year contract - about three times the market price of electricity. This would fall to 150/MWh
for projects starting up in 2016-17 and then to 135/MWh by 2018-19. Lord Deben says the fall is too steep and
that "a degression closer to 5/MWh (rather than 15/MWh) between 2016/17 and 2018/19 is more likely to be

investors are spooked by government documents

showing it believes there may be relatively little new offshore wind this
decade and next. Ministers have previously suggested Britain could betwen 11GW and 18GW installed by
appropriate". He also warns that

2020, up from 3.3GW now, with a further 1.2GW already under construction. But in a letter to Mr Davey, Lord
Deben, chairman of the CCC, points out that in 10 out of 11 scenarios set out by National Grid for the energy
department, there are between 8GW and 10GW of offshore wind installed by 2020. Only in one scenario is there
16GW, and this scenario makes other assumptions that mean its credibility is "highly questionable". Ministers also
appear to be contemplating the possibility of there being "minimal investment" in offshore wind during the 2020s,
further denting confidence. "Without

a commitment to ongoing investment in the

2020s, incentives for supply chain investment and project development
are weak, and commercialisation of offshore wind is at risk," Lord Deben warns.
Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of RenewableUK, echoed the comments, saying that a clear majority of investors
had concerns about either the proposed subsidy level, contract terms or the scale of government ambition. He said
the Government should aim for 13GW of wind by 2020 as the minimum level needed to maintain momentum out
to 2020 and beyond. A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman insisted it had provided investors
with further certainty, so that they can get on and make crucial investment decisions that are supporting green
jobs and growth. We have set the draft strike price for offshore wind at a level which we consider will bring
forward generation and which also drive down costs, and the level reflects our expectation that costs will fall in this
sector, he added. Mr Davey said: "It's quite clear that offshore wind costs could come down quite significantly and
the more they come down the more offshore wind there will be."

AT: Reducing Regulation Isnt Enough

(--) Their evidence is four years old and doesnt assume new
incentives by the federal governmentextend our Schroeder
evidence.

Solvency: Extensions Economics Deters

Investment
(--) Extend our Gosden evidenceit says government subsidies
are necessary for offshore wind development and
commercializationprefer our evidence its specific to the
industry.
(--) Wind PTC provessubsidies key to investment
Becker 7/30/14 (Investing in wind brings affordable, reliable power and
prosperity, Becker, Ken, The Hill, Becker is executive director of the Sweetwater
Economic Development. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energyenvironment/213691-investing-in-wind-brings-affordable-reliable-powerand#ixzz38y5w9mM4 YX-LL)
market-based federal and state policies are why wind power is now the
mainstream source of electricity it is today . Wind now provides enough energy to power the
Common-sense,

equivalent of 15.5 million average American homes, affordably and with no emissions. Wind is lowering power
prices for consumers, bringing capital investment to rural communities, providing much-needed tax revenue to
governments and schools, creating jobs, conserving water, and providing new revenue streams to drought-stricken
farmers and ranchers. Wind is helping lead a domestic renewable energy renaissance, revitalizing economies in
local communities across our country, including in my home state of Texas. In order to continue adding to winds
great return on investment, Congress must extend the tax relief for new wind power growth by passing the EXPIRE
Act, which includes an extension of both the successful, bipartisan renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC)
and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). Doing so will reduce the tax burden on the private sector, spur investment, and
continue creating economic prosperity. In Texas, weve seen the benefits of growing wind energy first-hand. The
Texas governors Texas Renewable Energy Industry Report reports that more than 25,000 Texans work in windpower related field. Capital investment made by wind power in Texas exceeds $23 billion. Wind energy has brought
revenue to Texas communities, benefiting county and local services, schools, and public health and safety facilities.
These are just a few of the reasons why many local Chambers of Commerce across the country, including Texas,
strongly support wind power. Rural Texas landowners and farmers are calling wind power their new droughtresistant cash crop. By growing wind farms on their land, Texas landowners are seeing over $38 million a year in
land-lease payments. Thats a big boost to their bottom lines. By example, in Nolan County, there are 1371 utility
grade wind turbines. The county taxable evaluation went from $500 million in 1999 to $2.8 B in 2008. They
currently have over 200 employees live and working in Nolan County and working across the US. Texas State
Technical College also has a wind technician training program in Sweetwater. With extreme drought taking hold to
many of parts of Texas, wind energy benefits rural landowners by conserving 7.8 billion gallons of water a year in
Texas. And while other forms of energy can take a tough toll on land, the vast majority of the land used to host wind
turbines can continue to be used for its original purposessuch as ranching, farming, wildlife habitat, and
recreation. A similar story is being told in all 50 states as there are wind farms, factories, or both in every state.
Wind power has attracted over $75 billion in private investment to our economy over the past five years, supporting
a supply chain of over 550 manufacturing facilities across 43 states. According to the Department of Energy, wind
power could grow to supply 20 percent of Americas electricity needs by 2030, resulting in more than $600 million a

Thanks to the PTC, wind

energy technology innovation continues to advance rapidly, increasing efficiency and
productivity. These advances mean lower power prices for consumers. Taller towers, advanced
year to rural landowners across the U.S. and creating 400,000 jobs by 2050.

blade technologies, improved gearboxes, and over 30 years of experience in siting wind turbines to maximize their

According to the Department of Energy, winds costs

have dropped 43 percent in just four years and, by diversifying state energy portfolio with wind
power output have helped drive down costs.

power, consumers in the states that use the most wind energy are seeing their electricity prices decrease. To grow
wind power to 20% of the U.S.s electricity mix by 2020 and in order to maximize the economic and environmental
benefits of wind, its important to invest in wind power at all scales. But meeting this goal will prove difficult if
theres no long-term policy stability. Wind power isnt red or blue, its red, white and blue. With many members of
Congress returning to their local districts during August recess, its critical that the Republicans, Independents, and
Democrats who make up the majority of Americans who support wind power use the power of their voices to tell
Congress to extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit immediately.

(--) Price will go down as wind power is developed:

Brian Handwerk, 7/17/2014 (staff writer, First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm
Wins Federal Funds, Courtroom Fights,
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/17/first-u-s-offshore-windfarm-wins-federal-funds-courtroom-fights/, Accessed 7/28/2014, rwg)
Offshore wind is uniquely scalable to deliver large blocks of carbon free clean
energy to urban populations on the U.S. East Coast, he said. It can do that more effectively
than other sources of renewable energy and as we develop it the price will come down just as
weve seen with other technologies.

(--) Without government investment, Investors wont stay in

US- they will turn to Europe.
NRDC, 13 (Natural Resources Defense Council, Fed 13, Fulfilling the Promise of
U.S. Offshore Wind: Targeted State Investment Policies to Put an Abundant
Renewable Resource within Reach , http://www.nrdc.org/business/files/offshorewind-investment.pdf, Accesses Date 7-30-14, SM)
Despite these benefits, today, exactly zero MW of offshore wind capacity are
installed or even under construction in the United States , with only three projects in advanced
stages of development: Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound (468 MW ), Deepwater Wind off Block Island, Rhode Island
(30 MW ), and Fishermens Energy near Atlantic City, New Jersey (25 MW ). The first has long-term supply contracts,
called Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), for approximately 75 percent of its energy, the second has a PPA for all
of its output, and the third is awaiting a decision from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on whether the project
should be awarded Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates (ORECs) under New Jerseys centralized

Compare this with the rest of the world, particularly in Europe,

where offshore wind has been spinning for more than 20 years. According to the
European Wind Energy Association, by the end of 2012, Europe had an installed
capacity of 4,995 MW distributed among 55 offshore wind farms in 10 countries,
including 1,165 MW of capacity installed in 2012 alone .4 In Asia, China was forecast
to have commissioned approximately 295 MW of offshore wind by year end 2012,
and Japan has deployed demonstration turbines.5 In sum, offshore wind is becoming
increasingly mainstream and mature in other countries . So, what is going wrong?
Why is investment flowing in other places but not here? Enormous improvements have been
procurement program.

made on siting and permitting, such that they are not the main bottlenecks. As discussed in detail in the National
Wildlife Federations recent report on offshore wind, these impediments are being overcome as overlapping

The
underlying limiting factor for offshore wind, a factor not found in places where the
sector has advanced, is that the basic economic and financial conditions for offshore
wind success are not in place. Without them, investors are not comfortable
providing capital for these projects, and the sector inevitably will struggle to get off
the ground.
governmental entities have begun working together.6 But there remain fundamental challenges ahead.

(--) Federal Tax Credit is Key for Wind Development

The Economist, 2013 (Blown Away, 6/8/2013, The Economist,
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579046-wind-power-doing-well-itstill-relies-irregular-and-short-term-subsidies-blown, YX-LL)
Thanks to these subsidies, wind power did well in 2012. A record 6,700 turbines
were installed that year, and $25 billion of private capital was invested . This brings wind

capacity to about 3.5% of the countrys electricity supply: enough to power 15m homes. The Department of Energy
reckons that, by 2030, 20% of Americas electricity demand could be met by wind. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, an industry group, it took 25 years to get to 10 gigawatts (GW) of wind-power capacitybut a
mere five months, last year, to jump from 50GW to 60GW. The greatest growth came from the Midwest and the
Plains. Iowa and South Dakota each produce more than 20% of their electricity from wind; seven other states
produce more than 10%. Iowa aspires to be the nations leading producer of wind power per person, generating
39% of its electricity that way. MidAmerican Energy, based in Des Moines, plans to invest $1.9 billion in new wind
farms. Iowas governor, Terry Branstad, says it is the largest investment for economic development in the history of
the state. This decision also helped persuade Google and Facebook to agree to spend $700m on building and
expanding their energy-hungry data centres there. The effervescence of the wind industry last year, however, was
partly because the main federal tax credit for wind power was going to expire in December, and companies raced to

The Production Tax Credit (PTC) gave producers 2.2 cents per
kilowatt-hour for electricity generated during the first ten years of a turbines life. In
January another year of the PTC, worth $12 billion, was wrung out of the deal by
which the federal government avoided the fiscal cliff, and this spurred the new
investments in Iowa. Questions, though, are being asked about this subsidy. Some power and utility
qualify before the deadline.

companies whose margins are being squeezed by cheap wind power would like to see the PTC eliminated. Energy
companies that use fossil fuels are griping too, perhaps forgetting how handsomely they have been subsidised in
the past. But even the wind industry wonders whether a credit that expires every few years, causing cycles of boom
and bust, is helpful. Analysts at a recent wind conference in Chicago felt that the industry was not making sufficient
long-term investments in R&D and domestic manufacturing to bring the price of its power down .

Both the
federal government (in a 2011 report) and the World Resources Institute, a green
group, agree that uncertainty over the PTC is causing underinvestment, with the
institute pointing out that America remains a net importer of wind equipment. Some
technical improvements have, in fact, been notched up. Since the late 1990s rotor diameters have increased by
around 90% and the average height of a turbine hub has gone up by 45%. More than 1,000 turbines installed last
year were on towers of more than 100 metres (330 feet). Todays turbines have, on average, a technical capacity
eight times larger than they had in 1990, and generate 17 times more power. Yet without the PTC wind is
uncompetitive with other forms of energy. The PTC also has strong political support on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats like it as a subsidy for green energy. Some Republicans like it because it brings jobs and development.
Wind energy is distributed in a highly partisan fashion, with a rich band of gustiness running through the Republican
Midwest from the Dakotas and Nebraska, through to Kansas and the western corners of Oklahoma and Iowa. Some
of the most enthusiastic Republican supporters of the PTC do not even acknowledge that climate change is
happening. Karl Rove, a former adviser to George W. Bush, and Charles Grassley and Steve King, respectively Iowas
senior senator and fourth-district congressman, have all campaigned for the wind-energy credit but have expressed
opinions about climate change ranging from ambivalence (The science is confusing) to downright hostility
(Climate is gone). A number of other groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, support the credit but lobby
against climate-change legislation. The fact is that wind power generates many well-paying, desirable jobs in rural
places with not much else going for them. New energy sources also allow these states to diversify their economies.
This alliance of green and red politics helps keep the industry going at a time of low wholesale electricity prices
the result partly of cheap shale gas, and partly of a drop in demand because of the sluggish recovery. All would not
be lost if the PTC disappeared. Without it, there will still be a trickle of demand for new turbines. Concerns about the
intermittent supply of energy from wind are dying down. It turns out that with enough wind farms sited in enough
places, the supply evens out. The wind is always blowing somewhere. And a solid majority of Americans continue to
favour alternative, clean power sources over traditional fossil fuels. Private insurers say that last year was the
second-most-expensive in American history for disasters related to climate change, costing them $139 billion. But
private insurance paid only a quarter of these costs, leaving taxpayers to cover the rest. By comparison, funding
renewable energy properly seems rather cheap.

Government investment is key to the survival of the offshore

wind industry.
Gosden 13 (Emily, Energy Editor for Telegraph Media Group, September 9 -2013, Offshore wind farms need higher subsidies, says
government adviser, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10296527/Offshore-wind-farms-need-higher-subsidies-says-governmentadviser.html) AJ Jr.

required investment is at risk under

current proposals
reductions in subsidy levels for offshore wind farm
are too severe for the cost reductions that the industry can achieve
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has written to Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, to warn that "
".

decade

Proposed

s this

, it warns.

creates a vicious
circle whereby developers are reluctant to make the investments that
would be needed to reduce costs

Government has insisted it is committed to offshore wind

and claims to have provided a "a stable and certain regime that is
attractive for investors in renewables"
Offshore wind is expensive to build and
is not economically viable without subsidies

Ministers also appear to have dramatically scaled back their ambitions for how much offshore wind is wanted in the long-term, undermining confidence in the sector. This

, the CCC warns.

concerned."

David Kennedy, chief executive of the CCC, said: "I have spoken to every major investor and they are all

The

, despite public disagrements over

onshore wind,

Michael Fallon, the energy minister, said recently: "The UK leads the world in offshore wind power generation

with more capacity than the rest of the world combined, and we want to see this sector grow even further."

, which are paid for by levies on consumer energy bills.

Ministers say the costs of offshore

wind must fall dramatically and in late June unveiled proposed reductions in subsidy levels or "strike prices" over the rest of the decade. "The proposed strike prices for offshore wind start at a broadly appropriate level but then fall
more rapidly than the evidence suggests is achievable," Lord Deben, chairman of the CCC, writes. "This would put required investment... at risk." Under the proposals, wind farms that start running between 2014-15 and 2015-16
would be offered 155 for every megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated over a 15-year contract - about three times the market price of electricity. This would fall to 150/MWh for projects starting up in 2016-17 and then to
135/MWh by 2018-19. Lord Deben says the fall is too steep and that "a degression closer to 5/MWh (rather than 15/MWh) between 2016/17 and 2018/19 is more likely to be appropriate". He also warns that

investors are spooked by government documents showing it believes

there may be relatively little new offshore wind this decade and next.

Ministers

have previously suggested Britain could betwen 11GW and 18GW installed by 2020, up from 3.3GW now, with a further 1.2GW already under construction. But in a letter to Mr Davey, Lord Deben, chairman of the CCC, points out
that in 10 out of 11 scenarios set out by National Grid for the energy department, there are between 8GW and 10GW of offshore wind installed by 2020. Only in one scenario is there 16GW, and this scenario makes other
assumptions that mean its credibility is "highly questionable". Ministers also appear to be contemplating the possibility of there being "minimal investment" in offshore wind during the 2020s, further denting confidence.

Without a commitment to ongoing investment in the 2020s, incentives for

supply chain investment and project development are weak, and
commercialisation of offshore wind is at risk

"

," Lord Deben warns.

Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of RenewableUK, echoed the

comments, saying that a clear majority of investors had concerns about either the proposed subsidy level, contract terms or the scale of government ambition. He said the Government should aim for 13GW of wind by 2020 as the
minimum level needed to maintain momentum out to 2020 and beyond. A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman insisted it had provided investors with further certainty, so that they can get on and make crucial
investment decisions that are supporting green jobs and growth. We have set the draft strike price for offshore wind at a level which we consider will bring forward generation and which also drive down costs, and the level
reflects our expectation that costs will fall in this sector, he added. Mr Davey said: "It's quite clear that offshore wind costs could come down quite significantly and the more they come down the more offshore wind there will be."

(--) Subsidies are needed for successful implementation

E&E 7/3/2014 (E&E7-3-14, CLEAN ENERGY: Birthplace of offshore wind farms
struggles to cope with government subsidy cuts,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002321, AED)
ESBJERG, Denmark -- The offshore wind industry has been concentrated in Europe,
where North Sea winds provide excellent power generation conditions. Support from
government subsidies in Denmark, Britain and Germany has helped create global
leaders among turbine manufacturers and offshore wind farm builders and
operators here. But even as the industry embarks on an ambitious quest to
significantly lower the cost of energy, wind power produced at sea still costs more
than on land. And just as offshore wind is finally showing signs of life in other
regions, like the United States and Japan , subsidies are being cut in Europe, raising
worries about whether the industry will be able to grow and become self-sufficient.
Even Denmark, the birthplace of the offshore wind industry and homeland of the
world's top two offshore wind turbine makers and the world's biggest offshore wind
farm operator, is cutting down on state support for the technology.

(--) Federal Subsidies are needed for alt. energy start up

Campbell, an author for Live Insurance News 2014
(Julie Campbell, 7-17-14, Live Insurance News,
http://www.liveinsurancenews.com/insurance-news-solar-wind-looks-good-subsidyloss/, CX)
Among the latest insurance news from Europes renewable energy industry are the
plans from insurers that are being developed in order to help to provide protection
to investors who are backing solar and wind power projects against the removal of
vital federal subsidies. THE LOSS OF THE SUBSIDIES HAS BEEN VERY

PAINFUL FOR THE INDUSTRY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY IN EUROPE. The third
largest broker in the world, Willis, is currently making insurance news taking part in
advanced discussions with top insurers, including Lloyds of London. The goal of this
effort is to be able to come up with a policy that will be able to give insurance
companies the ability to protect investors in renewable energy and to give them the
chance to offer it by 2015. BACKERS IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY FEEL
THAT THIS IS CRUCIAL INSURANCE NEWS FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. The
cover for financiers in these projects is being seen as absolutely essential, as it will
offer a boost to the renewable sector at the same time that European governments
have been slashing back their funding for programs after having taken a
considerable hit during the financial crisis. Authorities have been stating that part of
the reason that support levels have been lowered is that there has been a
considerable drop in the cost of solar panels. A number of governments have gone
ahead to guarantee the continuation of subsidies for the full length of projects that
are already in existence (a project lifetime is usually 20 years), but many have cut
down on the support being provided to new projects that will come to a close after a
certain date. Equally, Spain and several other nations have caused considerable
frustration among investors by making what have been labeled by some businesses
as retrospective subsidy cuts. They claim that this is placing the project viability at a
notable risk. Speaking on this insurance news, the Willis head of political and trade
credit risks, Andrew van den Born, has explained that the broker has recently been
receiving a wave of inquiries over the last year from investors and lenders in the
renewable energy sector who are seeking coverage against possible retrospective
changes in federal subsidies.

Incentives key
Sims 13 (Douglass D. Sims, February 2013, Fulfilling the Promise of U.S. Offshore
Wind: Targeted State Investment Policies to Put an Abundant Renewable Resource
within Reach, http://www.nrdc.org/business/files/offshore-wind-investment.pdf, smt)
Federal incentives in the form of tax credits and accelerated depreciation are a vital
part of creating these conditions, and the recent extension of these benefits by
Congress is welcome news.7 But federal support, while necessary, has so far not
been sufficient. For investment to flow to the offshore wind sector, states also must
implement policies that ensure that projects have: (1) certainty that they will
receive sufficient revenues for the energy, capacity, and other attributes they
generate, and (2) sufficient access to affordable debt capital at a time when the
capacity of private sector banks to fund large projects is limited. The good news is
that the emerging, state-led U.S. offshore wind policy model contains the building
blocks to satisfy these conditions. The United States has a successful track record of
deploying massive amounts of capital into onshore wind, cultivated by supportive
policies like state renewable portfolio standards and federal tax credits. But we can
learn from Germany, which, up until recently, had difficulty attracting offshore wind
investment relative to neighbors like Denmark, Belgium, and the United Kingdom.
Frustrated by the lack of completed projects, yet convinced of the potential of
offshore wind, Germany tweaked its initially unsuccessful offshore wind investment
policies in the recent past and investment started to flow. The United States can do
the same. Germany successfully addressed the revenue problem by revising its

rules to ensure that any qualifying offshore wind project is entitled to a long-term
tariff that is sufficient to attract investment, but it did so in a way that also ensures
that the public (ratepayers and taxpayers) get maximum value for their money.
Germany also reduced the cost and increased the availability of debt capital by
creating an innovative program whereby a public bank will match the debt provided
by private banks, ensuring that projects will go forward and lowering the overall
financing costs. Why should we feel confident that this strategy will work in the
United States? States routinely benefit from the experience of other states and
countries that have faced similar challenges about what does and does not work in
attracting investment to new sectors, such as the offshore wind sector. While it is
true that every policy must be adapted to local conditions, it is also true that
investors do not substantively change their investment requirements when they
invest in a new jurisdiction. On the contrary, investors look for places to make
investments that have policy conditions that are as close as possible to those where
they have successfully invested in the past. So, whatever the differences in form
among different countries or states, successful offshore wind policies must be
similar in function to attract similar types and levels of private investment. The
polices that Germany put in place to unlock offshore wind are instructive to U.S.
states because they are designed to attractand are attractingthe same
investors that the states want to attract: commercial banks and project developers.
It is these investors that finance, build, own and/ or operate power plants in coastal
states, so policies must be designed to fit requirements of this market while
minimizing impacts on ratepayers. The German story is not a fairy tale, however.
After perfecting its investment policies to stimulate an unprecedented level of
domestic offshore wind financing in 2011, major failures in transmission policy
resulted in a lackluster 2012. This paper focuses on the German policy successes
and the lessons they present for the United States and also briefly examines the
very unsuccessful German approach to transmission as a cautionary tale that
should not be replicated in the United States. In sum, the United States can quickly
tap into this unparalleled resource if we take the lead by: (1) ensuring revenue
certainty through strategically refining the innovative Offshore Wind Renewable
Energy Certificate (OREC) programs, such as those adopted in New Jersey, and
under consideration in Maryland, and (2) leveraging the resources of commercial
banks to make available sufficient levels of low-cost debt available through colending programs. Supportive federal policy such as the investment tax credit and
accelerated depreciation also play a vital role. However, a solid state-level
framework that supports financing is a necessary condition to truly launch the
sector

Federal Tax Credit is Key for Wind Development

The Economist, 2013 (Blown Away, 6/8/2013, The Economist,
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579046-wind-power-doing-well-itstill-relies-irregular-and-short-term-subsidies-blown, YX-LL)
Thanks to these subsidies, wind power did well in 2012. A record 6,700 turbines
were installed that year, and $25 billion of private capital was invested . This brings wind
capacity to about 3.5% of the countrys electricity supply: enough to power 15m homes. The Department of Energy
reckons that, by 2030, 20% of Americas electricity demand could be met by wind. According to the American Wind

Energy Association, an industry group, it took 25 years to get to 10 gigawatts (GW) of wind-power capacitybut a
mere five months, last year, to jump from 50GW to 60GW. The greatest growth came from the Midwest and the
Plains. Iowa and South Dakota each produce more than 20% of their electricity from wind; seven other states
produce more than 10%. Iowa aspires to be the nations leading producer of wind power per person, generating
39% of its electricity that way. MidAmerican Energy, based in Des Moines, plans to invest $1.9 billion in new wind
farms. Iowas governor, Terry Branstad, says it is the largest investment for economic development in the history of
the state. This decision also helped persuade Google and Facebook to agree to spend $700m on building and
expanding their energy-hungry data centres there. The effervescence of the wind industry last year, however, was
partly because the main federal tax credit for wind power was going to expire in December, and companies raced to
qualify before the deadline. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) gave producers 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for
electricity generated during the first ten years of a turbines life. In January another year of the PTC, worth $12
billion, was wrung out of the deal by which the federal government avoided the fiscal cliff, and this spurred the new
investments in Iowa. Questions, though, are being asked about this subsidy. Some power and utility companies
whose margins are being squeezed by cheap wind power would like to see the PTC eliminated. Energy companies
that use fossil fuels are griping too, perhaps forgetting how handsomely they have been subsidised in the past. But
even the wind industry wonders whether a credit that expires every few years, causing cycles of boom and bust, is
helpful. Analysts at a recent wind conference in Chicago felt that the industry was not making sufficient long-term
investments in R&D and domestic manufacturing to bring the price of its power down .

Both the federal

government (in a 2011 report) and the World Resources Institute, a green group,
agree that uncertainty over the PTC is causing underinvestment, with the institute
pointing out that America remains a net importer of wind equipment. Some technical
improvements have, in fact, been notched up. Since the late 1990s rotor diameters have increased by around 90%
and the average height of a turbine hub has gone up by 45%. More than 1,000 turbines installed last year were
on towers of more than 100 metres (330 feet). Todays turbines have, on average, a technical capacity eight times
larger than they had in 1990, and generate 17 times more power. Yet without the PTC wind is uncompetitive with
other forms of energy. The PTC also has strong political support on both sides of the aisle. Democrats like it as a
subsidy for green energy. Some Republicans like it because it brings jobs and development. Wind energy is
distributed in a highly partisan fashion, with a rich band of gustiness running through the Republican Midwest from
the Dakotas and Nebraska, through to Kansas and the western corners of Oklahoma and Iowa. Some of the most
enthusiastic Republican supporters of the PTC do not even acknowledge that climate change is happening. Karl
Rove, a former adviser to George W. Bush, and Charles Grassley and Steve King, respectively Iowas senior senator
and fourth-district congressman, have all campaigned for the wind-energy credit but have expressed opinions about
climate change ranging from ambivalence (The science is confusing) to downright hostility (Climate is gone). A
number of other groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, support the credit but lobby against climatechange legislation. The fact is that wind power generates many well-paying, desirable jobs in rural places with not
much else going for them. New energy sources also allow these states to diversify their economies. This alliance of
green and red politics helps keep the industry going at a time of low wholesale electricity pricesthe result partly of
cheap shale gas, and partly of a drop in demand because of the sluggish recovery. All would not be lost if the PTC
disappeared. Without it, there will still be a trickle of demand for new turbines. Concerns about the intermittent
supply of energy from wind are dying down. It turns out that with enough wind farms sited in enough places, the
supply evens out. The wind is always blowing somewhere. And a solid majority of Americans continue to favour
alternative, clean power sources over traditional fossil fuels. Private insurers say that last year was the secondmost-expensive in American history for disasters related to climate change, costing them $139 billion. But private
insurance paid only a quarter of these costs, leaving taxpayers to cover the rest. By comparison, funding renewable
energy properly seems rather cheap.

Topicality Answers

Development Answers
(--) We meet: we develop the ocean resource of wind.
(--) We meet: extend our Schroeder evidencewe provide
incentives for offshore wind power DEVELOPMENT.
(--) Counter-interpretation: ocean development includes using
energy resources:
Pujari 12 Saritha Pujari, BS Poona College of Arts Science & Commerce,
The Objectives and Observation of Ocean Development around the World,
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/ocean/the-objectives-and-observation-ofocean-development-around-the-world/11207/
Objectives of Ocean Development: Indiaa peninsula with an extensive coastline and groups of islands has much
to gain from oceanographic research. The new Ocean Regime established by United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, which has been signed by 159 countries including India, assigns much of the world
ocean to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) where coastal states have jurisdiction over exploration and exploitation of
resources and for other economic purposes. The UNCLOS made declarations regarding (1) the sovereign rights of
extraction in the 320 km. EEZ by coastal states; (2) resources of the deep sea to be governed by International Sea
Bed Authority and extraction to be based on the principle of equitable sharing and common heritage of mankind.
(Many developed countries disagreed about the principle of equitable sharing.) Indias coastline is more than 7,000
km long, and its territory includes 1,250 islands, its EEZ covers an area of 2.02 million sq. km., and the continental
shelf extends up to 350 nautical miles from the coast. Recognising the importance of oceans in the economic
development and progress of the nation, the government set up a Department of Ocean Development (DOD) in July
1981, for planning and coordinating oceanographic survey, research and development, management of ocean
resources, development of manpower and marine technology. The department is entrusted with the responsibility
for protection of marine environment on the high seas. (Later it became a ministry, then in 2006 it was restructured

The broad objectives of ocean development have been laid down by

Parliament in the Ocean Policy Statement of November 1982 . The domain of our concern for
as MoES.)

development of oceanic resources and its environment extends from the coastal lands and islands lapped by

The ocean regime is to be developed in order to: (i)

explore and assess living and non-living resources; (ii) harness and manage its
resources (materials, energy and biomass) and create additional resources such as
mariculture; (iii) cope with and protect its environment (weather, waves and coastal
front); (iv) develop human resources (knowledge, skill and expertise), and (v) play
our rightful role in marine science and technology in the international arena.
brackish water to the wide Indian Ocean.

(--) they overlimit: they limit out all energy affirmatives like
OTEC, algae biofuels, wind energy, etc.
(--) Development means exploitation of ocean spacewe
exploit the wind resources.
UNESCO 86 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
IOC-Unesco Regional Training Workshop on Ocean Engineering and Its Interface
with Ocean Sciences in the Indian Ocean Region, 4-5,
http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Training/085239eo.pdf

The term "ocean development" has often been used to denote all activities,
including ocean sciences, ocean engineering and related marine technology,
directed to resource exploration and exploitation and the use of ocean space.

The underlying guiding principle in all these activities has been that these be
conducted in a manner that insure the preservation of the marine environment
without detriment to its quality and the resources with which it abounds. From the
statements given by the participants, it became apparent that in some countries,
such as China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, ocean
development programmes and activities, over the years, have evolved from
fisheries oriented needs towards mineral resources exploitation. In some of these
countries exploitation of these resources has brought about new adjustments to
their priority needs which have progressively involved the strengthening of their
marine scientific and technological capability demanded by these new situations.

(--) Reasonability: good is good enough on topicality.

(--) Literature checks abuseplenty of literature on offshore
wind.

Its Answers
1. We meet the development still belongs to the USFG. The
USFG always contracts our some parts of development
projects.
2. We meet the plan issues permits for USFG owned ocean,
that means the development is still owned by the USFG
3. Counter-Interpretation:
Its means of or relating to
Websters 10 (Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary, its, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/its)
Main Entry:

its

Pronunciation: \its, ts\

Function: adjective
Date: circa 1507
: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object
<going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

of an action

4. Standards:
a. Limits takes out all energy affs because the government NEVER
produces its own energy. Without learning about energy, we miss a critical part of
ocean policy education.
b. Grammar its means more than literal possession. Its important for us to
be grammatically correct because that is the only way we find the most predictable
definition, this internal link turns their limits argument.

5. Plan meets development its the utilization of resource,

the aff USES resources so it meets independent of their
interpretation.
Owen 3 Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization,
Legal And Institutional Aspects Of Management Arrangements For Shared Stocks
With Reference To Small Pelagics In Northwest Africa, FAO Fisheries Circular No.
988, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4698b/y4698b04.htm
1.2 The legal regime for management of shared stocks
For a stock shared between two or more neighbouring coastal States and not
ranging onto the high seas, the regime of Art 63(1) LOSC is appropriate. It states
that:
Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the exclusive
economic zones of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either
directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon

the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and

development of such stocks without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.
Regarding the term development, Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy[4] state that:
The reference to development... relates to the development of those stocks as
fishery resources. This includes increased exploitation of little-used stocks, as
well as improvements in the management of heavily-fished stocks for more
effective exploitation. Combined with the requirement in article 61 of not
endangering a given stock by overexploitation, this envisages a long-term strategy
of maintaining the stock as a viable resource.

6. Defense
a. Functional Limits: topic is limited by AFFs that have a federal key warrant.
b. Lit checks: lots of evidence on offshore wind.
c. Breadth is better than depth: We should learn about a wide variety of
ocean AFFs.

7. Reasonability Good is good enough

Non-Military Answers
(--) We meet: zero of the plan is non-military.
(--) Counter-interp: Even if the plan can be used for military
purposes, that doesnt make it non-militarymilitary is
determined by structures:
Brown 12 Sylvia Brown, DPhil from the University of London, Youths in
Non-Military Roles in an Armed Opposition Group on the Burmese-Thai
Border, Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Department of Development Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/15634/1/Brown_3434.pdf
a) Definition of key terms
The term youth is understood in this study to be a socially constructed emic term
which, like all social constructions, is not static, but continually re-defined by society
based on the social context of the time. The term non-military is used here to refer
to roles which are not located within army or militia structures. Since roles
within military structures involve both combat and non-combat roles (army cooks,
porters, signallers and engineers, for example), the term non-combat can be used
to refer to ancillary roles within a military, which are not the focus of this study.
This study is concerned with participants outside the armed wing of an armed
opposition group entirely, for instance, within its administrative apparatus or mass
organisations.

(--) Reasonability: Good is good enough on Topicality.

Oceans Plural Answers

(--) We meet: we use both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
(--) Counter-interp: Oceans means more than one, not all:
Daniel Scocco, 2007 (English Grammar 101: Plural Form of Nouns. Online. Internet. Accessed
May 13, 2014 at http://www.dailywritingtips.com/english-grammar-101-plural-form-of-nouns/)

The English language has both regular and irregular plural forms of nouns.
The most common case is when you need to add -s to the noun. For example
one car and two cars.

(--) They overlimit: No cases go in all the oceans.

(--) Reasonability: good is good enough on T.

OceansAT: Ocean Isnt EEZ

(--) Counter-interp: Ocean includes the EEZ:
Mathews 11 Joe Mathews, Law Clerk at Springfield Law and
Conservation Clinic Fellow at the University of Florida Conservation Clinic,
Redefining the Territorial Sea in the Clean Water Act: Replacing Outdated
Terminology and Extending Regulatory Jurisdiction, Sea Grant Law and Policy
Journal, 4(1), Summer, http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/sglpj/Vol4No1/Matthews.pdf
The ocean is defined as any portion of the high seas beyond the
contiguous zone.49 Although the high seas is not defined in the CWA, the ocean as used in the CWA
has been interpreted to include the Exclusive Economic Zone (seaward a distance of
200 nautical miles)50 as well as the high seas beyond the jurisdictional reach of the
United States.51 Part VII of UNCLOS III, which discusses the High Seas states that it applies to all parts of the
3. The Ocean

sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or
in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State.52 Although such an expansive definition was unlikely the
intention of Congress when it passed the CWA, the statute does assert authority over ocean waters falling outside
U.S. jurisdiction and it is a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language in light of UNCLOS III. This serves as
another example of the confusion generated by Congress failure to update the CWA to reflect the existing extent of
maritime claims under international law.

(--) They overlimit: they limit out overfishing AFFs, algae biofuels AFFs, all renewable energy AFFs.
(--)Excluding coastal exploration undermines topic education
Baker 3 Joe Baker, Chief Scientist for the Queensland Department of
Primary Industries and Commissioner for the Environment, Exploration of the
Seas:: Voyage into the Unknown, p. 175-176
Baker, Chief Scientist for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Commissioner for the
Environment, discussed the value of ocean exploration exemplified by Australia's dependence on
Joe

marine resources for its economic well-being. The scientific value of exploration is not the highest priority. It is the
use of the dataand the assimilation and transmission of information to decision-makersthat is essential.
Australia is one of the 12 mega-biodiverse countries, and the only developed country among the 12 megabiodiverse countries. With the exception of Australia, the other eleven have an inverse proportion of gross national
product to mega-biodiversity. Australia has a well-educated population, is politically stable, and has many special
features such as the Great Barrier Reef. There is significant expertise in tropical marine systems, and as a result,
Australia has responsibility for leadership in management and conservation for protection of mega-biodiversity. Dr.
Baker's definition of ocean exploration is broad and includes a comprehensive awareness of the nature, role, and
function of the oceans. It should be multidisciplinary and multinational. A coordinated international exploration
program adds value by sharing costs and assets, sharing output, and eliminating overlap. Such a program should
include studies of impacts of change on human populations, interactions at boundaries (e.g., ice, coastal margins,
sea beds), the interdependency of living and nonliving components of ecosystems, bio-prospecting for
pharmaceuticals, and bio-mining for exploitation of natural resources. The challenge is to determine priorities and

He emphasized that ocean exploration should not focus

exclusively on offshore oceanic environments. Coastal ocean exploration is equally
important as offshore because these are the areas where the impacts of change
will be the most severe. Finally, he offered the opinion that good exploration shares costs and benefits with
develop criteria for study selection.

developing countries in order to help all parties achieve sustainable development of ocean resources.

(--) Reasonability: Good is good enough on T.

Subsets T
(--) We meet: we make offshore wind go throughout the
Atlantic & Pacific environment.
(--) Counter-interp: Substantially means at least twenty
percent.
Words & Phrases, 67, 758.
Substantial number of tenants engaged in production of goods for commerce means that at least 20 per cent
of the building be occupied by tenants so engaged. Ullo vs. Smith, D.C.N.Y., 62 F. Supp. 757, 760.

(--) We meet the counter-interp--No offshore wind production

in the US now:
Andrew Campbell, 2013 (Houston Law Review, Winter 2013,
COMMENT: YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE
WIND BLOWS?*: AN ARGUMENT FOR OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO** Accessed 7/21/2014, rwg)
While Europe has well-established offshore wind farms off the coast of Denmark and
England, n6 currently no offshore wind farm has started production in the United
States. n7 The most [*901] prominent project, Cape Wind, has been mired in
litigation for the past decade. n8

(--) They overlimit: they disallow every AFF at the camplike

searching for the plane, algae biofuels, OTEC, etc.
(--) Reasonability: good is good enough on Topicality.

Substantially Means 50% Answers

(--) We meet--No offshore wind production in the US now:
Andrew Campbell, 2013 (Houston Law Review, Winter 2013,
COMMENT: YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE
WIND BLOWS?*: AN ARGUMENT FOR OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO** Accessed 7/21/2014, rwg)
While Europe has well-established offshore wind farms off the coast of Denmark and
England, n6 currently no offshore wind farm has started production in the United
States. n7 The most [*901] prominent project, Cape Wind, has been mired in
litigation for the past decade. n8

(--) Counter-interp: Substantially means at least twenty

percent.
Words & Phrases, 67, 758.
Substantial number of tenants engaged in production of goods for commerce means that at least 20 per cent
of the building be occupied by tenants so engaged. Ullo vs. Smith, D.C.N.Y., 62 F. Supp. 757, 760.

(--) Their interpretation is arbitrarythey would always draw

the line right before us.
(--) ReasonabilityGood is good enough on T.

Increase Means Make Greater

Answers
(--) We meet: The Energy Department just gave $150 million to
fund offshore wind in Massachusetts
Bastasch 7/1/14 (Michael Bastasch, writer for the Daily Caller, 7/1/14, Feds Give Cape Wind
Project $150 Million Loan Guarantee, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/feds-give-capewind-project-150-million-loan-guarantee/#ixzz388kDOpx5, mgsk-sd)

The Energy Department has given a conditional $150 million loan to the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts in a move to fund the first offshore wind farm in the United
States. Cape Wind will receive the $150 million loan after it secures $2.6 billion in financing, according to the
Energy Department. Once it has secured the balance of the funding, it will get taxpayer dollars to help
construct 130 wind turbines that will have a capacity of 360 megawatts of power . If
built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern
Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant U.S. offshore wind industry , said Peter Davidson, executive
director of the DOEs loan program in a statement. The lessons that could be learned from this project can help
catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind resources. Massachusetts
Democrats hailed the loan as a boom to the state and a step in the right direction in fighting global warming.
Offshore

wind will not only provide a new, clean source of energy for the United States, it
will reduce American reliance on fossil fuel, mitigate climate change and jump start
a new U.S. industry that will create thousands of clean energy jobs , said
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. This funding will help Massachusetts make energy history and continue
our leadership as a clean energy jobs hub for the entire nation, said Sen. Ed Markey.

(--) We meet: Schroeder evidence says we increase subsidies

for renewable energy development.
(--) Counter-interp: increase means to make greater:
Encarta 6 Encarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?
refid=1861620741)
increase [ in krss ]
transitive and intransitive verb (past and past participle increased, present participle increasing, 3rd person

to become, or make
something become, larger in number, quantity, or degree
present singular increases)Definition: make or become larger or greater:
noun (plural increases)

(--) They overlimit: they disallow AFFs that have nothing

going on right now, like searching for the plane, algae biofuel,
etc.
(--) Reasonability: good is good enough on T.
(--) Lit checks abuse: plenty of lit on offshore wind power.

Disad Answers

China DA Answers (Front-Line)

(--) Non-unique: Growth in Off-shore wind slow in China high
cost
Shan 7/16/2014 (Shan, Feifei, China Three Years Late on Installing Offshore
Wind Farms, Bloomberg News, 7/16/2014. Feifei Shen is a reporter for Bloomberg
News.)
China is three years behind schedule on a plan that would make it the worlds biggest market for
offshore wind, a setback for the $15 billion industry thats seeking to produce affordable electricity from the one of

China set out an ambitious plan in 2011 to build 5,000

megawatts of offshore wind turbines in four years , enough to power 5.4 million
homes. With less than 10 percent of that capacity in place, officials now say they
wont meet that goal. Strong, steady offshore breezes have the potential to become an important source of
electricity, but installing jumbo-jet sized gear in the harsh, marine environment is a
complicated and expensive endeavor. The slow pace in China is matched by the U.S., which has no
natures most reliable energy sources.

offshore wind farms after more than a decade of development efforts. In Europe, the only continent with any
significant sea-based wind power, companies have scrapped plans for more than 5,700 megawatts since November.

China is more cautious on offshore wind than it was on solar and onshore wind
because its more risky and costly, said Shi Pengfei, honorary chairman of the
Chinese Wind Energy Association. The target for offshore wind definitely cant be attained, said Li
Junfeng, director general of the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation. Thats a
rare public admission from the government agency responsible for studying climate-change policy.

(--) No trade-off: The unhilighted part of their Schwartz

evidence says that China continues to fall behind in renewable
energy investment now.
(--) Non-unique: US funding offshore wind power now.
Andrew Westney, reporter for Law360, 5/7/14 [May 7, 2014, DOE Commits Up To $141M For Offshore
Wind Power, http://www.law360.com/articles/535635/doe-commits-up-to-141m-for-offshore-wind-power]

Department of Energy pledged as much as $141

million Wednesday to three cutting-edge offshore wind power programs in New Jersey,
Oregon and Virginia as part of the federal governments push to cultivate innovation in
the field. The department will provide up to $47 million over the next four years to each of three projects off
the shores of New Jersey, Oregon and Virginia. The projects will put grid-connected systems in
place in federal and state waters by 2017, according to a department statement. The grants are
in line with the government's national offshore wind strategy, which seeks to
develop a sustainable offshore wind industry to provide cleaner, renewable energy ,
Law360, New York (May 07, 2014, 7:11 PM ET) -- The U.S.

the statement said.

(--) Their zero-sum evidence assumes a cap & trade system

not investments in offshore wind.
(--) Non-unique: Chinas growth slowing now:
Reuters 07/24/14 ["China 2014 Growth Likely to Slip to 24-year Low."
The Economic Times. Reuters, 24 July 2014. Web. 30 July 2014.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-

24/news/51982260_1_2-5-percent-targeted-7-5-percent-7-2-percent ] J. L. J.L.
J.L. J.L. J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L.
China 2014 growth likely to slip to 24-year low Reuters Jul 24, 2014, 01.51PM IST Tags: Timothy Geithner|settlement option|reserve
ratio|property prices|product|net worth|monetary policy|Li Keqiang|interest rates|Insurability|Inflation|housing market|gdp|financial
markets|endorsements|economy|Economist|current account|benchmark|Bank of China|Bank of America-Merrill Lynch (Growth in the

China's economy probably will grow at its slowest pace in 24

years this year, expanding by 7.4 percent, as government stimulus measures fail to
fully offset the drag from a sluggish housing market , a Reuters poll showed. Growth
in the world's second-biggest economy is forecast to dip slightly in the third and
fourth quarters to 7.4 percent, from 7.5 percent in April-June, according to a median estimate of 19 analysts. The
$9.4 trillion economy is expected to lose momentum despite a slew of government
support measures in recent months and expectations that the central bank will
further relax monetary policy by cutting banks' reserve requirement ratio once
between October and March next year . Half of 14 economists polled said they expected the ratio to be cut by
world's second-biggest) BEIJING:

50 basis points to 19.5 percent, the first such a reduction to be applied to all Chinese banks since May 2012. The ratio is a measure
of the amount of deposits banks must hold as reserves at the central bank, so a reduction would in theory release more funds for

The expected timing of the cut in the fourth quarter at the earliest is a push
back of earlier bets for a reduction in the third quarter. The central bank already has eased reserve
lending.

requirements for some banks to free up more funds for lending to the farming sector and small- and medium firms. "The worst of
China's property downturn is not yet behind us," Tao Wang, an economist at UBS, said in a note on Wednesday. "As industrial sectors
start to feel an increasingly negative drag from China's unfolding property downshift, growth will likely dip to 7 percent year-on-year
in the fourth quarter." The 7.4 percent forecast for 2014, the median estimate of 44 economists, would be a low unseen since 1990.

the slowdown may extend into next year, when annual growth is seen dipping to
7.2 percent. The housing market, which accounts for roughly 15 percent of China's
gross domestic product (GDP), is undergoing its worst downturn in about 2 years. A cooling
And

economy, a drop in sales after an unusually buoyant 2013 and nearly five years worth of government efforts to tame red-hot
property prices have all played a part in tempering the sector. To limit any fall-out, at least 10 regional Chinese governments have
scaled back their housing controls. Limits on the number of houses that residents can buy have been scrapped, for instance, and
mortgage rates have been slashed in some cases. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said last week economic growth of slightly more or
less than the targeted 7.5 percent this year would be acceptable as long it still led to new jobs and higher wages, the official Xinhua
news agency reported. NO RATE CUT In line with moderating economic activity, consumer price pressures are forecast to remain
subdued. Annual inflation is seen running at 2.5 percent in 2014, a good way under the government's 3.5 percent target. China's
current account surplus is also expected to hover at 2.2 percent of GDP this year and next, comfortably below the 4 percent mark
proposed by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a level that indicates a balanced economy. The vast majority of
economists polled thought the central bank would keep interest rates unchanged, with the benchmark one-year lending rate seen
steady at 6 percent until the end of 2015. Benchmark one-year deposit rates were also seen unchanged at 3 percent. Expectations
that rates will not be cut contrast with comments from a central bank official earlier this month. Xu Nuojin, a deputy director at the
statistics department at the central bank, was quoted by the state-controlled China Securities Journal as saying that China should
cut taxes, lower companies' borrowing costs and cut the reserve ratio to boost activity. Although Xu did not call for an outright
reduction in benchmark rates, he said that the central bank needs to lower short- and long-term borrowing costs. But some
economists said such a move is unnecessary, especially if interbank rates stay muted. "This year the People's Bank of China has
proactively guided interbank rates lower to support growth and stabilize financial markets," Ting Lu, an economist at Bank of
America-Merrill Lynch said in a note. "In this regard, interest rates have already been lowered."

(--) Their brink of collapse evidence is five years oldits

empirically denied.
(--) The plan prevents collapseit solidifies US-China strategic
cooperation
Conrad 11 Research associates with the Global Public Policy Institute [Bjrn Conrad (PhD
candidate @ University of Trier. His research focuses on Chinas domestic climate policy. MA in Chinese
Studies, Political Science and Economics from the University of Trier and a Master in Public Policy from
Harvards Kennedy School of Government.) & Mirjam Meissner (MA in Chinese Studies, Political Science and
Economics from the Free University), Catching a Second Wind Changing the Logic of International
Cooperation in Chinas Wind Energy Sector, Global Public Policy Institute, GPPi Policy Paper No. 12,
February 2011

Chinas wind energy sector presents a vivid case of the fundamental

dilemma of climate technologies. On the one hand, the rapid development and

global dissemination of climate technology is highly desirable and

necessary as part of an effective strategy to tackle global climate change. On the other
hand, these technologies are commercial products, developed and sold by companies on a
fiercely competitive market. The logic of climate protection favors the open
exchange of technological expertise between corporations. Contrarily, the logic of the market
sets narrow boundaries for the sharing of profit-making innovation. Finding ways to reconcile these two aspects
will be a decisive challenge faced on the way to solving the global climate crisis. The case of wind energy in China
presents a crucial illustration of the effects of this dilemma. The
development of international cooperative structures that are able to provide innovative
answers to pressing climate challenges has been hampered by the perception of todays partners as
tomorrows competitors in an economic zero-sum game. Chinese players tried to use partnerships as a means
to gain a technological edge without an intention to grant their partners a long-term stake in its domestic market. International
business actors tried to use partnerships as a means to gain access to Chinas domestic wind power market without any real
incentive to improve their partners long-term technological advancement. Ultimately, neither side got what it wanted. As a result,
Chinas wind sector stayed below its potential regarding its contribution to global climate protection. Opportunity -

International cooperation could catch a second wind in Chinas renewable energy sector.
Chinas wind market is on the verge of a new development phase heralding
a possible shift in the logic of international tech nology cooperation; the times
of China simply catching up to foreign technologies are coming to an
end. To maintain its growth, Chinas wind sector will depend on original
technological solutions to manage mounting problems of efficiency, transmission and intermittency. Current
technological obstacles threaten the swift expansion of Chinas wind power
capacity, putting the achievement of Chinas ambitious renewable energy
targets for the year 2020 at risk. This creates strong political pressure to
explore viable solutions such as smart-grid transmission systems and offshore wind power generation.
The technological bottleneck of its wind energy sector significantly increases
Chinas incentives to revisit structures of international cooperation as a means to
create urgently needed innovation. This situation in turn opens new
opportunities for foreign political actors, specifically the European Union, to promote the
emergence of cooperative structures that can make a tangible contribution to global climate protection. From the
business perspective, the growth of complementary capabilities between Chinese and international wind power companies
increases the attractiveness of balanced and mutually beneficial partnerships. Chinese companies can benefit greatly from strategic
alliances with international firms in their search for needed technological solutions, while foreign companies can take advantage of
the uniquely favorable conditions that China offers for producing cutting-edge innovation in wind power technology. At the core of
this mutually beneficial cooperative model lies the creation of shared innovation based on the joint exploration and joint ownership
of original technological solutions. Joint development, however, requires a mode of cooperation radically different from the model of
international partnerships that have characterized Chinas wind sector in the past. It calls for deep working relationships and longterm strategic alliances rooted in mutual interests. Looking at the sobering experiences of the past, both sides will have to radically
break with the current logic of interaction in order to redefine international partnerships. Pg. 8-9

(--) Catastrophic consequences to CCP collapse are just fearmongering:

Giley 4 [Bruce Gilley, 2004, PhD Candidate Politics @ Princeton U. and
Adjunct Prof. Intl Affairs @ New School U. China's Democratic Future: How it
Will Happen and where it Will Lead, p. 115-116, Google Print]
Would the entire PRC edifice simply collapse from the accumulated pressures of crisis and mass protest? In cross-country
comparisons, "post-totalitarian" states like China are the most vulnerable to collapse because they are unable to respond creatively
to protest and yet there is no organized opposition to assume control. The East German regime was a perfect example. It simply
collapsed when huge defections from the state occurred at every level and there was no organized opposition ready to take over. In
the German case, there was a neighboring fraternal state whose arms provided some cushion for the collapse. China would not have
the same support. For this reason, the CCP and many of its supporters have warned of the dangers of collapse in words designed to

Fear-mongering about the consequences of regime

collapse in China has been a staple of PRC propaganda since reforms began. Deng said: "If the
scare the regime's opponents into quiescence.

political situation in china became unstable the trouble would spread to the rest of the world, with consequences that would be hard

One has worried about "societal disintegration" and

worst the resulting chaos
from a collapsing China would have a profound effect on the stability of Asia and on the
to imagine." Foreign scholars have taken up the histrionics with relish.

even "the fragmentation of China into several competing polities." Another warns: " At

U.S. policy to guarantee the security of its Asian allies. At the least, China could turn to the West for economic relief and

Yet these fears appear overblown or

misplaced. First, as we saw in the last part, many of these dire predictions are an accurate
portrayal of China today. The problems of Party rule have created the very crisis that the fear-mongers alluded to.
China already has an AIDs crisis, an illegal emigration crisis, a pollution crisis, and
an economic crisis. Given its well-established state and social cohesion, China has far more to gain than to lose from
political liberalization. Second, there is a good argument that governance in China will not
collapse further even with a top leadership in crisis. The country actually functioned
quite normally during the Cultural Revolution, when there was often no rule at the
top, as a result of strong local governments and a social fabric that held together . At
reconstruction, the price tag of which would be overwhelming."

this state, with protests in full swing, a military on good behavior and a regime trying to confront the possibility of change, there is
no reason to believe that the country will abruptly disintegrate.

believe that

As in 1989, in fact, there is every reason to

people will act better toward each other and that local governments will look kindly upon the movement, an
outpouring of civic behavior linked with the ideals of democracy. Finally, as above, if we are concerned with the creation of a more
just system, then some degree of "chaos" relating to unstable government may be a worthwhile price to pay, including for the world.
Claims by some U.S. foreign policy analysts that "there is as great a 'threat' to US interests from a weak and unstable China as there
is from a strong and antagonistic China" are based on a highly instrumental and even the flawed view of U.S., and world, interests. A
world community committed to the principles of justice through democracy has an overriding interest in its realization in China. To
the extent that instability in China worsens conditions for greater justice there or abroad, it would indeed "threaten" world interests.
But if the instability, despite its costs, leads to greater gains through a more just order in China and, through it, abroad, then this is
very much in the world's interests. Few Americans, French, Croats, Romanians, South Africans, Filipinos, South Koreans, or
Indonesians would say the "chaos" of their democratic revolutions was not a price worth paying. China's people should be allowed to
make the same choice.

1ar: Non-UniqueChinese wind energy slow now

(--) Extend our Shan evidenceits from July 16th and says
China has less than 10% of its planned wind energy in place
proving China isnt making a transition to green tech.
(--) China has met a tenth of its goal of offshore wind power:
Shanghai Daily, 7/3/2014 (Offshore wind power target elusive,
http://www.ecns.cn/business/2014/07-03/122109.shtml, Accessed 7/28/2014)
there
are still challenges in terms of technology, management and policy if China is to
achieve its 2015 goal," said Yi Yuechun, deputy chief engineer of the China Renewable Energy Engineering
Institute. Speaking at the Offshore Wind China Conference & Exhibition yesterday, Yi said the country's
offshore wind sector is still in its infancy, with immature technologies in the areas of surveying,
"The pricing scheme for offshore wind power unveiled last month provided a stimulus for the sector, but

construction and installation. Furthermore, inconsistent management standards among different maritime

The country's offshore wind capacity was

less than a tenth of the government's 5,000MW target for 2015.

departments lead to extended project cycles, he said.

428.6MW at the end of 2013,

(--) Lack of expertise in China prevents offshore wind from

taking off:
Wyatt et al 14 (Wyatt, Stephen, Detailed appraisal of the offshore wind
industry in China, Carbon Trust, 2014.
http://www.carbontrust.com/media/510530/detailed-appraisal-of-the-offshorewind-industry-in-china.pdf At the Carbon Trust, he was responsible for
managing a portfolio of innovation activity in offshore renewables, biomass
heat and industrial energy efficiency, and managed issues relating to both
government and industry.)
Foundations: The sea bed off Chinas east coast (within 5-30m depth) is characteristic of soft, silty soils which are
unlike soil conditions in Europe. This causes difficulty with regard to foundation type and installation techniques.
Selecting appropriate foundations will therefore be crucial, and while there may be available solutions from existing
European technologies, there is likely to be scope for local R&D to develop bespoke solutions for China, such as

Installation: The lack of expertise as well as bespoke vessels makes

installation the key cost in Chinese offshore wind development . Additionally, China
lacks skills in hammering techniques as well as offshore assembly. Operations &
suction buckets.

Maintenance: Poor turbine reliability significantly adds cost to O&M and so can greatly reduce developer margins

A lack of expertise around transfer vessels also limits the operation window
for conducting repairs. Above all, China has leveraged its skills and capabilities from
the onshore wind industry to the offshore wind market where the technical
challenges are much greater and where the weather conditions more impactful on
turbine performance. Furthermore, initial demonstrations in China have focussed on the inter-tidal range;
over time.

given that the NEA has insisted that future farms be at least 10km from shore, a rapid learning is now taking place
that will take time to flow through to improved capabilities, technology and equipment. But given the rapid growth
of the onshore market, there can be confidence that China can achieve its offshore wind targets, perhaps not by
2015, but perhaps by 2020.

(--) China will be dependent on coal for the foreseeable future

no policy shift in sight
Joern HUENTELER, research fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Centre for Science and
International Affairs, 5/16/2014 [May 16, 2014, China's coal addiction a threat to its energy
security, South China Morning Post, http://www.scmp.com/comment/insightopinion/article/1511893/chinas-coal-addiction-threat-its-energy-security]

the government has been too timid in its attempts to cut its dependence on
coal in the energy sector and develop meaningful alternatives. Only a grand push for energy technology innovation
So far,

can set the course for a secure and clean energy future. China's coal consumption has grown rapidly in recent years, and is now far
larger than anything the world has ever seen, with more than 3.5 billion tonnes per year. Coal provides more than two-thirds of
China's total energy, and four-fifths of its electricity. Most of it is mined domestically, making China the world's largest coal
producer. But coal use has its limits; the media have focused on coal's impact on air quality as well as water resources, not just in
the coal-mining provinces but also the large cities. The fact is that the current rate of coal production growth is unsustainable. Data
from the World Energy Council shows that China's proven coal reserves will last 34 years given its annual production rates, based on
figures for 2011. That is down from about 100 years just a decade ago and means China will have exhausted its reserves by 2049, if
it keeps going at the current rate. The exhaustion of domestic coal reserves will have profound implications for China's economic
development and its international relations. The Ukraine crisis offers a glimpse for Chinese leaders into a future they surely want to
avoid. Recent weeks have made it clear that the West's ability to impose sanctions on Russia over its meddling in Ukraine is
severely constrained by Europe's dependence on Russia for a third of its oil and gas. China's national security interests therefore call

Beijing's
response to unmet energy demand has focused primarily on securing resources
overseas, and building infrastructure for imports. China now generates more
electricity from imported coal than from nuclear, wind and solar combined . Without a
strong, coordinated policy shift, the country will depend on fuel imports for most of its energy
consumption by the time it becomes a developed country .
for replacing coal with new, domestic energy sources rather than imports of conventional fossil fuels. But until now,

1ar: Non-Unique: US funding offshore wind power

now
(--) Extend our Westney evidenceUS is funding offshore wind
nowthis proves:
A) The status quo will trigger the DA OR
B) The link is falseinvestments in US wind dont trade-off
with Chinese wind.
C) The perception link to the disad is also triggered in the
status quonon-uniquing the disad.
(--) Current investments in offshore wind trigger the
perception links:
Brian Handwerk, 7/17/2014 (staff writer, First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm
Wins Federal Funds, Courtroom Fights,
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/17/first-u-s-offshore-windfarm-wins-federal-funds-courtroom-fights/, Accessed 7/28/2014, rwg)
The Department of Energys (DOE) Loan Programs Office has announced a conditional
commitment to Cape Wind, a 130-turbine project slated for the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound. The
$150 million loan guarantee would support construction of the 360 megawatt (MW) wind
farm and might finally help the bid to spin turbines above the waters of Nantucket Sound. I think a big significance
of the DOEs conditional guarantee is that it makes the U.S. government a
participant in the financing of Americas first offshore wind farm , said Cape Wind spokesman
Mark Rodgers. Thats something that you see quite often in Europe, and I think it sends a message to other
financial stakeholders about the confidence the government has in us. After all, although it
was different agencies the government also approved the project and issued us our lease. We believe this commitment will help us
to continue to attract additional commercial sector financial players.

1ar Extensions: China Growth Slow Now

(--) Extend our Reuters evidence from July 24th that Chinas
economy is losing momentum nowour evidence cites their
housing market and the fact that government support cant
save the economy.
(--) Non-unique: Chinese economic growth slowing now:
Belinda Cao, 6/30/2014 (staff writer, Slowing China Economy Dims Profit
Outlook to 2012 Low, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-29/slowingchina-economy-dims-profit-outlook-to-2012-low.html, Accessed 7/28/2014,
rwg)
Chinese companies in the U.S. are on pace to report the smallest
profits in two years as growth in the worlds second-largest economy decelerates
to the slowest since 1990. Analysts covering stocks listed on the Bloomberg China-US Equity Index
The most-actively traded

(HSCEI) estimate that on average they will post earnings of $5.64 per share this year, which would be the lowest
profits reported since 2012, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Theyve cut revenue forecasts by 7.9 percent in the

economists surveyed by Bloomberg

estimate Chinas gross domestic product expansion will slow to 7.4 percent this year, the
weakest pace in 24 years, after back-to-back annual increases of 7.7 percent. While the government
past 11 weeks. Earnings and sales projections are falling as

has implemented tax breaks, accelerated spending and cut some banks reserve requirements, investors are
concerned that officials arent doing enough to stem a decline in real estate prices and boost private consumption.

(--) Chinese Econ falling now

Li 7/29/14( MINQI LI, 7/29/14, associate professor of economics at the University
of Utah, Why is China's Economy Slowing Down?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11405, DSS)
the HSBC, and they have this thing called the PMI
index show that
China's manufacturing index declined, actually dipped below 50. So the current reading of
LI: Well, what we have is the last week there is this report by

index, purchasing manager index, and about China's manufacturing sector. And their

their index is 49.6. And so for that index--and if it's above 50, it will indicate expansion of the manufacturing sector,

and then if it's below 50, it would indicate contraction of manufacturing sector . So the
market concern is that it may suggest China's manufacturing sector is not only slowing down, but moreover it's
contracting. And then that could signal a not-so-rosy future for the global economy.
JAY: Now, one of the things people talk a lot about is two things: the amount of infrastructure capacity that's being
built in China, a lot of it through a massive amount of credit--bridges and highways and railroads and such; and then
there's a suggestion it's really over capacity, that they've been, you know, kind of artificially making the economy
look like it's growing faster than it really is. I mean, is there truth to that? And is that starting to slow down? LI:

Well, the Chinese economy, of course, has been suffering from this overcapacity
problem, and mostly because of the excessive level of investment--about 50 percent of China's GDP. But
although there has been growing consensus that the Chinese economy is excessively imbalanced
and therefore it needs to have a correction in the future, but there is--it still remain debated about how soon that
correction is going to take place.

(--) Chinese Econ Low and Projected to Shrink Further

Qing July 24 (2014) (Koh Gui, 07/24/2014, China 2014 growth likely to slip to
24-year low, reserve ratio cut seen: poll,

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/24/uk-china-economyidUKKBN0FT0N220140724, TG)
China's economy probably will grow at its slowest pace in 24 years this year ,
as government stimulus measures fail to fully offset the drag from
a sluggish housing market, a Reuters poll showed. Growth in the world's second-biggest economy is
forecast to dip slightly in the third and fourth quarters to 7.4 percent, from 7.5 percent in April-June,
according to a median estimate of 19 analysts. The $9.4 trillion economy is expected to
lose momentum despite a slew of government support measures in recent months
(Reuters) -

expanding by 7.4 percent,

and expectations that the central bank will further relax monetary policy by cutting banks' reserve requirement ratio once between
October and March next year.

(--) China Econ at an all time low since 2012

Cao 7/30 (Belinda Cao, economist form boomberg, July 30, 2014, Slowing China Economy Dims Profit Outlook to 2012
Low, Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-29/slowing-china-economy-dims-profit-outlook-to-2012low.html,gkms-sd)

Chinese companies in the U.S. are on pace to report the smallest

profits in two years as growth in the worlds second-largest economy decelerates to the slowest since 1990. Analysts
covering stocks listed on the Bloomberg China-US Equity Index (HSCEI) estimate that on average they will
post earnings of $5.64 per share this year, which would be the lowest profits
reported since 2012, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Theyve cut revenue forecasts by 7.9
percent in the past 11 weeks. Earnings and sales projections are falling as economists surveyed by
Bloomberg estimate Chinas gross domestic product expansion will slow to 7.4 percent this
year, the weakest pace in 24 years, after back-to-back annual increases of 7.7 percent. While the government has implemented
The most-actively traded

tax breaks, accelerated spending and cut some banks reserve requirements, investors are concerned that officials arent doing
enough to stem a decline in real estate prices and boost private consumption. What were seeing now is the near-term impact of
the adjustment in expectations as these policies get implemented, Alan Gayle, senior investment strategist, who helps oversee
about $50 billion for RidgeWorth Investments, said by phone from Atlanta on June 27. Theyre

trying to slow down

some of the more inflationary real-estate related sectors and improve overall average standards of living.
The China-US gauge advanced 0.2 percent to 105.96 at 10:07 a.m. in New York today, cutting its loss for the year to 0.1 percent.
That compares with a 3.2 percent drop in the Shanghai Composite Index (SHCOMP) for the first six months, and a 4.5 percent
decline in the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index of Chinese companies traded in Hong Kong

(--) Chinas economy is doomed

Sam RO 13 (JUL. 15, 2013, 2:49 PM, 17 Reasons Why Experts Are
Convinced China's Economy Is Doomed,
http://www.businessinsider.com/scary-china-charts-2013-7?
op=1#ixzz38y8Q40Nv, EHS/MKS)
The economists are rapidly slashing their forecasts. Economists and investors around the world are finally getting used to the idea
that China's years of blazing hot growth are a thing of the past. While GDP will continue to be
above average for years to come, China's policymakers are pushing reforms to cool its housing market, legitimize its financial
system, reduce corruption, and rebalance its economy as one driven consumption, not exports. However, the cost of all of these
efforts is slower growth. And with public and private financial liabilities sky-high, more and more experts are worried that

China

will experience a hard landing, a scenario where the economy decelerates to

roughly less than 5% causing unemployment to spike and social unrest to sweep the cities. As you
can see from the chart above, GDP expectations are coming down quickly . And behind those numbers are
disturbing trends in demographics, credit, housing, and other fundamental factors that are supposed to fuel the Chinese economy.
"Private sector leverage is 17% above trend and on BIS analysis when its gets 10% above trends, there is a risk of a credit crisis."
"China is not unique in having experienced rising corporate leverage in recent years the same can be seen in other parts of Asia as
well as both the US and EM but the pace and magnitude makes China stand out (see Leveraged China, May 3, 2013). Bottom-up
corporate data less controversial perhaps than the official macro data suggests that leverage increase has been driven by the
SOE sector which on average has tripled leverage in the past five years and which, at 4.6x gross has higher balance sheet leverage
than, for instance, US sub-investment grade companies." "Leverage in the private sector is higher as well, although not as
aggressively, and with some dispersion which often relates to the demand trend of the industry. For instance, the property sector

which has seen strong sales volumes has maintained more stable credit metrics than, say, the capital goods sector which is
suffering from severe excess capacity." Credit growth has been outstripping economic growth for five quarters. This is particularly
troubling. Credit growth has been outstripping economic growth for five quarters. This is particularly troubling. Societe Generale, Wei
Yao "In the first quarter, Chinas total credit growth bank loans, shadow banking credit and corporate bond together accelerated
to the north of 20% yoy, more than twice the pace of nominal GDP growth. This gap has been widening since early 2012." SocGen
economists recently estimated China's debt service ratio at shockingly high 29.9% of GDP. "At the macro level, we estimate that
Chinas debt servicing costs have significantly exceeded underlying economic growth. As a result,

the debt snowball is

getting bigger and bigger, without contributing to real activity. This is probably where most of Chinas missing money
went." "A fast rising debt load of an economy suggests either deteriorating growth
efficiency or high and rising debt service cost , or in many cases both. There is clear evidence that China is
suffering from both of these. We have written extensively on the point of declining growth and summarized the causes as: 1) excess
capacity resulting from inefficient investment in the past and 2) increasingly marginalized private sector." Stock prices are tanking
and default risk is surging. "Global investor sentiment towards China is extremely negative currently. One way to illustrate this is the
bid for China sovereign CDS protection. In recent trading this has reached 150 bps at the 5 year maturity approaching the highs
seen during the 2011 hard landing / property crash concerns (see Exhibit 9)." "Sectors with high gearing/leverage would be the most
impacted in a deleveraging/rising interest rate environment. Corporate bond yield for typical AAA 1-year debt has risen by 140 bps
in the last 3 weeks (see Exhibit 26). This is likely to have an impact on highly geared companies via refinancing pressure on the
expiring debt and rising interest cost." Policymakers have been moving aggressively to clamp down, which means there will be
limited relief for surging interest rates. "The pace and scale of CNY appreciation will create further challenges for Chinas exporters.
The latest dynamic has pushed both the CNYs nominal and real effective exchange rates to new highs (Figure 2). The NEER is 11.2%
above its average for the past five years and 18.9% above its average for the past decade. Chinas slightly higher consumer price
inflation than in key trading partners leaves the CNYs real effective exchange rate (REER) 13.5% above the five-year average and
23.4% above the 10-year average." Employment growth has stagnated. China has the most expensive house prices in the world.
And prices have only been going up. Household debt is all about housing. Demographic trends will act as a headwind to growth. The
working age population is shrinking as the size of its elderly population balloons. This is the result of China's one-child policy. And to
make matters worse, there are now signs food prices are rising. Rising inflation limits the room for policy easing and reinforces our
view that credit and money growth will continue to drop in coming months. We expect CPI inflation to remain at around 2.7% in Q3,
then climb to above 3% in Q4. This will limit the ability of the Peoples Bank of China to cut the benchmark deposit rate, which is at
3%. The rise in pork prices poses further upside risks to CPI inflation.

(--) China Economic Growth At 24 Year Low

Economic Times 4/ 07/14 ( China 2014 growth likely to slip to 24-year low
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-24/news/51982260_1_2-5percent-targeted-7-5-percent-7-2-percent ZJN)
China's economy probably will grow at its slowest pace in 24 years this year, expanding by 7.4
, as government stimulus measures fail to fully offset the drag from a sluggish
housing market, a Reuters poll showed. Growth in the world's second-biggest economy is forecasted to dip
slightly in the third and fourth quarters to 7.4 percent , from 7.5 percent in April-June,
according to a median estimate of 19 analysts . The $9.4 trillion economy is expected to lose momentum despite a
slew of government support measures in recent months and expectations that the central bank will further relax
monetary policy by cutting banks' reserve requirement ratio once between October and March next
year. Half of 14 economists polled said they expected the ratio to be cut by 50 basis points to
19.5 percent, the first such a reduction to be applied to all Chinese banks since May
2012. The ratio is a measure of the amount of deposits banks must hold as reserves at the central bank, so a reduction would in theory release more
BEIJING:
percent

funds for lending. The expected timing of the cut in the fourth quarter at the earliest is a push back of earlier bets for a reduction in the third quarter. The
central bank already has eased reserve requirements for some banks to free up more funds for lending to the farming sector and small- and medium firms.

Wang, an economist at UBS, said in a note on

Wednesday. "As industrial sectors start to feel an increasingly negative drag from
China's unfolding property downshift, growth will likely dip to 7 percent year-on-year
in the fourth quarter." The 7.4 percent forecast for 2014, the median estimate of 44
economists, would be a low unseen since 1990. And the slowdown may extend into
next year, when annual growth is seen dipping to 7.2 percent. The housing market, which accounts for roughly 15 percent of China's gross
"The worst of China's property downturn is not yet behind us," Tao

domestic product (GDP), is undergoing its worst downturn in about 2 years. A cooling economy, a drop in sales after an unusually buoyant 2013 and nearly
five years worth of government efforts to tame red-hot property prices have all played a part in tempering the sector. To limit any fall-out, at least 10
regional Chinese governments have scaled back their housing controls. Limits on the number of houses that residents can buy have been scrapped, for
instance, and mortgage rates have been slashed in some cases. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said last week economic growth of slightly more or less than
the targeted 7.5 percent this year would be acceptable as long it still led to new jobs and higher wages, the official Xinhua news agency reported. NO RATE
CUT In line with moderating economic activity, consumer price pressures are forecast to remain subdued. Annual inflation is seen running at 2.5 percent in
2014, a good way under the government's 3.5 percent target. China's current account surplus is also expected to hover at 2.2 percent of GDP this year
and next, comfortably below the 4 percent mark proposed by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a level that indicates a balanced
economy. The vast majority of economists polled thought the central bank would keep interest rates unchanged, with the benchmark one-year lending

rate seen steady at 6 percent until the end of 2015. Benchmark one-year deposit rates were also seen unchanged at 3 percent. Expectations that rates
will not be cut contrast with comments from a central bank official earlier this month. Xu Nuojin, a deputy director at the statistics department at the
central bank, was quoted by the state-controlled China Securities Journal as saying that China should cut taxes, lower companies' borrowing costs and cut
the reserve ratio to boost activity. Although Xu did not call for an outright reduction in benchmark rates, he said that the central bank needs to lower
short- and long-term borrowing costs. But some economists said such a move is unnecessary, especially if interbank rates stay muted. "This year the
People's Bank of China has proactively guided interbank rates lower to support growth and stabilize financial markets," Ting Lu, an economist at Bank of
America-Merrill Lynch said in a note. "In this regard, interest rates have already been lowered."

(--) Chinese econ reveals low growth

Reuters, July 30, 2014 (China's local GDP data points to recovery,
rebalancing, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/30/us-china-economy-gdpidUSKBN0FZ0FB20140730)
China's regional economies enjoyed a revival in growth in the second quarter, data
from provincial governments showed, chiming with earlier figures that suggest a
burst of government stimulus measures is re-invigorating activity. Of the 30 regions
and provinces that released their local gross domestic product (GDP) data, 23
reported first-half economic growth accelerated from the first quarter. About threequarters posted growth that was higher than the national average of 7.4 percent in
the first six months. Growth also diverged sharply between eastern and western China. The coastal and
northeastern regions fared the worst, while activity was most buoyant in the central and western areas, where
double-digit growth rates were concentrated. Analysts said this suggested China's bid to rebalance its economy is
paying off. From redefining job targets to shifting investment to inland areas and cutting obsolete capacity in
energy-guzzling sectors in the north, China wants to overhaul the world's second-largest economy and encourage
more sustainable and higher-quality growth. "The growth gap is an expected result of Beijing's efforts to rebalance
regional economies and let the fruits of growth be more evenly shared by the poorer inland regions," said Nie Wen,
an analyst at Hwabao Trust in Shanghai.

(--) China econ low now

Yonhap News Agency 7/28/2014 (ND, "China's economy unlikely
to keep up its Q2 growth in H2: report",
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/chinas-economy-unlikely-to-keep-up-its-q2growth-in-h2-report/., South Koreas largest news agency, date accessed 7-30-14
tck)

Chinas economy will be hard pressed to sustain a 7.5 percent growth level reached
in the second quarter for the rest of the year, mainly due to faltering consumer
spending and the sluggish real estate market , a local think tank said Monday.
According to the Institute for International Trade (IIT), concerns that the worlds
second-largest economy will experience a hard landing this year have been
dispelled to a large extent, but it is also unlikely Chinas growth will accelerate and
reach levels tallied for last year. China benefited from economic growth in the
United States and European Union in the last quarter, as well as from the so-called
mini stimulus programs announced by Beijing that improved consumption,
investment and production, the institute under the Korea International Trade
Association said. It said although worries about the slacking off of exports and
fallouts of the shadow financial sector have eased in recent months, acceleration
of industrial restructuring, weak consumer demand and the sluggish real estate
market effectively precluded any strong upward gains in the second half. It added
high economic growth reached in the July-December period of 2013 created a high
base effect that will make it very hard for the Chinese economy to post high growth

numbers in the coming months. Despite second quarter numbers exceeding most
market expectations, many global investment banks were predicting Chinas growth
to hover at around 7.4 percent for the whole of this year, the IIT said. This, it said,
is well shy of 7.7 percent growth reached in China last year. The institute said drop
in Chinas growth will cause South Korean exports to the country to decrease this
year, which will require South Korean companies to focus more on entering Chinas
service market, instead of just using China as a manufacturing base to ship
products to other markets.

(--) Chinese econ low slowing down

Badkar 1-19-2014 (Mamta Badkar, 1-19-2014 9:09 PM,
http://www.businessinsider.com/q4-china-gdp-2014-1, reporter at Business Insider.
She has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and previously
reported for Verve magazine in India, SSN)
The Chinese economy expanded 7.7% in the fourth quarter of 2013. This was down
from 7.8% in Q3, but above expectations for a 7.6% rise. On the quarter, Q4 GDP
was up 1.8%. This was down from 2.2% in Q3, and below expectations for a 2%
rise. GDP growth was up 7.7% in 2013, this was the lowest level seen since 1999,
according to Xinhua. "We anticipate the upcoming data release to show China's
economy losing steam somewhat in December," UBS' Harrison Hu said in a note
released head of the data. "Though sequential growth momentum likely held steady
or declined slightly across most domestic demand sectors, a high base effect would
have weighed upon headline activity numbers."

(--) Chinas economy will decline liabilities and corruption

Ro 7/15/2014 (Sam Ro, writer for Business insider, 07-15-13, 17 Reasons Why
Experts Are Convinced China's Economy Is Doomed,
http://www.businessinsider.com/scary-china-charts-2013-7?op=1, AS)

Economists and investors around the world are finally getting used to the idea that
China's years of blazing hot growth are a thing of the past . While GDP will continue
to be above average for years to come, China's policymakers are pushing reforms to
cool its housing market, legitimize its financial system, reduce corruption, and
rebalance its economy as one driven consumption, not exports . However, the cost of
all of these efforts is slower growth. And with public and private financial liabilities sky-high, more and
more experts are worried that China will experience a hard landing, a scenario
where the economy decelerates to roughly less than 5% causing unemployment to
spike and social unrest to sweep the cities . As you can see from the chart above, GDP
expectations are coming down quickly. And behind those numbers are disturbing trends
in demographics, credit, housing, and other fundamental factors that are supposed
to fuel the Chinese economy.

(--) Chinas economy is down

Xiaoqing Pi a reporter at Bloomberg News, 7/22/2014
(Xiaoqing Pi, 7-22-14, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0622/china-beige-book-shows-economy-slowing-on-investment.html, CX)
Chinas economic slowdown deepened this quarter, as capital spending showed
weakness and fewer companies applied for credit, a private survey showed . Half of
businesses reported higher investment, the smallest proportion and the sharpest drop since the survey
began 10 quarters ago, according to the China Beige Book, a report published quarterly by New
York-based China Beige Book International. The slowdown hurt hiring and wages, and interest rates offered by shadow lenders fell
below levels offered by banks, it said. Since

investment has been the engine of the economy for

the past seven years, this weakness has sweeping effects on sectors , regions and gauges of
firm performance, Leland Miller, president of China Beige Book International, said in a statement with Craig Charney, director of
research and polling. Overinvestment has been an addiction and withdrawal symptoms will not be pretty. The report adds to a
picture of slowing economic expansion that may prompt Premier Li Keqiang to boost stimulus measures to meet his 2014 growth
target of about 7.5 percent. Li last week said he promised China wont have a hard landing and that the government is making
adjustments to support expansion. Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg A man on a bicycle rides past cranes operating at a
residential construction... Read More Chinas economy will grow 7.4 percent in the April-June period from a year earlier, based on the
median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey conducted in May. That would be the same pace as the first three months, which was
the weakest in six quarters. Gross domestic product rose 7.7 percent in 2013 and 2012, down from an average 10.6 percent a year
in the previous decade. Property Pummeled Fewer companies than in the previous survey in March said they expect to increase
investment in the next quarter and the proportion that anticipate cutting spending increased, according to the report. For the first
time since the China Beige Book survey began in 2012, no sector showed an improvement compared with the previous quarter,
according to todays report. Transportation, mining and retail slowed and services weakened more sharply. The survey showed
dramatic differences between parts of the real estate industry, with commercial and residential realty pummeled while
construction held up fairly well, China Beige Book said. Fewer companies in commercial and residential realty reported revenue
gains and prices were flat or falling, while commercial construction saw steady price and volume growth and starts perked up,
according to the report. Credit Squeeze The number of businesses applying for bank loans dropped and fewer bankers reported
increased lending to businesses in the quarter, confirming companies reports of a credit squeeze, China Beige Book said. The
average interest rate charged by shadow lenders fell below that of banks as slowing investment hit demand for credit, the first time
thats happened on a national level since the survey started. The average non-bank lending rate for respondents dropped 208 basis
points from the previous quarter to 6.3 percent, while the average bank rate rose 51 basis points to 6.8 percent, according to the
report. Services took the biggest hit in the quarters slowdown, the survey showed. The proportion of respondents reporting
revenue growth dropped to 44 percent, down 11 percentage points from the previous quarter and 10 points from a year ago. The
China Beige Book report, modeled on the U.S. Federal Reserves Beige Book business survey, was compiled from 2,043 10-minute
interviews conducted from May 12 to June 3 through an online survey plus 32 face-to-face 20-minute interviews conducted June 9 to
19. The previous survey showed the worlds second-largest economy moderated in the first quarter, with a weaker retail
performance the principal force behind the trend. The China Beige Book report for October-to-December last year indicated a
strengthening economy, compared with government data showing a slowdown.Chinas economic slowdown deepened this quarter,
as capital spending showed weakness and fewer companies applied for credit, a private survey showed. Half of businesses reported
higher investment, the smallest proportion and the sharpest drop since the survey began 10 quarters ago, according to the China
Beige Book, a report published quarterly by New York-based China Beige Book International. The slowdown hurt hiring and wages,
and interest rates offered by shadow lenders fell below levels offered by banks, it said. Since investment has been the engine of
the economy for the past seven years, this weakness has sweeping effects on sectors, regions and gauges of firm performance,
Leland Miller, president of China Beige Book International, said in a statement with Craig Charney, director of research and polling.
Overinvestment has been an addiction and withdrawal symptoms will not be pretty. The report adds to a picture of slowing

2014 growth target of

about 7.5 percent. Li last week said he promised China wont have a hard landing and that the government is making
economic expansion that may prompt Premier Li Keqiang to boost stimulus measures to meet his

adjustments to support expansion. Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg A man on a bicycle rides past cranes operating at a

More Chinas economy will grow 7.4 percent in the April-June

period from a year earlier, based on the median estimate in a Bloomberg News
survey conducted in May. That would be the same pace as the first three months, which was the
weakest in six quarters. Gross domestic product rose 7.7 percent in 2013 and 2012, down from an average 10.6
residential construction... Read

percent a year in the previous decade. Property Pummeled Fewer companies than in the previous survey in March said they expect
to increase investment in the next quarter and the proportion that anticipate cutting spending increased, according to the report.
For the first time since the China Beige Book survey began in 2012, no sector showed an improvement compared with the previous

The
survey showed dramatic differences between parts of the real estate industry,
with commercial and residential realty pummeled while construction held up fairly
well, China Beige Book said. Fewer companies in commercial and residential realty reported revenue gains and prices were flat
quarter, according to todays report. Transportation, mining and retail slowed and services weakened more sharply.

or falling, while commercial construction saw steady price and volume growth and starts perked up, according to the report. Credit

Squeeze The number of businesses applying for bank loans dropped and fewer bankers reported increased lending to businesses in
the quarter, confirming companies reports of a credit squeeze, China Beige Book said. The average interest rate charged by shadow
lenders fell below that of banks as slowing investment hit demand for credit, the first time thats happened on a national level since
the survey started. The average non-bank lending rate for respondents dropped 208 basis points from the previous quarter to 6.3
percent, while the average bank rate rose 51 basis points to 6.8 percent, according to the report. Services took the biggest hit in
the quarters slowdown, the survey showed. The proportion of respondents reporting revenue growth dropped to 44 percent, down
11 percentage points from the previous quarter and 10 points from a year ago. The China Beige Book report, modeled on the U.S.
Federal Reserves Beige Book business survey, was compiled from 2,043 10-minute interviews conducted from May 12 to June 3
through an online survey plus 32 face-to-face 20-minute interviews conducted June 9 to 19. The previous survey showed the worlds

trend.
The China Beige Book report for October-to-December last year indicated a
strengthening economy, compared with government data showing a slowdown.
second-largest economy moderated in the first quarter, with a weaker retail performance the principal force behind the

1AR Link TurnUS Offshore Wind Boosts

Cooperation
(--) Extend our Conrad evidenceoffshore wind in the US
boosts the possibility of cooperating with China on wind
projects.
(--) US offshore wind is uniquely situated to boost cooperation.
Hopkins 12 Partner @ Duane Morris LLP w/ with a concentration on transportation, products liability and
commercial litigation [Robert B. Hopkins, Duane Morris LLP, Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate
Both US and Foreign Maritime Jobs, Renewable Energy World, July 12, 2012, pg. http://tinyurl.com/9sbj8k6

With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the last few years have
proposed offshore wind energy legislation as a future investment in renewable energy as well as a vehicle for
American job creation. The immediate future of U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on whether Congress renews

In the event that offshore wind farms

move forward, it is likely that both U.S. maritime and foreign maritime
workers will be involved in construction and maintenance. A recent study by The
certain tax credit and federal loan guarantee programs.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind farms
located off U.S. coastlines to be 4 times the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity.

The

construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms to tap into even a small
percentage of this potential will demand a robust and competent maritime
workforce. The U.S. understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England with the installation
of the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300 megawatts). The
Thanet project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation. U.S.

wind farm
developers, green energy advocates and some U.S. politicians have stressed that offshore
wind farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shore-based
workers. In addition, some have pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to assert that foreignflagged vessels crewed by foreign maritime workers may not even be involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects.
However, such a broad statement is not entirely accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex. The Jones Act,
which was enacted in 1920, establishes a system for protecting American maritime jobs and requires that U.S.flagged vessels be used to transport merchandise between points in U.S. territorial waters (i.e., up to 3 nautical
miles off the coastline). Moreover, this requirement is extended 200 miles offshore to the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in certain scenarios involving man-made objects that are
affixed to the seabed. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act, has
issued a number of rulings that conclude that the Jones Act in certain situations does not apply to the actual
installation of wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has been some
debate on whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind farm located over 3 miles
off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance and repair. A bill clarifying that the Jones Act would
apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360) has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is

foreign-flagged
vessels would likely be able to participate in the installation of the proposed
wind farms, but there is some uncertainty as to whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able to participate
now awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely legal standpoint,

in maintenance/repair work. Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up lift vessels

capable of undertaking much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of offshore wind
turbines. To further confound matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm construction in Europe and
China, many foreign-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such work are now booked for the next
several years. Factoring in all of the above, it is likely that large foreign-flagged vessels

will play a significant role in the initial installation of wind turbines off U.S.
coastlines, with an opportunity for smaller U.S.-flagged vessels to render assistance. However, with the lack of
available large scale foreign-flagged vessels, there are obvious long term

investment opportunities for the construction of large U.S.-flagged vessels

or for the conversion of other large U.S.-flagged vessels to undertake
much of the above heavy work. One possible option is to convert U.S.-flagged vessels now working in the oil
and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico for this purpose. Such investment opportunities will obviously
become more attractive if a large number of wind farms move forward in
the U.S.. As to certain maintenance/repair, which could be done by smaller U.S.-flagged vessels already in
existence, if Congress passes HR 2360, U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to maintain and repair the wind
turbines. Moreover from a practical standpoint, even if HR 2360 does not become law, it may not make economic

Thus if U.S.
offshore wind farms become a reality, U.S. maritime workers as well as
foreign maritime workers will likely be involved in construction and
maintenance.
sense to employ smaller foreign-flagged vessels for certain maintenance/repair work.

1ar: No Lash Out/Instability

(--) Extend our Giley evidencetheir impact is CCP fearmongeringChina has remained stable during past
revolutions.
(--) The transition will be stable
Giley 7 [Bruce Gilley, January 2007. Assistant professor of political studies at
Queen's University in Canada, and former contributing editor at the Far Eastern
Economic Review, Is China Stuck? Journal of Democracy, 18.1, Project Muse]

what if the CCP is actually quite responsive? What if it is in tune with popular demands, and
what if the party stays or goes
because of [End Page 173] popular pressures? Pei himself recognizes this possibility. He cites
"rising public dissatisfaction" (p.14) as one thing that would prod the regime to
change. "A democratic opening may emerge in the end, but not as a regime-initiated
strategy undertaken at its own choosing, but more likely as the result of a sudden
crisis" (p. 44). Perhaps the word crisis is being used in two different senses here. One crisis and another can, after
Yet

finds ways to move and adapt as those demands change? In other words,

all, vary in urgency: There are crises and there are crises. The crisis of which Pei speaks seems to be of the more

Such a crisis will not require

democracy to rise upon the ashes of a razed public square, but rather will stir the regime to recognize
that its time has come, and to do the right thing by going fairly gentle into that
good night. If so, then the prospects for a relatively smooth democratic transition in
China are bright and no collapse is likely .
benign sort, a mere shift in public preferences that prods the regime to change.

(--) CCP collapse will be stableChinese pro-democracy forces

are ready to take power and the government is willing to give
it up peacefully.
Ping 7 [Xin Ping, 10/23/2007. Chinese Pro-democracy Forces Ready for CCP's
Collapse, The Epoch Times, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-23/61127.html]
Chinese pro-democracy activists and many other forces are making
active preparations for running the government after the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
collapses. I used to be acquainted with many pro-democracy activists in the past, and, was considered one of
Recently I found that

them. But since I started to practice Falun Dafa, I was no longer on a political path, so I gradually lost touch with
them. Our acquaintance resumed only recently when I ran into some of them, with whom I had a long talk. I was
impressed with their changes. What shocked me most is that they have no more fear of the CCP. Instead they are
confident, and have no doubt in the victory over the CCP. As they said, since they have seen every trick of the CCP,
nothing can scare them away now. I told them about Falun Dafa practitioners' peaceful and rational anti-persecution
experiences, which inspired them a lot. Indeed, Falun Dafa practitioners have set a great example for all Chinese
people and have encouraged the world to stand up against persecution and tyranny. My pro-democracy friends told

the CCP's secret police, who used to be ferocious, are now treating them with
courtesy, as if treating future political leaders. This is not as weird as it seems, my
friends say, because the secret police, who have kept top secrets of the country, know better than
anyone else that the CCP will collapse soon . Trying to leave a way out for
themselves, the secret police take care not to offend those who may become future
leaders of China. The pro-democracy activists share the belief that the CCP is on the brink of its
demise. This belief is in part built on the information they acquired from high-level
me that

Party officials. Some high officials are quite open-minded, and have a clear understanding of
the evil nature of the CCP and its demise, so they have long been sympathizers and supporters of
democratic movements. Other officials also have sensed the imminent collapse of
the CCP, so they waste no time in connecting with democrats through various channels so as
to leave a chance for their own future . The activists are concerned with the harms that the CCP has
done, and will continue doing, to China. As one of the activists said, if the CCP doesn't die out within 10 years, the
Chinese nation will perish. Another activist described Chinese economy as an empty shell, pointing out that with a
50 percent non-performing assets rate of the national banks, a serious stock market bubble that has raised stock
prices far past their value, and an astronomical deficit, China is now running mainly on foreign investments, and will
collapse immediately if such investments are no longer available. They also mentioned that according to a highranking army officer, if China goes into war with Taiwan in the next ten years, China will not be able to survive for a
single week due to oil shortage. Therefore, the activists fear that the CCP will drag China into abyss along with it. I
was also impressed by their active preparation for the coming new China free of the CCP. What a friend said may be
typical of their attitude, "The CCP has millions of troops, but so what? They have no chance to win." According to

various forces in China are planning how to maintain social stability and
keep the country running smoothly after the CCP's disintegration .
the democrats,

Green Leadership Answers (2ac)

Green Leadership Answers

(--) No proof a legally binding treaty is coming or will solve
the US has ignored every one of them.
(--) UNFCCC is dead now:
J. Jackson Ewing, (Research Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Studies, )1/19/2013, http://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/19/2015-the-new-copenhagenthe-unfccc-process-risks-falling-into-faulty-patterns/, Accessed 8/5/2014, rwg)
The fallout from the 18th Conference of Parties (COP 18) in Doha, as with a litany of
past climate change summits, has been defined largely by frustration with the pace,
scope and ambition of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
processes. Exasperated and often derisive voices lament the vacuous extension of
the Kyoto Protocol, pervasive uncertainties on funding mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing
countries, and failures to heed increasingly clear scientific warnings. At their core, these and other
critiques are simply different versions of discontent over efforts that are seen not to
be adequate responses to the climate challenge .

(--) No internal link: No proof US will use green leadership to

tank the UNFCCC framework.
(--) Non-unique: US-China relations are the worst in decades:
Simon Denyer, 7/7/2014 (staff writer)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-rise-and-asiantensions-send-us-relations-into-downward-spiral/2014/07/07/f371cfaa-d5cd4dd2-925c-246c099f04ed_story.html, Accessed 8/5/2014, rwg)
Hundreds of rocky islands, islets, sandbanks, reefs and cays lie scattered across Asias
eastern waters, unimportant-looking to the naked eye but significant enough to spark what may
be the most worrying deterioration in U.S.-China relations in decades. Chinas
military rise, and its increasingly assertive claims to sovereignty over these largely uninhabited lumps of rock,
coral and sand, have set it on a possible collision course with its neighbors , which also make
BEIJING

various claims on the archipelagos, and with the United States, which has important alliances with three of the rival
claimants and would be obliged to defend them in the event of an attack. As Chinese and Vietnamese ships ram
each other in the contested waters, and Chinese and Japanese fighter jets play games of chicken in Asias disputed

the standoff is generating bad

blood between Washington and Beijing and could torpedo cooperation on
important global issues, including the Middle East, climate change and nuclear proliferation.
skies, the risk of military escalation is growing. Even more significantly,

(--) No threshold: no point at which US-Chinese relations

become so bad theres an impact.
(--) Tensions between US & China over climate change now:
Ken Silverstein, 7/11/2014 (staff writer, Climate Change Heats Up
U.S-China Summit,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/07/11/climate-change-heatsup-u-s-china-summit/, Accessed 8/5/2014, rwg)

Despite high expectations, the road for cooperation has been bumpy over the last
five years, says Qi Ye, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a blog,
referencing the U.S.-China summit just held. It started with the demands from the
western world for China to reduce its carbon emissions, followed by the antidumping, anti-subsidy investigation on solar photovoltaic panels from China.
Progress wont come cheap. But the alternative could be costlier. This, of course, is
where the United States and China are finding common ground but where they
remain separated by formidable obstacles.

(--) US-China war wont escalate

Dobbins, 2012 (James Dobbins, directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the
RAND Corporation, previously served as American Ambassador to the European Community and Assistant Secretary
of State, August/September 2012, War with China, Survival, Vol. 54, No. 4, p. 7-24)

China is seeking neither territorial

aggrandisement nor ideological sway over its neighbours. It shows no interest in
matching US military expenditures, achieving a comparable global reach, or
assuming defence commitments beyond its immediate periphery . Such intentions
might change, but if so, the United States would probably receive considerable warning,
It is important to begin any such analysis by recognising that

given the lead times needed to develop such capabilities. Despite cautious and pragmatic Chinese policies, the risk
of conflict with the United States remains, and this risk will grow in consequence and perhaps in probability as
Chinas strength increases. Among the sources of conflict most likely to occasion a ChinaUS military clash over the
next 30 years, listed in descending order of probability, are changes in the status of North Korea and Taiwan, SinoAmerican confrontation in cyberspace, and disputes arising from Chinas uneasy relationships with Japan and India.
All these sources are on Chinas immediate periphery, where Chinese security interests and capabilities seem likely
to remain focused.

probable

It is important to stress that a ChinaUS military conflict is not

in any of these cases, but that judgement is based on the view that the United States will retain the
capacity to deter behaviour that could lead to such a clash throughout this period.

Law of the Sea Treaty Answers (2ac)

(--) DA empirically denied: Law of the Sea Treaty has been
unratified since 1982.
(--) Uniqueness overwhelms link: the final nail has been put in
the Law of the Sea Treatys coffin:
Keith Johnson (staff writer) 7/16/2012 (GOP Scuttles Law-of-Sea Treaty,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/16/gop-opposition-scuttles-law-of-seatreaty/, Accessed 8/1/2014, rwg)
Democrats hopes of passing the Law of the Sea Treaty sank Monday, when a pair
of Republican senators announced their opposition to ratification. Sens. Rob Portman of
Senate

Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire penned a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) saying, we
have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States. The treaty,
completed in 1982, seeks to codify big chunks of customary international maritime law, including freedom of
navigation and access to deep-sea energy resources. It is supported by a wide swath of business interests,
environmentalists, and military officials in the U.S.; most countries have ratified it.

The announcement

that Sens. Portman and Ayotte both considered possible running mates for GOP presidential
would vote no, puts the final nail in the treatys coffin, for this
Congress at least. Previously, 32 other senators had expressed their opposition to the
treaty, which needed 67 votes for ratification . The Senate took up the issue again this spring, five
Monday

hopeful Mitt Romney

years after its last failed effort.

(--) Their internal link is 5 years oldif North Korea was

developing SLBMs, they should have been done by now.
(--) Their internal link is military intelligenceLOST doesnt
compromise military intelligence:
Thomas Wright (fellow in the Managing Global Order Center @ Brookings)
8/7/2012 (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137815/thomaswright/outlaw-of-the-sea, Accessed 8/1/2014, rwg)
The opponents' second claim is that the treaty would prevent the U.S. Navy from
undertaking unilateral action, such as collecting intelligence in the Asia-Pacific
region, because permission to do so is not explicitly granted in the text. According to Admiral Samuel Locklear,
commander of U.S. Pacific Command, however, "The convention in no way restricts
our ability or legal right to conduct military activities in the maritime domain."
On the contrary, as U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta put it, U.S. accession to the
convention "secures our freedom of navigation and overflight rights as bedrock
treaty law." Even so, critics point out, the ultimate indispensability of U.S. naval power means that the country can receive
the benefits of the convention without being bound by it. Since the world seems to have functioned perfectly well in this halfway
house for some time, it would make no sense to codify the convention now. It would be comforting if all that were true. It isn't.
UNCLOS has become an important barometer of U.S. power in the Pacific Ocean. At stake is the country's capacity to uphold,
preserve, and strengthen a rules-based order in Asia as China rises. In July 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi, U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States believes that all maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea
must be resolved multilaterally and in accordance with international law. It is a policy that she repeated at the deadlocked 2012 ARF
in Cambodia. For its part, China objected to the "multilateralization" of maritime disputes then and continues to do so now. Beijing
believes that it is more likely to make gains if it strikes individual bargains with weaker powers, including Manila and Hanoi. The
other capitals realize this, which is why they welcomed Clinton's commitment to multilateralism.

(--) Non-intrinsic: rational policymaker could do the plan and

not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
(--) North Korea will be deterredno nuclear war:
Barry M. Blechman, 4/30/2013 (staff writer, Nuclear deterrence could
restrain N. Korea, Iran, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/opinion/blechmannuclear-deterrence/, Accessed 8/1/2014, rwg)
Pyongyang not only
has a history of provocative verbal threats, but it has taken reckless military actions
Similarly, the U.S. seems uncertain about North Korea's young and untested new leader.

as recently as two years ago, when the North sank a South Korean naval vessel and shelled an island occupied by

But wait -- didn't the Soviet spout dangerous rhetoric and take deadly
actions? Didn't some of their leaders threaten to "bury" America and nuke London and Paris? And let's not forget
the South.

that Leonid Brezhnev launched proxy wars against U.S. friends in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Yet the Obama
administration seems to think that while Soviet leaders were deterred from using their massive arsenal, the Iranians
and the North Koreans might not be deterred from using a nuclear force of no more than a handful of weapons at

Both
Iran's and North Korea's supreme leaders will be deterred, just as were successive
generations of Soviet leaders. Both would not authorize the use of nuclear
weapons, for fear of seeing their nations destroyed, their people wiped out, and their
ambitions for themselves and their countries turned to dust.
best. North Korea's missile capabilities But if deterrence theory is valid, then this double standard is invalid.

(--) South Korea can deterTheir Global Security evidence says

the Korean Naval Forces are necessary to deter North Korea.
(--) Voluntary adherence now ratification can only be good
Glaser 12 (Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, April, Armed
Clash in the South China Sea, http://www.cfr.org/world/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883)

First, the United States should ratify UNCLOS; though it voluntarily adheres to its
principles and the Obama administration has made a commitment to ratify the
convention, the fact that the United States has not yet ratified the treaty lends
credence to the perception that it only abides by international conventions when
doing so aligns with its national interests. Ratifying UNCLOS would put this
speculation to rest. It would also bolster the U.S. position in favor of rulesbased behavior, give the United States a seat at the table when UNCLOS signatories
discuss such issues as EEZ rights, and generally advance U.S. economic and
strategic interests.

1ar: No Ratification
(--) Extend the Johnson evidencethe nail is in the coffin for
the Law of the Sea Treatytheres no way the plan causes
enough support to overcome the 34 votes against LOST.
(--) Politically impossiblethere are 34 no votes on the treaty:
Jim Lobe (staff writer) 7/18/2012 (U.S.: Republicans Sink Law of the
Sea Ratification for Now, http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/u-srepublicans-sink-law-of-the-sea-ratification-for-now/, Accessed
8/1/2014, rwg)
WASHINGTON, Jul 18 2012 (IPS) - Defying the wishes of both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Navy,

Republican senators have effectively halted for now an effort by the administration of President
Barack Obama to gain ratification of the 30-year-old Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Republicans
opposed to the treaty announced late Monday that 34 senators had committed
themselves to oppose it if it came to a vote, thus depriving the treatys supporters
both Democrats and the dwindling number of moderate Republicans of the two-thirds majority
needed to ratify treaties.

(--) Opposition to the treaty is ideologically entrenchedno

way the plan would change Senators minds:
Michael Conathan, 6/12/2012 (staff writer, Conservatives Disregard
Traditional Allies to Oppose the Law of the Sea,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/06/12/11773/con
servatives-disregard-traditional-allies-to-oppose-the-law-of-the-sea/, Accessed
8/1/2014, rwg)
The treaty is officially titled the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And anything that bears the imprimatur of the
United Nations is immediately and unconditionally dead on arrival in a certain
tranche of senatorial offices. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), for example, has suggested the United Nations is
This brings us to the keystone in the arch of opposition.

ineffective, theyve been wasteful, theres corruption, and there is deep concern that there is a lot of anti-American
sentiment. Heres the thing: The United Nations has virtually no role in management, implementation, or execution
of this treaty. It remains in the conventions title only because the treaty was initially negotiated at the United
Nations. The treaty itself does not establish U.N. oversight of any aspect of its implementation. It creates separate
management bodies, like the International Seabed Authority, which work to regulate multinational operations in
international waters without a direct link to the organization that has attracted so much vitriol from the protectionist

conservative conspiracy theorists fears about

the United Nationss purported push for creation of a world government are stronger than their ties
to Big Oil, corporate America, and military contractors . As Secretary Clinton put it, Whatever
wing of the conservative movement. Apparently,

arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot even be taken with a
straight face.

(--) Treaty is dead on arrival in the Senate:

Thomas Wright (fellow in the Managing Global Order Center @ Brookings)
8/7/2012 (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137815/thomaswright/outlaw-of-the-sea, Accessed 8/1/2014, rwg)

When U.S. Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), both vice presidential hopefuls,
recently declared their opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, they
virtually guaranteed that it would be dead on arrival if it were sent to the
Senate. A group of 34 senators, including Ayotte and Portman and led by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is now on the
record promising to vote against UNCLOS, which is enough to make getting the two-thirds majority necessary for
ratification impossible.

1ar: Navy
(--) Extend our military intelligence argumentLOST doesnt
undermine naval deterrence.
(--) Turn: LOST strengthens naval deterrencethe Navy is on
our side:
Michael Conathan, 6/12/2012 (staff writer, Conservatives Disregard
Traditional Allies to Oppose the Law of the Sea,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/06/12/11773/con
servatives-disregard-traditional-allies-to-oppose-the-law-of-the-sea/, Accessed
8/1/2014, rwg)
the U.S. Navy traditionally the most conservative of the armed services has long
championed the treaty because of its recognition of navigation rights for
warships. Its appeals on behalf of the ratification have grown increasingly urgent as a result of growing
Similarly,

tensions between China and its neighbours in the South and East China Seas, as well as the burgeoning interest in
territorial claims in the Arctic. The treatys foes have argued that the enforcement of navigation rights ultimately
depends on the strength of the U.S. Navy and not on paper treaties signed at the United Nations, as Addington
recently put it. Americans

who seek to preserve the advance the rights of Americans to

use the seas should support a strong national defense, including a strong Navy that
can project American power across the globe in defense of American interests , he
wrote on Heritages The Foundry blog Tuesday.

(--) Turn: Law of the Sea strengthens US naval power:

Lauren Haigler, 8/7/2012 (staff writer, Law of the Sea Treaty: A
Compilation of Opinion-Editorials,
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/law-of-the-sea-treaty-a-compilationof-opinion-editorials/, Accessed 8/1/2014, rwg)
Top
military leaders say being part of the accord will strengthen the nations naval
power and give it greater navigational rights . Yet it is the nature of todays Senate that a few
Its no wonder that businesses and trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the pact.

narrow-thinking, ideological lawmakers can block passage of things that are so critical to the country as a whole.
The ratification of the Law of the Sea should not continue to be one of these.

1ar: Deterrence Works

(--) Extend our Blechman evidenceNorth Korea will be
deterred and are just bluffing. Sixty years of history is on our
side.
(--) Deterrence will work with North Korea:
Christina Larson, 4/3/2013 (staff writer, North Korean Nukes: How Worried
Should We Be, and What Is Kim Jong Un Thinking?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-03/north-korean-nukes-howworried-should-we-be-and-what-is-kim-jong-un-thinking, Accessed 8/1/2014,
rwg)
Deterrence has held for 60
years because both sides realize the costs of a real war: Seoul would be destroyed,
and North Korea would cease to exist. For all the hype about the last few months of chest-thumping
North Korea can destroy Seoul tomorrow if it chooses, so thats a real threat.

and muscle-flexing, its important to remember two things: First, if you read the North Korean statements in full,
they are all saying IF the U.S./ROK attack us first, we will fight back, (not we will attack you first, which is often
how they are interpreted), and second, we believe them. Thats why there are no preemptive strikes on North
Korea. I think we make fun of North Korea because it is not a regime, or a country, that is easily understood from
the outside. But we do so at the risk of mistaking [the truth]: that it is a functioning country, and that many of its
citizenswhile perhaps not liking the rulersare proud of their country and where they live. This is not a country
that will easily break apart or give in, as we have seen over 60 years of stalemate. So jokes are fine, but they miss
the point and basically make fun of North Korean peoplepeople who did not choose to be born in North Korea, who
have little power to change the regime, who are the most direct victims of the ruling regime, and who are trying to
get through the day as best they can.

(--) No Korea war its all posturing and international powers

check escalation history proves
Fisher 3/12/13 (Max, the Post's foreign affairs blogger. Before joining the Post, he edited international
coverage for TheAtlantic.com, The Washington Post, Why North Korea loves to threaten World War III (but probably
wont follow through))

But is North Korea really an irrational nation on the brink of launching all-out war, a mad dog of East Asia? Is

The North Korean regime, for all its cruelty, has also shown
to be shrewd, calculating, and single-mindedly obsessed with its own self-preservation.
The regimes past behavior suggests pretty strongly that these threats are empty. But
they still matter. For years, North Korea has threatened the worst and, despite all of its
apparent readiness, never gone through with it. So why does it keep going through these macabre
Pyongyang ready to sacrifice it all? Probably not.
itself

performances? We cant read Kim Jong Euns mind, but the most plausible explanation has to do with internal North
Korean politics, with trying to set the tone for regional politics, and with forcing other countries (including the United
States) to bear the costs of preventing its outbursts from sparking an unwanted war. Starting World War III or a
second Korean War would not serve any of Pyongyangs interests. Whether or not it deploys its small but
legitimately scary nuclear arsenal, North Korea could indeed cause substantial mayhem in the South, whose capital

the North Korean military is antiquated and inferior; it wouldnt

last long against a U.S.-led counterattack. No matter how badly such a war would go for South Korea or the United
States, it would almost certainly end with the regimes total destruction. Still, provocations and
threats do serve Pyongyangs interests, even if no one takes those threats very seriously. It helps to rally
North Koreans, particularly the all-important military, behind the leader who has done so much to
is mere miles from the border. But

impoverish them. It also helps Pyongyang to control the regional politics that should otherwise be so hostile to its
interests. Howard French, a former New York Times bureau chief for Northeast Asia whom I had the pleasure of
editing at The Atlantic, explained on Kim Jong Ils death that Kim had made up for North Koreas weakness with

canny belligerence: The shtick of apparent madness flowed from his countrys fundamental weakness as he, like a
master poker player, resolved to bluff and bluff big. Kim adopted a game of brinkmanship with the South,
threatening repeatedly to turn Seoul into a sea of flames. And while this may have sharply raised the threat of
war, for the North,

it steadily won concessions: fuel oil deliveries, food aid, nuclear reactor

construction, hard cash-earning tourist enclaves and investment zones. At the risk of insulting Kim Jong
Eun, it helps to think of North Koreas provocations as somewhat akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum. He
might do lots of shouting, make some over-the-top declarations (I hate my sister, Im never going back to school
again) and even throw a punch or two. Still, you give the child the attention he craves and maybe even a toy, not
because you think the threats are real or because he deserves it, but because you want the tantrum to stop. The
big problem here is not that North Korea will intentionally start World War III or a second Korean War, because it
probably wont. So you can rest easy about that. The big problem is that North Koreas threats and provocations,
however empty, significantly raise the risk of an unwanted war.

The United States, South Korea and yes

China, all have much more to lose in a regional war than does North Korea. It falls
keep the Korean peninsula from spiraling out of control. Even if
they dont ultimately offer Pyongyang concessions to calm it down, as they have in the past, theyve
Pyongyangs all-important ally,
to those countries, then, to

still got an interest in preventing future outbursts. Like parents straining to manage a childs tantrum, its a power
dynamic that oddly favors the weak and misbehaving.

(--) No North Korean conflict ignore alarmism

Bandow 3/26 -- senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books (Doug, 2013,
"North Korea Is Not Americas Problem,"
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/20/north-korea-is-not-americas-pr/print)

The so-called Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is impoverished and decrepit. Its people are
starving and risk death to flee their tragic land. The country is virtually friendless and suffers under a bizarre system

Pyongyangs armed forces are dwarfed by those of the U.S., the

Yet the DPRK has struck fear into the hearts of otherwise sober
American policymakers and analysts. The administration announced plans to spend a billion dollars to
of monarchical communism.

globes premier military power.

add 14 interceptors to the missile defense in Alaska to guard against a North Korean attack. Deputy Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter rushed to Seoul to consult the Souths government. The Washington Posts David Ignatius
worried: Counting on North Korean restraint has been a bad bet. It may be wiser to assume the worst and plan
accordingly. The International Crisis Group observed that North Korea has taken a number of recent steps that
raise the risks of miscalculation, inadvertent escalation and deadly conflict on the Korean peninsula. The
Associated Presss Foster Klug warned: Recent Korean history reveals a sobering possibility. It may only be a matter
of time before North Korea launches a sudden, deadly attack on the South. And, perhaps more unsettling, Seoul has
vowed that this time, it will respond with an even stronger blow. Worse, declared defense analyst Steven Metz:
Today, North Korea is the most dangerous country on earth and the greatest threat to U.S. security. Indeed, the
DPRK foreign ministry might be proved right when it asserted that a second Korean War is inevitable. The
Heritage Foundations Bruce Klingner argued that the U.S. needed strong military forces to protect itself from the
North and denounced planned military budget cuts as undermining U.S. military capabilities and credibility. The
ICG urged U.S. officials, including the president, to reaffirm that the U.S. will fulfill its alliance commitments,
including robustly against any North Korean military attacks. In Metzs view this would be no minor affair. Rather,
The second Korean war would force military mobilization in the United States. This would initially involve the
militarys existing reserve component, but it would probably ultimately require a major expansion of the U.S.
military and hence a draft. The militarys training infrastructure and the defense industrial base would have to

it seems almost as wildly overblown as the DPRKs rhetoric. After

all, though the Norths wild gesticulations are unsettling, this is the seventh time Pyongyang
has renounced the 1953 ceasefire reached. War has yet to erupt. While one cannot
take anything for granted, theres no evidence that Kim Jong-un and those around him have
turned suicidal after the death of his father. The DPRKs behavior almost certainly reflects other
considerations. Almost alone is Sheila Miyoshi Jager of Oberlin College, who argued that the Norths
apocalyptic threats are primarily intended for a domestic audience. She added:
grow. Its a frightening picture, and

it

would be a mistake to read into them anything more than the noises of a dying
regime that clearly recognizes the writing on the wall .

(--) North Korea wont initiate war 4 reasons

Wagstaff 4/10/13 (Keith, staff writer for The Week covering politics and
current events, 4 reasons why North Korea won't start a war,
http://theweek.com/article/index/242528/4-reasons-why-north-korea-wontstart-a-war)
Continuing its string of threats, the North Korean government warned foreigners on Monday that they might want to
leave South Korea due to the threat of nuclear war. Walk through Seoul, however, and it's difficult "to find any South

North Korea is not

likely to start a war. A look at why: 1. Kim Jong Un isn't a madman North Korea likes
to paint its "supreme leader" as something of a super-villain a powerful, unpredictable
man with his finger always on the button. The truth is Pyongyang has always been
more pragmatic than it lets on. As Lankov points out, Kim Jong Un isn't Osama Bin Laden, planning a
Koreans who are panic-stricken," says Lankov. Why aren't they worried? Because

holy war from a cave: North Korea is not a theocracy led by zealots who preach the rewards of the afterlife. In

there are no good reasons to think that Kim Jong-un, North Korea's young dictator, would
want to commit suicide; he is known for his love of basketball, pizza and other pleasures of being alive.
The same logic applies to his advisers, old survivors in the byzantine world of North Korean politics
fact,

who love expensive cars and good brandy. [New York Times] It would be pretty hard to hang with Dennis Rodman if
2. The whole thing is just an international shakedown
Why act like you might start World War III at any minute? Because it gets results . Kim

your country were hit by missiles.

Jong Il played the same game and, as Howard French of The Atlantic notes, "steadily won concessions: fuel oil
deliveries, food aid, nuclear reactor construction, hard cash-earning tourist enclaves and investment zones." Max

Fisher of The Washington Post likens Kim Jong Un to a kid with a temper tantrum who you
give "the attention he craves and maybe even a toy, not because you think the
threats are real or because he deserves it, but because you want the tantrum to
stop." North Korea's economy is in a "dire state," says BBC News, with an estimated per capita
income of $1,000 to $2,000 per year. With few natural resources and only one (legal) trade
partner, winning some foreign aid in exchange for toning down the rhetoric would be
a big win for Pyongyang. 3. China doesn't exactly have North Korea's back Susan Shirk
of ChinaFile calls China the "the economic lifeline of North Korea," essentially propping
up the regime with trade and some aid in times of crisis . China has every reason to
want peace, mostly because the consequences of war would be disastrous, writes Steven Metz in World Politics
Review: Thousands, perhaps millions, of North Korean refugees would seek sanctuary in China. A nuclear
exchange could poison the region. The global economy would be thrown into
turmoil, hindering China's exports and increasing the cost of imported energy . And,
worst of all, the ultimate outcome would be a North Korea less beholden to China and possibly occupied by the
United States. [World Politics Review] Despite its strong incentive to keep the current North Korean regime in place,

China has been showing signs that its getting tired of its ally . Beijing partnered with
the United States to draft tough sanctions against North Korea after it conducted a third
nuclear test. On Tuesday, it announced it was shutting down tourism into North Korea,
striking a blow to its neighbor's economy . To top it off, Chinese President Xi Jinping
publicly acknowledged his frustrations with Pyongyang Sunday when, according to The Washington
Post, he told an economic forum, "No one should be allowed to throw a region and
even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains ." Those are not the words of a country ready to
storm into war alongside North Korea. 4. North Korea would lose North Korea, with a collection of 1.1
million soldiers, actually has the fourth largest standing army in the world, according to NBCNews.com. The problem
is that

its "equipment is seriously outdated, going back to its alliance with the former

Soviet Union during the Cold War." South Korea, on the other hand, has been armed by
the United States, which has also promised to defend South Korea militarily if necessary. North Korea could
hold out for a few bloody days or weeks, but ultimately it would lose. "This is a military that if you ran them
against the Iraqi military in 1991, North Korea would lose," Jennifer Lind, a professor at Dartmouth College, told USA
Today.

Kim Jong Un couldn't possibly like those odds.

(--) Dialogue solves escaltion

The New York Times, 2013 (Choe Sang-Hun reported from Seoul, and Rick Gladstone from
New York, North Korea Tones Down Language, Giving Hope for Dialogue, 4/19/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/asia/north-korea-tension.html?pagewanted=all)

By North Korean standards, the invective issued over the past week has
bordered on civil. Instead of near daily threats of nuclear annihilation for the nest of evil in
the United States and promises to press the button , the North in recent days has grumbled
over a crafty ploy and cunning trick by America and its allies to strip the North of its nuclear
arsenal. The United States and South Korea, meanwhile, have made a change of their
own: putting a new focus on offering talks after weeks of meeting North Korean
provocations with harsh warnings that included deploying nuclear-capable stealth bombers on a practice run
over South Korea. Security analysts in South Korea and the United States expressed
cautious optimism this week that the shift in tone , however understated, is a sign that after
weeks of escalating threats that raised fears of armed conflict , both sides might be ready to calm
tensions. I wouldnt say the crisis has passed, but maybe were in a less dangerous phase, said
SEOUL, South Korea

Evans J. R. Revere, a former State Department expert on Asia who is now senior director of the Albright Stonebridge
Group, a consulting firm that specializes in Korea, China and Japan. The

possibility of a serious

miscalculation is not

as great as a few days ago. He attributed North Koreas reduced bombast partly to
what he called their position at the top of the rhetorical escalatory ladder where do you go after you threaten to

The place to go after that is to carry out your

threats, and they are not in the position to do that.
nuke Los Angeles, Austin, Texas and Washington?

(--) No Korean war all regional incentives check North

Koreas just posturing
Reason to prefer our ev its by the only American reporter with access to North
Korea

Lee 3/29 Korea bureau chief for The Associated Press. She has been Seoul
bureau chief since 2008, and in January 2012 also became chief of APs new bureau
in Pyongyang, North Korea. She divides her time between the two Korean capitals,
making her the only American reporter granted regular access to North Korea (Jean
H, 2013. Analysis: NKorea threat may be more bark than bite.
http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Analysis-NKorea-threat-may-be-more-barkthan-bite-4394545.php)

even as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is issuing midnight battle

cries to his generals to ready their rockets, he and his million-man army
know full well that a successful missile strike on U.S. targets would be
suicide for the outnumbered, out-powered North Korean regime. Despite
the hastening drumbeat of warfare, none of the key players in the region
wants or expects another Korean War not even the North Koreans. But by
But

Pyongyang is
aiming to draw attention to the tenuousness of the armistice designed to
seemingly bringing the region to the very brink of conflict with threats and provocations,

maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula, a truce North Korea recently announced it would no longer honor as it

It's all part of a plan to force Washington to

the negotiating table, pressure the new president in Seoul to change
policy on North Korea, and build unity at home without triggering a fullblown war if all goes well. In July, it will be 60 years since North Korea and China signed an armistice with the
warned that war could break out at any time.

U.S. and the United Nations to bring an end to three years of fighting that cost millions of lives. The designated
Demilitarized Zone has evolved into the most heavily guarded border in the world.

(--) China checks nuclear conflict

Graham 3/7 -- author of Global Conflict Analysis, provides his expert analysis
about the events from an international perspective (Craig, 2013, "New Sanctions for
North Korea in Response to Nuclear Test,"
http://globalconflictanalysis.com/2013/03/new-sanctions-for-north-korea-inresponse-to-nuclear-test/)

The United Nations Security Council unanimously approved further economic sanctions for North Korea under
Resolution 2094 on Thursday, in response to the reclusive countrys nuclear test last month, al Jazeera reported.
News of the sanctions prompted North Koreas Foreign Ministry to release a statement saying Pyongyang would

analysts
say that North Koreas ability to wage war is restrained by the countrys relationship with
China. Analysis It is important to note that China did not exercise its veto power when the sanctions
exercise a preemptive nuclear attack against the United States. Although the threats are serious,

against North Korea passed through the Security Council. This is a telling reminder of Beijings troubled relationship
with Pyongyang, as China appears to be growing impatient with its ally. Furthermore, North Korea
threatened to end the 1953 armistice on Wednesday in anticipation of the pending Security Council resolution. If the
North made true on its threat, it would mean that the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea

South Korean and US forces would be pulled into a war on the peninsula.
this scenario is highly unlikely. Although North Korea is capable of significant levels of
destruction in South Korea and possibly even Japan, US and South Korean retaliation would be
devastating and would almost certainly end the regime. Also, the Norths biggest ally, China, has
no desire for a war to break out in its backyard. The regional devastation that a war would bring, the strain on
could be crossed and
However,

Chinas heavy economic investment in North Korea, open conflict with the United States, as well as the likely influx
of refugees into Chinese territory would cause serious problems for Beijing. If, however, in the unlikely event that
North Korea did attack the South, to avoid widespread destruction and to prevent a major war with the United

it would be in Chinas best interest to invade and take control of North Korea
and hand over administration of the country to the United Nations. Open conflict on the
Korean Peninsula remains unlikely, and instead North Korea through threatening the United
States may be trying to get Washingtons attention so that new dialogue and a possible
restructuring of the entire relationship with Pyongyang can take place.
States,

(--) No Korean conflict

Duz 3/12 -- writer @ Voice of Russia, quotes Russian expert in Korean affairs
Evgeny Kim (Sergey, 2013, "Will there be war between two Koreas?"
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_03_12/Will-there-be-war-between-two-Koreas/)

However,

the majority of observers believe that the current aggravation of relations

is unlikely to grow into a real war. On March 11,

between the two Koreas, tough as it may be,

North Korea annulled the truce treaty that was signed after a war between the two Koreas in the 1950s. This was
North Koreas response to South Koreas participation in large-scale US maneuvers called Foal Eagle. The
maneuvers will last till April 30. Parallel with them, the US and South Korea are holding maneuvers called Key

these maneuvers are of a

defensive character. However, some analysts have doubts about their peaceful character. Russian expert
Resolve, which are based on computer modeling. The US says that

in Korean affairs Evgeny Kim says: The Pentagon may be interested in aggravating the conflict between the two
Koreas as long as it doesnt grow into a real war. US forces are deployed in this region, and tension in relations
between the two Koreas may make the US authorities allocate lager sums to the Pentagon. Now, what is behind

it has already become sort of

a tradition that when a new leader comes to power in one of the Koreas, the other starts
to provoke harsh rhetoric from him or her (hoping, of course, that this rhetoric would not grow into action)
just to test the limits of his or her emotional stability. Still, I believe that a war between the
two Koreas is hardy possible, Evgeny Kim concludes. The worst scenario may be a
minor exchange of shootings at the least. The leaders of both countries seem to be
wise enough to stop before it is too late . As for Americans, they have too many
problems in other parts of the world to interfere in a war on the Korean peninsula if it does
this exchange of niceties between the two Koreas?, Mr. Kim continues. Well,

break out.

(--) No korean warits all rhetoric

Kang 10 (David Kang, professor of international relations and business and director of the Korean Studies
Institute at the University of Southern California. His latest book is East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade
and Tribute (Columbia University Press, 2010). 12/31/2010)

despite dueling artillery barrages and the sinking of a warship,

pledges of enormous retaliation, in-your-face joint military exercises
and urgent calls for talks, the risk of all-out war on the Korean peninsula
is less than it has been at anytime in the past four decades. North Korea
didnt blink, because it had no intention of actually starting a major war.
Rather than signifying a new round of escalating tension between North
and South Korea, the events of the past year point to something elsea
new cold war between the two sides. In fact, one of my pet peeves is the analogies we use to
describe the situation between South and North Korea. We often call the situation a powder
keg or a tinderbox, implying a very unstable situation in which one
small spark could lead to a huge explosion. But the evidence actually
leads to the opposite conclusion: we have gone sixty years without a
major war, despite numerous sparks such as the skirmishing and shows
of force that occurred over the past month. If one believes the situation is a tinderbox, the
However,

only explanation for six decades without a major war is that we have been extraordinarily lucky. I prefer the

deterrence is quite stable because both sides know the

costs of a major war, and both sidesrhetoric and muscle-flexing aside
keep smaller incidents in their proper perspective.
opposite explanation:

(--) Major powers will deescalateproves no conflict and no

draw-in
Zhijiang 12 (Kim Jong-uns regime: facing up to domestic challenges, China and the US January 26th, 2012
Author: Wei Zhijiang, Sun Yat-sen University Wei Zhijiang is Professor and Director of the Institute of South Korea
Studies at the School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Sun Yat-sen University.)

China and US share common strategic interests

in avoiding chaos and maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
After the death of Kim Jong-il, ROK-US summit telephone talks declared
that the US has no intention to interfere in the succession process. This indicates
that the US will not put pressure on North Korea to promote its collapse
and hopes to avoid conflict on the peninsula and to achieve peace and
stability. The US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt
Campbell, visited China recently in order to further exchange views with China
concerning the situation in the DPRK and to coordinate policies toward North
Korea. Chinas strategy has been to maintain peace and stability on the
peninsula, and to build a harmonious and stable strategic environment in
Northeast Asia conducive to national development. Kims death has not changed the basic
strategy of China toward the Korean Peninsula. The main basis of Chinas Korean
With regard to the role of outside powers,

Peninsula policy is to comprehensively strengthen and support Kim Jong-uns new North Korean regime. The main
purpose of the US return to Asia strategy is to strengthen its strategic influence in the Asia Pacific region,
including the Korean Peninsula. It also includes preventing military provocation or possible war in the East Asia
region through the strengthening of US-ROK, US-Japan and US-Australia military alliances, both bilaterally and

China and the US have common strategic interests on the

Korean Peninsula issue. They do not want chaos in the North Korean
situation, the collapse of the regime, or a large-scale military conflict
between the North and South. In resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, the
missile crisis and other issues, there is a wide range of cooperative space
multilaterally. Therefore,

that China and the US can utilise. The two parties should strengthen their strategic coordination and communication
with the DPRK in order to cope with any future crises and deal with the current challenges concerning the Korean
Peninsula, and act to safeguard the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.

(--) Zero risk of Korean conflict

Rowland 10 (Ashley Rowland, Stars and Stripes, Despite threats, war not likely in Korea, experts say,
http://www.stripes.com/news/despite-threats-war-not-likely-in-korea-experts-say-1.127344?localLinksEnabled=false,
December 3, 2010)

Despite increasingly belligerent threats to respond swiftly and strongly to military attacks, analysts say
there is one thing both North Korea and South Korea want to avoid: an escalation
into war. The latest promise to retaliate with violence came Friday, when South Koreas defense minister-to-be said during a
confirmation hearing that he supports airstrikes against North Korea in the case of future provocations from the communist country.
In case the enemy attacks our territory and people again, we will thoroughly retaliate to ensure that the enemy cannot provoke
again, Kim Kwan-jin said, according to The Associated Press. The hearing was a formality because South Koreas National Assembly
does not have the power to reject South Korean president Lee Myung-baks appointment. Kims comments came 10 days after North
Korea bombarded South Koreas Yeonpyeong island near the maritime border, killing two marines and two civilians the first North
Korean attack against civilians since the Korean War. South Korea responded by firing 80 rounds, less than half of the 170 fired by
North Korea. It was the second deadly provocation from the North this year. In March, a North Korean torpedo sank the South Korean
warship Cheonan, killing 46 sailors, although North Korea has denied involvement in the incident. The South launched a series of
military exercises, some with U.S. participation, intended to show its military strength following the attack. John Delury, a professor
at Yonsei University in Seoul, said South Korea is using textbook posturing to deter another attack by emphasizing that it is tough

its hard to predict how the South would respond to another attack. The
country usually errs on the side of restraint , he said. I think theyre trying to send a very clear signal to
and firm. But

North Korea: Dont push us again, Delury said. For all of the criticism of the initial South Korean response that it was too weak, in

people dont want another hot conflict. I think the strategy is to rattle
the sabers a bit to prevent another incident. Meanwhile, Yonhap News reported Friday that North
the end I think

Korea recently added multiple-launch rockets that are capable of hitting Seoul, located about 31 miles from the border. The report
was based on comments from an unnamed South Korean military source who said the North now has 5,200 multiple-launch rockets.
A spokesman for South Koreas Joint Chiefs of Staff would not comment on the accuracy of the report because of the sensitivity of

Experts say it is a question of when not if North Korea will launch

another attack. But those experts doubt the situation will escalate into full-scale
war. I think that its certainly possible, but I think that what North Korea wants, as well as South Korea, is to contain this, said
the information.

Bruce Bechtol, author of Defiant Failed State: The North Korean Threat to International Security and an associate professor of

North Korea typically launches small,

surprise attacks that can be contained not ones that are likely to
escalate. Delury said both Koreas want to avoid war, and North Koreas leaders have a
particular interest in avoiding conflict they know the first people to be hit in
a full-scale fight would be the elites.
political science at Angelo State University in Texas. He said

NOAA Trade-off DA Answers (2ac)

(--) No link: their trade-off evidence comes from 2012no
proof of tradeoff in the current budget.
(--) Non-unique: The Energy Department just gave $150
million to fund offshore wind in Massachusetts
Bastasch 7/1/14 (Michael Bastasch, writer for the Daily Caller, 7/1/14, Feds Give Cape Wind
Project $150 Million Loan Guarantee, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/feds-give-capewind-project-150-million-loan-guarantee/#ixzz388kDOpx5, mgsk-sd)

The Energy Department has given a conditional $150 million loan to the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts in a move to fund the first offshore wind farm in the United
States. Cape Wind will receive the $150 million loan after it secures $2.6 billion in financing, according to the
Energy Department. Once it has secured the balance of the funding, it will get taxpayer dollars to help
construct 130 wind turbines that will have a capacity of 360 megawatts of power . If
built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern
Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant U.S. offshore wind industry , said Peter Davidson, executive
director of the DOEs loan program in a statement. The lessons that could be learned from this project can help
catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind resources. Massachusetts
Democrats hailed the loan as a boom to the state and a step in the right direction in fighting global warming.
Offshore

wind will not only provide a new, clean source of energy for the United States, it
will reduce American reliance on fossil fuel, mitigate climate change and jump start
a new U.S. industry that will create thousands of clean energy jobs , said
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. This funding will help Massachusetts make energy history and continue
our leadership as a clean energy jobs hub for the entire nation, said Sen. Ed Markey.

(--) We solve the impactextend our warming advantage.

(--) Non-unique- Obama just massively expanded ocean policy
Eilperin 6-17-2014 [6- 17-14, Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the House of Representatives,
Obama proposes Vast Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuary,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-propose-vast-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marinesanctuary/2014/06/16/f8689972-f0c6-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html]

Obama announced Tuesday his intent to make a broad swath of the central
Pacific Ocean off-limits to fishing, energy exploration and other activities. The proposal, slated to
go into effect later this year after a comment period, could create the worlds largest marine
sanctuary and double the area of ocean globally that is fully protected. Im going to use my authority to protect some of our
President

nations most precious marine landscapes, Obama said in a video to participants at a State Department conference, adding that
while the ocean is being degraded, We cannot afford to let that happen. Thats why the United States is leading the fight to protect

The announcement first reported earlier Tuesday by The Washington Post is part of a
broader push on maritime issues by an administration that has generally favored other environmental
our oceans.

priorities. The oceans effort, led by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D. Podesta, is likely to spark a
new political battle with Republicans over the scope of Obamas executive powers. The president will also direct federal agencies to
develop a comprehensive program aimed at combating seafood fraud and the global black-market fish trade. In addition, the
administration finalized a rule last week allowing the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off U.S. coasts and in the Great
Lakes. Obama has used his executive authority 11 times to safeguard areas on land, but scientists and activists have been pressing
him to do the same for untouched underwater regions. President George W. Bush holds the record for creating U.S. marine
monuments, declaring four during his second term, including the one that Obama plans to expand. Under the proposal, according to
two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be expanded from almost 87,000 square
miles to nearly 782,000 square miles all of it adjacent to seven islands and atolls controlled by the United States. The designation
would include waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore from the territories. Its the closest thing Ive seen to the pristine ocean,
said Enric Sala, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence who has researched the areas reefs and atolls since 2005. Obama has
faced criticism from a variety of groups including cattle ranchers, law enforcement officers and ATV enthusiasts over his
expansion of protections for federal lands. The ocean area under consideration, by contrast, encompasses uninhabited islands in a

remote region with sparse economic activity. Even so, the designation is expected to face objections from the U.S. tuna fleet that
operates in the region. Fish caught in the area account for up to 3 percent of the annual U.S. tuna catch in the western and central
Pacific, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. When Bush created the monument in 2009, he exempted sport fishing to address
industry opposition. Mike Leonard, ocean resource policy director for the American Sportfishing Association, said recreational fishing
enthusiasts would push to ensure their existing exemption stays in place if the protected area is expanded. We believe in almost all
instances you can still have marine conservation and marine protection, and still allow for sustainable recreational fishing activities
to take place, Leonard said, adding theres almost no sportfishing activity in the area because its a heck of a trek out there. Our
concern is obviously with the precedent this might set. Podesta said a public comment period over the summer will allow the
Commerce and Interior departments to fully understand the commercial activity out there and modify the plan if necessary. Kerry
said Monday that the United States and other nations need to take bolder steps to protect marine habitats and combat other
threats. If this group cant create a serious plan to protect the ocean for future generations, then who can and who will? he asked
during an appearance at a State Department oceans conference. On Capitol Hill, some Republicans have sought to limit the
administrations ability to influence offshore activities, viewing it as another attempt by the president to test the limits of White
House power. Its another example of this imperial presidency, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (RWash.) said in an interview, noting that Obama established a National Ocean Policy during his first term to coordinate competing
interests at sea. If there are marine sanctuaries that should be put in place, that should go through Congress. For the past 51 / 2
years, the administration has focused on the nuts and bolts of marine issues, aiming to end overfishing in federally managed

This weeks State Department ocean

summit launches what officials there call a broader global campaign to address
the problems of overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification .
fisheries and establishing a new planning process for maritime activities.

(--) No threshold: no proof of the degree to which wed tradeoff with NOAA satellites.
(--) No trade-off: strong bipartisan support for the weather
satellites:
Leone 14 (4/28/2014, Dan, Profile | Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and
Information Services, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-satelliteand-information)

Despite almost constant partisan strife in the U.S. Congress, lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle agree on this much: Its worth knowing when to pack an umbrella .
If they had any inclination to waver on this shared principle, it evaporated in the
wake of Hurricane Sandy. Weather satellite data were instrumental in predicting the highly
destructive storms track along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard in October 2012, giving those in its path crucial time to

Thus NOAAs two main weather satellite development programs the

were fully
funded in the omnibus spending bill that passed in December and covers federal
activities for the remainder of 2014. Whats more, Congress tried to shield these
efforts from sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts that affected virtually all other federal
prepare.

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)

activities beginning in March 2013.

(--) No link and turn- NOAA is resourceful and new ocean policy
builds momentum for future increases
Eilperin 6-17-2014 [6- 17-14, Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the House of Representatives,
Obama proposes Vast Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuary,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-propose-vast-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marinesanctuary/2014/06/16/f8689972-f0c6-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html]

NOAAs principal deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere in Obamas first term, said
found new avenues to exert its influence and lead change in
ocean policy globally, including cracking down on illegal fishing by pressing for
stricter ship verification through the International Maritime Organization. Budget
constraints and congressional opposition also remain obstacles for the administration.
Monica Medina,

that the United States has

During a panel last week for Capitol Hill Ocean Week, Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said NOAA might have to consider
changing its name to NAA because of cuts to its wet side. William Ruckelshaus, a co-chair of the Joint Ocean

Commission Initiative, who served as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Presidents Richard

the new flurry of activity on maritime issues could

represent an important shift. These kinds of issues only get elevated if the
president puts it high on his priority list, he said.
M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, said

(--) NOAA will still be able to do weather forecasts even if there

is a data gap
Kicza 13 --- Assistant Administrator National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
at NOAA (9/19/2013, Mary E., HEARING TITLED DYSFUNCTION IN MANAGEMENT OF WEATHER AND
CLIMATE SATELLITES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents
/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-MKicza-20130919.pdf)
With funds provided by the Public Law 113-2, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of
2013, NOAA is implementing a number of strategic actions designed to make its
weather forecasting enterprise more robust in the face of the possibility
of a gap in polar-orbiting weather data. These activities seek to make better
use of existing data, take advantage of new data sources planned in the future,
improve operational high performance computing capacity, and improve the
assimilation of data into weather prediction models, including hurricane models. The
goal is to minimize the impact of a gap in coverage should it become a reality . While
none of these activities, individually or collectively, can totally replace a lack of JPSS data, they represent
the positive actions NOAA can take to mitigate the loss of these data. Should a
data gap not occur, these investments will nonetheless improve NOAAs ability to
use existing data, thus improving weather forecasts . These actions are being taken in addition
to the steps NOAA is taking to ensure that JPSS and GOES-R Series satellite development continue as planned.

1ar: Non-Unique: Just Funded Offshore Wind

(--) Extend our Bastasch evidence: The Energy Department
just gave $150 million to fund offshore windtwo
implications
A) Means that money will come from the NOAA weather
satellitesundermining the program OR
B) Money wont come from the NOAA weather satellites
meaning the plan wont either and they have no internal link.

1ar: Massive Expansion of Ocean Policy

(--) Extend our Eilperin evidenceObama is announcing a huge
campaign to save the oceansprefer our evidence
A) It predicts the futuremore changes are on the way
meaning future trade-offs are coming.
B) Proves that Obama will increase NOAA funding to do the
planmeaning there is no tradeoff

1ar: No tradeoff
(--) Extend our Leone evidencethere is broad bipartisan
support for NOAAs weather satellitesmeaning any funding
for the plan wont tradeoff with those satellites.
(--) No tradeoff: Weather satellites have bipartisan support
and wont be cut:
Stephanie Paige Ogburn, 7/19/2013 (staff writer, Emerging NOAA
spending bills focused on extreme weather,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059984676, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
There's a big difference -- $700 million -- between how much money the Senate Appropriations Committee wants to
allocate for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and how much the House Appropriations
Committee is willing to spend. But there's

one big bipartisan element that both House and

Senate appropriators agree on, and that's the need for NOAA to spend a big chunk
of its budget on improving weather forecasting . The Senate version of the bill, which passed
through full committee yesterday, allocates nearly $5.6 billion to NOAA. More than half of that is focused on
weather. A total of $1.95 billion is allocated for weather satellites , which collect data used in
modeling severe weather and are useful for climate science. An additional $1.1 billion is for the National Weather
Service. On the House side, the numbers are strikingly similar: The Weather Service is slated to receive $940.7
million, and $1.8 billion is allotted for NOAA's two big satellite programs. The data those satellites collect are used

These numbers are above what was

requested in the Obama administration's budge t for the National Weather Service, signifying
Congress' prioritization of that mission.
in modeling extreme weather as well as for climate science.

Oil DA Answers (2ac)

(--) No link: wind trades-off with coal not oil:
Kurt Krueger, 5/26/2011 (Wind Wont End Oil Dependency, Accessed
8/17/2012 at
http://arcadiawindstudygroup.org/2011/05/26/wind-wont-end-oildependency/, rwg)
Our community has quickly become a staging ground for the national debate over alternative energy. However,

Many seem to think

that wind power can help reduce our countries dependence on foreign oil. This would be
great, if it were true. Unfortunately, in reality there is no connection between wind power and
this countrys dependence on foreign oil. Electricity in this country is generated
primarily from coal, nuclear, hydroelectric power and natural gas none of which are imported in any
significant quantities. Less than 1% of our electricity comes from oil (from
many people seem to misunderstand the effect wind power will have on our nation.

www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/). We are not paying $4 for a gallon of gas or fighting wars in the Middle East
due to a lack of wind turbines. This truth differs from the picture with wind industry would like to present to us about
how wind power can save us from oil spills and high gas prices.

(--) Empirically denied: expansion of onshore wind should have

triggered the link.
(--) Non-unique: Sanctions will strangle the Russian economy:
Kathleen Caulderwood, 7/18/2014 (staff writer, Russian Economy On
The Edge Of Recession, The MH17 Incident Wont Help,
http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-economy-edge-recession-mh17-incidentwont-help-1633198, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
As the world reels from news of Malaysia flight MH17 being down over eastern
Ukraine and the Israeli Defense Force moving in on Gaza, economists worried about the effect of these
geopolitical tensions on global markets. There probably won't be a sudden drop (or jump), experts said, but the
week's news only increased a general feeling of unease that may show itself in the global economy.
ADVERTISEMENT I think it could have long-lasting consequences, said Robert Kahn, Senior Fellow for International
Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. I dont think itll be dramatic, but it does reflect a nervousness
thats probably going to creep into markets. Equity prices dipped soon after the MH17 crash, but global markets
calmed down on Friday. The limited response made some sense, wrote Capital Economics analyst Julian Jessop in
a note, adding that its reasonable to think the event was a one-off incident. However, it is a signal that the
situation in Russia and Ukraine may soon get worse. Western sanctions on Russia were already being ratcheted up
before the news, and the pressure for a tougher line only seems likely to increase, he wrote. Analysts are most
interested to see what happens in the next few days and weeks. While markets tend to shrug off isolated events like
the Malaysia crash, this might be different. The incident also heightens the already elevated geopolitical risk
temperature, higher than it has been in some years and likely to remain so given intensifying prospects for further

Many fear that the

incident will call more attention the the situation in Russia and further U.S. sanctions on the
country. This may push the already slow Russian economy into a recession, which
conflict in Gaza and ISIS occupation of Iraq, wrote Citigroup analysts in a Friday note.

could impact trade with its European neighbors and even China, one of its largest trading partners.

(--) Non-unique: Oil prices are down now:

Saudi Gazette, 7/28/2014 (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?
method=home.regcon&contentid=20140729212965, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)

World oil prices sank on Monday as traders appeared to shrug off geopolitical
worries over key crude producing regions, dealers said. Brent North Sea crude for
delivery in September dropped 94 cents to stand at $107.45 per barrel nearing
midday in London.

(--) No threshold: no proof of when the economy is low enough

for the DA to be triggered.
(--) No Internal Link: oil isnt key to Russias economy.
Adomanis 12 Mark Adomanis, Forbes Contributor, 7/18/12,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/07/18/russias-economy-in-2012-astrong-start-and-an-uncertain-future/
The IMF recently cut its forecast for Russias 2013 GDP growth from 4 percent to 3.9 percent, and repeated its
forecast that 2012 economic growth would come in right at 4 percent. The Russian Ministry of Economic
Development is slightly less optimistic, predicting that 2012 GDP growth will be in the 3.4-3.7% range (though it
reserves the right to revise this upward if necessary). Well the results of the first half of 2012 are now available from
Rosstat and, at first glance, they would appear to be ground for significant optimism: GDP grew at a 4.9% rate, fixed
capital formation grew at 4.7%, and retail turnover galloped ahead at a rapid 6.9% annual rate. Also on the positive
side of the ledger was a 3% growth in disposable incomes and a strikingly large 10% decline in unemployment to a

Russia has now officially surpassed its pre-crisis GDP peak and
is doing so with oil prices that are roughly $30 a barrel less than they
were in 2008, when the world energy market was at the height of its decade-long
run up in prices, and with notably lower levels of both unemployment and inflation. So while the Russian
post-Soviet low.

economy isnt exactly a world-conquering colossus, its arguably in better shape than its ever been: prices are more
stable, more workers are active, and investment and consumption are increasing.

(--) Turn: low oil prices spark economic diversification efforts

that are key to long-term economic growth.
Kommersant 06 Russias Daily Online New Source, Low Oil Prices May Push
Up Russias Economy, 7/16/2006,
http://www.kommersant.com/p705040/r_500/Low_Oil_Prices_May_Push_Up_Russias_
Economy/
The OPEC Reference Basket has fallen below $60 per barrel, for the first time over the last five months, closing
at $59.08 at the New York exchange yesterday. However, futures for Light Sweet grew. Analysts explain it,

Experts note that a new

drop is the start of a long-term trend of a decline in oil prices. Russian
authorities have already given their predictions of how Russias economy will be
affected by lower oil prices. The Central Banks head Sergey Ignatyev said that Russia would
not suffer even if oil falls below $25-30 per barrel . Independent experts are of a different
saying that stags decided to buy more contracts at attractive low prices.

opinion, though. With a Urals barrel at $80 a Russian oil company has after-tax net profit of $36.3 billion

a fall in natural
resources prices may give a positive impulse to the Russian economy.
Certainly, if the natural resources industry slows down, other sectors may
speed up as the Central Bank will no longer have to strengthen the ruble to
trend down inflation, Evgeny Nadoshin at the Trast bank said. This is what Russian
business has long been asking for. A sharp drop in oil prices may force the
Russian government to reinvigorate reforms and diversify economy, which will
boost Russias economy. Even if authorities prefer a passive stance and keep on increasing budget
annually. If Urals decline to $30, the net profit will plummet to $7.8 billion. Yet,

expenses ahead of presidential election, Russias gold reserves and stabilization fund will help the economy to
slow down as smoothly as possible.

(--) No Impact: the 98 economic crisis proves that Russias

economy is resilient.
Beehner 05 Lionel, Masters degree in International and Public Affairs from
Columbia, Council of Foreign Relations - Council of Foreign Relations, Is Russias
Economy Running out of Energy?, October 28, 2005, http://www.cfr.org/economicdevelopment/russias-economy-running-out-energy/p9119
Russias oil exports are up, its currency is strong, and its gross domestic product (GDP) growth has hummed along
at a 7 percent clip for the seventh year in a row, surpassing all other Group of Eight (G8) members. Maybe President
Vladimir Putins pledge to double Russias GDP does not sound so farfetched. Think again, some economists say.

Russias economy, buoyed by an increase in global demand for oil, has fully rebounded after
the 1998 collapse and ruble devaluation, experts urge caution. Recent growth, like a Potemkin
While

village, is not what it seems on the surface, due more to skyrocketing world oil prices than to sound macroeconomic
policies. Indeed, Moscow has expanded control over Russias main cash-cow: energy. The Russian oil and gas
sectors new paradigm can be summarized in two words: state domination, Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow
at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a February 2005 executive memorandum. The free-market paradigm has been
abandoned. For example, the governments October 2003 arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, formerly Russias richest
man and head of the countrys second-largest oil company Yukos, sent shockwaves through the market (In the year
after Khodorkovskys arrest, capital flightonly $2.9 billion in 2003soared to $9 billion). Gazprom, the statecontrolled gas behemoth, recently acquired Sibneft, Russias fifth-largest oil firm, and now enjoys a near monopoly
on the countrys gas production and vast network of pipelines. Hence, Moscows maneuvers have validated charges
that Russias economy is unhealthily tied to oil, a commodity whose value fluctuates widely. In

1998, when
world oil prices dipped to around $10 a barrel, this drop coincided with the worst
of Russias economic crises and the collapse of the ruble , wrote Fiona Hill, a
senior fellow with the Brookings Institution , in a December 2004 article in the Globalist.

1ar: Wind trades-off with coal

(--) Extend our Krueger evidencewind trades-off with coal
not oiltheir link is tinytwo implications
A) The plan is too tiny to trigger the link
B) Current onshore wind should trigger the link.
(--) Wind wont decrease oil dependence:
Glenn R. Schleede, 7/19/2007 (Wind Action,
http://www.windaction.org/posts/2-wind-energy-will-not-reduce-us-oildependence#.U9pj_qNeJHQ, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
Glenn Schleede has updated his 2006 white paper which discuses whether wind energy will reduce US reliance on

One of the claims often made by wind energy advocates is that greater use of
wind energy for electricity generation will reduce US dependence on oil , including oil
imports. In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil
consumption. This update, based on the latest data from the US Energy Information Agency explains why the
reduced oil use claim is false.
oil.

1ar: Sanctions will strangle Russian economy

(--) Extend our Caulderwood evidenceits from July 18th and
indicates that new sanctions caused from the shooting down of
MH17 being shooting down will trigger a recession in the
Russian economy.
(--) MH17 incident will cause a further downturn in the Russian
economy:
Danske Bank Markets, 7/20/2014 (Russia's Recession Just Got
Worse, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Russias-Recession-JustGot-Worse-2014-07-20, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
The downing of MH17, in our view, represents a renewed escalation in the conflict, and the likely
outcome is a further downturn in the Russian economy and downward
pressure on Russian markets. New sanctions against Russia very likely MH17s tragic event is
likely to trigger new sanctions from both the EU and the US against Russia . In our view,
the likely next step is to expand sanctions to the financial sector, which could seriously limit Russian financial
institutions access to the international capital markets and thereby seriously further increase funding costs for
Russian companies. Furthermore, we would stress that the mere possibility of such sanctions will have an effect as
they have already been implemented international financial players are likely to reduce their exposure to certain
Russian financial institutions, which have not yet officially been put on a sanctions list, but might be in the future.

The Russian economy is

effectively already in recession with the latest sanctions and the likelihood of
renewed sanctions and the continued capital outflow from Russia is likely to
continue to put downward pressure on Russian economic growth. In our view, it is fairly
Russian recession deepens, but, more importantly, potential growth also falls

clear that the slowdown in the Russian economy is likely to continue in coming quarters and also spread to private
consumption. Therefore, we do not see any near-term turnaround nor any pick-up in Russian growth this year.

(--) If the current sanctions arent enoughthere is no reason

why the plan would be enoughtakes out the internal link to
their disad.
(--) Sanctions will cripple Russian economy:
Matthew Philips, 7/22/2014 (staff writer, Sanctions Could Push Russia
Into Recession, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/sanctionscould-push-russia-into-recession, Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
Even before the U.S. announced tough new sanctions last week, Russias economy
was already in trouble. After 15 years of strong growth driven by higher commodity prices, the
economy is now on the edge of recession. During the first quarter, Russian GDP grew by 0.9 percent
year-on-year. Forecasts for annual growth have since slowed to 0.5 percent. Unemployment is nearly 5 percent, and
inflation is over 7 percent. The countrys population is aging and money is pouring out. The price to insure against
Russia defaulting on its debt is surging. Credit default swaps against Chinas debt (or Brazils, or Indias) are much
cheaper. Russias main stock index, the Micex, is down 7 percent since July 17. In June, Russias finance minister
forecast that additional restrictions on sectors of Russias economy would cost 0.2 percent to 0.3 percent of gross
domestic product this year. That confirmed what many analysts had already suspected. As the chart below shows,
economists have been sharply paring back 2014 growth forecasts since March. A new Morgan Stanley (MS)report
fleshes out the current state of things and contemplates additional damage that the latest sanctions will inflict.
Russian borrowers will need to find $157 billion over the next four quarters to service their debt. Without the ability

Russian corporations, banks, and stateowned enterprises will have to look outside Western capital markets for loans. That
to do business in U.S. dollars under the new sanctions,

money will be hard to find, says Anders Aslund, an economist and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of
International Economics. The state banks inside Russian can compensate, and the Chinese can help for a bit, but
thats it, says Aslund. The sanctions come as Russian corporations, banks, and state authorities face rather large
debt payments to be made over the next year. Combined, they have some $35 billion due in December alone.
Russian companies and banks face a series of high debt payments coming due over the next yearCBR, Morgan
Stanley ResearchRussian companies and banks face a series of high debt payments coming due over the next year

the sanctions and general uncertainty over Russias foreign relations will
likely cause Russians to curb consumption and save more, crimping profits for
On top of that,

businesses dependent on the domestic market. The Morgan Stanley report predicts that this combination could be
enough to push Russia into recession by the end of 2014, al though rising oil prices could help offset that.

the broader trend will be away from investment as companies have to

apply more capital to pay down debt. Investment has been around 21 percent of GDP when it should
be about 30 percent, says Aslund. Over the long run, this will effectively lower Russias potential
GDP.
Nonetheless,

1ar: Oil prices down now

(--) Extend our Saudi Gazette evidenceoil prices are down
nowthis proves either
A) The disad is non-unique and Russias economy will crash
nowOR
B) Oil isnt key to the Russian economy and the plan wont
crash the economy.
(--) Global oil prices are tumbling now:
Reuters, 7/31/2014 (Global oil prices tumble on ample supply, weak
demand, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/globaloil-prices-tumble-on-ample-supply-weak-demand/articleshow/39320712.cms)
Oil prices tumbled on Wednesday, with Brent leading the decline weakened by
excess supplies in Europe and Asia while US crude followed suit despite a larger-thanexpected drop in nationwide stockpiles.

Natural Gas Prices DA Answers

(--) No link: we dont trade-off with natural gas.
(--) Non-unique: already funding offshore windthats our
inherency evidence
Natural-gas prices hit an 8-month lowNot enough demand
WSJ 7/28/14 (Wall Street Journal, 7/28/14, " Natural-Gas Prices Set Another
Eight-Month Low on Soft Demand, http://online.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-pricesset-another-eight-month-low-on-soft-demand-1406574567, GIE)

NEW YORKNatural-gas prices set a new eight-month low for the fourth time in six
sessions, breaking an early-day run Monday as traders stayed focused on low
prospects for demand. Prices for the front-month August contract settled down 3.4
cents, or 0.9%, to $3.747 a million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile
Exchange. August options expired Monday and the contract expires Tuesday. The
more actively traded September contract settled down 2.2 cents, or 0.6%, to
$3.765/mmBtu. The day largely focused on technical trading as buyers and sellers
kept moving against the momentum of the market, analysts said. After prices
quickly hit an intraday high of $3.85/mmBtu, traders began to sell, likely focused on
how cool weather is likely to limit demand in the weeks to come, said Aaron Calder,
senior market analyst at energy-consulting firm Gelber & Associates in Houston. The
unseasonably cool summer has allowed consumers to use less air conditioning and
the gas-fired electricity that fuels it. Producers put a record string of surpluses into
storage, and gas prices have fallen about 20% since mid-June.

Natural Gas Prices on 8 month lows

PUKO 7/28

(Tim, Energy reporter at The Wall Street Journal, Natural-Gas Prices Set Another Eight-Month Low
on Soft Demand, http://online.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-prices-set-another-eight-month-low-on-soft-demand1406574567, ASM)

NEW YORKNatural-gas

prices set a new eight-month low for the fourth time in six

sessions, breaking an early-day run Monday as traders stayed focused on low prospects for demand. Prices for
the front-month August contract settled down 3.4 cents, or 0.9%, to $3.747 a million British thermal units on the
New York Mercantile Exchange. August options expired Monday and the contract expires Tuesday. The more actively
traded September contract settled down 2.2 cents, or 0.6%, to $3.765/mmBtu. The day largely focused on technical
trading as buyers and sellers kept moving against the momentum of the market, analysts said. After prices quickly
hit an intraday high of $3.85/mmBtu, traders began to sell, likely focused on how cool weather is likely to limit
demand in the weeks to come, said Aaron Calder, senior market analyst at energy-consulting firm Gelber &

The unseasonably cool summer has allowed consumers to use less

air conditioning and the gas-fired electricity that fuels it. Producers put a record
string of surpluses into storage, and gas prices have fallen about 20% since midJune. "If the weather stays mild and we don't have any power demand, as it has been, then I don't think we've hit
Associates in Houston.

a bottom," Mr. Calder said. Forecasts still show mild weather, including temperatures as much as eight degrees
Fahrenheit below normal, lingering over the center of the country into the second week of August. Weather

forecasts made only small changes over the weekend, with division over whether temperatures would be slightly
warmer or cooler than previously expected.

Natural Gas prices low now

Puko 7/17 (TP, 7/17/14, http://online.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-prices-fall-to-7month-low-1405618775, Timothy Puko is a writer for the Wall Street Journal, TK)

Natural-gas prices tumbled to a seven-month low on Thursday, falling below $4 a

million British thermal units, after a government report showed U.S. stockpiles last
week increased at an above-average pace. A mild summer in the nation's biggest gas-consuming
regions has eased concerns about supplies. Worries flared up last winter, when extremely low temperatures
translated into record demand for the heating fuel. This summer, unseasonably cool weather across swaths of the
U.S. has damped the use of power-thirsty air conditioners, limiting the use of natural gas in generating electricity.
"This is significant and extraordinary weather in that it's so cold," said Teri Viswanath, a natural-gas strategist at

Prices for the frontmonth August contract settled down 16.5 cents, or 4%, to $3.954 a million British
thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Natural gas, one of the bestperforming commodities earlier this year, set its low for thus far in 2014, landing on
its lowest closing price since Nov. 29. Prices in the futures market dropped 2.2% in the minutes after
BNP Paribas SA BNP.FR +1.21% in New York. "This summer is largely being written off."

the Energy Information Administration reported natural-gas stockpiles rose 107 billion cubic feet, compared with an
estimate for a 99-billion-cubic-feet build that was based on a Wall Street Journal survey of traders and analysts.
Natural-gas stockpiles tend to grow quickly in spring after heating demand fades and hot weather has yet to kick in.
However, usually the additions tend to slow by mid-July. Last week's stockpile increase was 65% more than the fiveyear average for this time of year, the biggest gap since April 2013, according to the EIA. "To have that kind of
(addition) in the middle of July is just remarkable," said John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital in New York,
which invests in energy commodities. "It's given the bears in the market a real upper hand." Heating demand
during the recent frigid U.S. winter led to natural gas price spikes above $6 a million British thermal units and left

Gas kept trading at about 15% higher this spring than in the
spring of 2013 on fears that those price spikes could return if producers didn't refill
storage in time to buffer demand spikes. But since mid-April, gas producers and others have injected
storage levels at 11-year lows.

1.3 trillion cubic feet into underground storage caverns and other facilities, 28% more than the five-year average for

The abundance of supplies have prompted hedge funds and other

money managers to trim back bullish bets put in place during the depths of winter.
Natural-gas futures prices ended the day down 17% from June 12. Forecasts are
showing temperatures as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than normal in
many of the biggest cities across the middle of the country, with no sign of a heat
wave coming soon. Last week alone, cooling degree daysa measure of demand for air conditioningwere
that time period.

down 21.3% nationwide compared with the same week a year ago, according to Credit Suisse. CSGN.VX -0.12% The
northern states from New England to the Midwest were the coolest: Cooling degree days in these regions all
dropped more than 35% from last year, the bank said. Last week's addition refilled stockpiles to 2.1 trillion cubic
feet, according to the EIA. Stockpiles that once sat well less than half of their usual level, are now refilled to within
26% of the five-year average for that week of the year.

Non-Unique: Natural gas price low now

Wall Street Journal, 7-21 (DANIEL HUANG, July 21, 201, Natural-Gas
Prices Fall to Near Eight-Month Low, http://online.wsj.com/articles/natural-gasprices-decline-as-temperatures-remain-mild-1405955784, Access date 8-4-14, SM)

Natural-gas prices slid to a nearly eight-month low as another sweep of unseasonably cool
weather across the U.S. is expected to keep a lid on demand. Gas prices have slid 24% since midJune as cooler-than-normal temperatures have reined in the use of power-thirsty air
conditioning. In the hotter months of summer, rising electricity consumption has spurred power plants' naturalgas demand. This year, the lack of that additional demand has resulted in a rapid buildup of natural-gas supplies,
which has weighed on prices.

Natural gas for August delivery, the front-month futures

contract, dropped 10.2 cents, or 2.6%, to $3.849 a million British thermal units on
the New York Mercantile Exchange. Monday's close was the lowest since Nov. 26. The cooler-thannormal temperatures have extended into the latter half of July and are poised to continue into the beginning of
August, a period that is usually the hottest of the season, analysts said. The six- to 10-day forecast calls for
temperatures 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit below normal to descend across the Plains and Midwest, while the
eastern region looks to maintain a cool seasonal range in the 70s and 80s. " The

below-normal
temperatures slated to remain fairly dominant in the eastern half of the U.S. will
likely take a bite out of natural-gas demand ," analysts at WeatherBELL Analytics wrote in a research
note.

Natural gas price down due to storage rose in US

Investing.com, 7-20 (Investing.com, 7-20-14, Natural gas futures - weekly
outlook: July 21 - 25, http://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/naturalgas-futures---weekly-outlook:-july-21---25-296286, Investing.com is a global
financial portal and internet brand composed of 20 editions in 18 that provides
news, analysis, streaming quotes and charts, technical data and financial tools
about the global financial market, Access date 8-4-14, SM))
U.S. natural gas futures fell to a seven-month low on Friday, as concerns over tight
supplies continued to fade away. Natural gas futures - weekly outlook: July 21 25Natural gas futures end the week with a loss of 4.7% on supply outlook On the
New York Mercantile Exchange, natural gas for delivery in August fell to a session
low of $3.934 per million British thermal units, the weakest level since December 2,
before settling at $3.951 by close of trade, down 0.08%, or 0.3 cents. Natural gas
futures plunged 4.01%, or 16.5 cents, on Thursday to end at $3.954. On the week,
Nymex natural gas prices lost 4.7%, or 19.5 cents, the fifth consecutive weekly
decline. Futures were likely to find support at $3.897 per million British thermal
units, the low from December 2 and resistance at $4.110, the high from July 17.
Natural gas prices sold off on Thursday after the U.S. E nergy Information
Administration said in its weekly report that natural gas storage in the U.S. rose by
107 billion cubic feet last week, above expectations for an increase of 98 billion
cubic feet. The five-year average change for the week is an increase of 65 billion
cubic feet. Total U.S. natural gas storage stood at 2.129 trillion cubic feet as of last
week, narrowing the deficit to the five-year average to 25.5%, down from a record
54.7% at the end of March. Meanwhile, updated weather-forecasting models called
for cooler temperatures across most parts of the heavily-populated Midwest and
Northeast regions over the next five days. Demand for natural gas tends to
fluctuate in the summer based on hot weather and air conditioning use. Data from
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission released Friday showed that hedge
funds and money managers modestly increased their bullish bets in natural gas

futures in the week ending July 15. Net longs totaled 37,617 contracts, up 1.9%
from net longs of 36,906 in the previous week. Elsewhere on the Nymex, U.S. crude
oil for September delivery settled at $101.95 a barrel by close of trade on Friday, up
1.09%, or $1.12 a barrel, on the week. Meanwhile, heating oil for August delivery
slumped 0.73% on the week to settle at $2.848 per gallon by close of trade Friday.

Natural Gas Prices Low Now

Huang, editorial intern at the Wall Street Journal 14
(7/21/14, Wall Street Journal, Natural-Gas Prices Fall to Near Eight-Month Low,
Cooler Weather Tempers Demand and Is Forecast to Continue,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-prices-decline-as-temperatures-remainmild-1405955784, JL)

Natural-gas prices tumbled to a seven-month low on Thursday, falling below $4 a

million British thermal units, after a government report showed U.S. stockpiles last
week increased at an above-average pace. A mild summer in the nation's biggest gas-consuming
regions has eased concerns about supplies. Worries flared up last winter, when extremely low temperatures

This summer, unseasonably cool weather

across swaths of the U.S. has damped the use of power-thirsty air conditioners,
limiting the use of natural gas in generating electricity . "This is significant and extraordinary
translated into record demand for the heating fuel.

weather in that it's so cold," said Teri Viswanath, a natural-gas strategist at BNP Paribas SA BNP.FR +1.21% in New
York. "This summer is largely being written off." Prices for the front-month August contract settled down 16.5 cents,
or 4%, to $3.954 a million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Natural gas, one of the bestperforming commodities earlier this year, set its low for thus far in 2014, landing on its lowest closing price since

Prices in the futures market dropped 2.2% in the minutes after the Energy
Information Administration reported natural-gas stockpiles rose 107 billion cubic
feet, compared with an estimate for a 99-billion-cubic-feet build that was based on a Wall Street Journal survey of
traders and analysts. Natural-gas stockpiles tend to grow quickly in spring after heating
demand fades and hot weather has yet to kick in. However, usually the additions
tend to slow by mid-July. Last week's stockpile increase was 65% more than the
five-year average for this time of year, the biggest gap since April 2013 , according to the
Nov. 29.

EIA. "To have that kind of (addition) in the middle of July is just remarkable," said John Kilduff, founding partner of
Again Capital in New York, which invests in energy commodities. "It's given the bears in the market a real upper
hand." Heating demand during the recent frigid U.S. winter led to natural gas price spikes above $6 a million British
thermal units and left storage levels at 11-year lows. Gas kept trading at about 15% higher this spring than in the
spring of 2013 on fears that those price spikes could return if producers didn't refill storage in time to buffer

gas producers and others have injected 1.3 trillion cubic

feet into underground storage caverns and other facilities, 28% more than the fiveyear average for that time period. The abundance of supplies have prompted hedge
funds and other money managers to trim back bullish bet s put in place during the
depths of winter. Natural-gas futures prices ended the day down 17% from June 12.
demand spikes. But since mid-April,

Forecasts are showing temperatures as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than normal in many of the biggest
cities across the middle of the country, with no sign of a heat wave coming soon. Last week alone, cooling degree
daysa measure of demand for air conditioningwere down 21.3% nationwide compared with the same week a
year ago, according to Credit Suisse. CSGN.VX -0.12% The northern states from New England to the Midwest were
the coolest: Cooling degree days in these regions all dropped more than 35% from last year, the bank said. Last
week's addition refilled stockpiles to 2.1 trillion cubic feet, according to the EIA .

Stockpiles that once sat

well less than half of their usual level, are now refilled to within 26% of the five-year
average for that week of the year.

Politics NSA DA Answers (2ac)

(--) No link: the plan is a tiny issue compared to Benghazi,
Ukraine, and Israel.
(--) Non-unique: The Energy Department just gave $150
million to fund offshore wind in Massachusetts
Bastasch 7/1/14 (Michael Bastasch, writer for the Daily Caller, 7/1/14, Feds Give Cape Wind
Project $150 Million Loan Guarantee, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/feds-give-capewind-project-150-million-loan-guarantee/#ixzz388kDOpx5, mgsk-sd)

The Energy Department has given a conditional $150 million loan to the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts in a move to fund the first offshore wind farm in the United
States. Cape Wind will receive the $150 million loan after it secures $2.6 billion in financing, according to the
Energy Department. Once it has secured the balance of the funding, it will get taxpayer dollars to help
construct 130 wind turbines that will have a capacity of 360 megawatts of power . If
built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern
Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant U.S. offshore wind industry , said Peter Davidson, executive
director of the DOEs loan program in a statement. The lessons that could be learned from this project can help
catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind resources. Massachusetts
Democrats hailed the loan as a boom to the state and a step in the right direction in fighting global warming.
Offshore

wind will not only provide a new, clean source of energy for the United States, it
will reduce American reliance on fossil fuel, mitigate climate change and jump start
a new U.S. industry that will create thousands of clean energy jobs , said
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. This funding will help Massachusetts make energy history and continue
our leadership as a clean energy jobs hub for the entire nation, said Sen. Ed Markey.

(--) Non-intrinsic: rational policy maker could do the plan and

pass NSA reform.
(--) Turn: Offshore wind power has support from both sides of
the political aisle:
Ben Deninger (associate in the law firm Cole, Scott & Kissane) 20 14
(Texas Environmental Law Journal, May 2014, Lexis/Nexis, Accessed
7/22/2014, rwg)
The idea of an offshore wind farm seems like a perfect way to comply with the Massachusetts RPS;
however, nearly 12 years after the projects' initial phases, no turbines have been erected. n20 Despite wide
ranging support from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, as well as
expressions of political support from both sides of the aisle , the project has flowed
through various regulatory bodies and lawsuits incredibly slowly. Perhaps some of this is to be expected for the first
offshore wind farm in America, but according to Jim Gordon of EMI "most projects and most developers that would
get involved in a process like that would probably throw up their arms and walk away." n21 The project occupies
about 25 square miles with turbines 258 feet tall and blades reaching 440 feet at the peak of their rotation, with a
projected average capacity of 30%-40% of their maximum capacity of 468 MW. n22

(--) No vote till September:

Dustin Volz, 7/29/2014 (staff writer, Here's How the Senate Plans to End
NSA Mass Surveillance, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207, Accessed 7/30/2014)

Most observers see Leahy's Freedom Act as the best chance at NSA reform in this
Congress. The omnibus legislation is unlikely to earn a vote before the August
recess, but it may go straight to the Senate floor when Congress reconvenes in
September. Stakeholders are hopeful the bill could hit the president's desk
sometime this fall.

(--) NSA reforms wont passdata retention mandate will be a

poison pill:
Dustin Volz, 7/29/2014 (staff writer, Here's How the Senate Plans to End
NSA Mass Surveillance, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-sno-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207, Accessed 7/30/2014)
it remains unclear if Leahy has the votes in a historically gridlocked Senate that
will have most of its attention diverted to the midterm elections when lawmakers come
back to Washington. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has been an
influential backer of the NSA's surveillance programs, and early indications are that
she and other defense hawks are less than receptive to Leahy's new proposal. The
California Democrat, according to several sources, wants to push a data-retention mandate
But

that would require phone companies to keep customer data for a certain amount of time that would exceed current

such a mandate would amount to a

"poison pill" and would likely prompt a cascade of groups to drop their support for
the Freedom Act.
requirements set at 18 months. Multiple privacy advocates said

(--) Empirically denied: cyber-attacks havent been successful

so farno reason they will be in the future.
(--) Obama has no political capital hes a lame duck
Page 7/27/2014 (Page, Susan. A lame duck before his time?, USA Today,
7/27/2014.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/07/27/obamas-secondterm-travails-president-lame-duck/13114305/, Susan Page is an American journalist
and the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. She has won several
awards for her work, including the Merriman Smith Memorial Award and the Aldo
Beckman Memorial)
The woes of a second term are nothing new, but for President Obama they seem to
have started sooner and struck harder than for his predecessors

. In his State of the Union address, delivered precisely

six months ago Monday, Obama outlined a scaled-down agenda for his sixth year in office, acknowledging the difficulty of passing legislation in a gridlocked Congress and vowing to use "the pen and the phone" to get things done.

He's a lame duck and it's not

even lame-duck time," says Sara Fagen, who knows the territory.
Now even those circumscribed ambitions have been overshadowed by crises overseas that are demanding his attention and buffeting his presidency. "

As White House political director during George W.

Bush's second term, she saw that administration face growing resistance in Congress and have to battle for attention as the political world turned to the next presidential election but not, she says, as early as Obama has had to

. White House Communications Director

Palmieri acknowledges it has
gotten harder to command the attention of the news media
deal with those complications

Jennifer

. "A lot of the press around the first term is focused on what

whatever action the president is taking will mean for his or her ability to have a second term," she said. "That sort of motivation for the press is removed." But during second terms, as with first ones, "you need to be focused on the
opportunities and prepared for whatever problems are going to be coming your way," she says. "The world doesn't stop spinning." For Obama, the world has become a dramatically more problematic place in recent weeks, from the
Israeli pounding of Palestinians in Gaza to Russia's role in the shootdown of a Malaysian jetliner over Ukraine. In Iraq, insurgents have scored unexpected territorial gains, a development that could affect the administration's

The White
House has shelved the idea of legislation to overhaul the immigration system, once
hoped to be a centerpiece of his second term. Even his request for emergency
funding to deal with the influx of children from Central America is stalled on Capitol
Hill.
calculations about the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of this year. And at home, enacting any sort of major legislation over the next two and a half years is hard to imagine.

USATODAY Obama talks border issues with Central America leaders USATODAY Congressional division on border crisis deepens "Today, we actually signed a bill," Obama declared to laughter at a Seattle fundraiser for the

Democratic National Committee last week. "It was shocking." (It was an uncontroversial law to streamline federal job-training programs.) Early in his presidency, Obama overruled aides concerned about pursuing a sweeping health
care overhaul, telling them he hadn't been sent to the White House to "do school uniforms." The exchange, reported by Jonathan Alter in his book The Promise, was a dig at small-bore initiatives Bill Clinton had pursued, especially
during his second term. Now Obama apparently sees the value of executive orders, pilot projects, White House conferences and public-private partnerships some with broad impact, others to more symbolic effect. "There are a lot

that are very large and there are some that are smaller," White House counselor Dan Pfeiffer told reporters Friday at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor. This month, the White House issued a 42-page report detailing
more than 40 things Obama had done during the first six months as part of the "year of action" he had promised in the State of the Union. They ranged from new EPA rules limiting carbon pollution a major initiative to combat
climate change to a White House "summit" on helping student athletes avoid concussions. Which is not so far afield from Clinton's effort to increase safety and discipline for students by, well, requiring school uniforms. VETOES
AND VICTORIES The president's recent two-term predecessors Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also encountered political setbacks and international upheaval in the second half of their second terms. In Reagan's
sixth-year midterm election, Republicans lost control of the Senate. In Bush's sixth-year midterm, Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate. Congress voted to override Reagan's veto of the Water Quality Control Act and
Bush's veto of the farm bill. Lobbying for administration-backed bills got harder. "The further we got away from Clinton's re-election, the less likely Congress was going to work with the president to get something done," recalls
Stephanie Cutter, a senior aide in the Clinton and Obama administrations who is now co-host of CNN's Crossfire. "So he turned to foreign policy and he turned to executive actions. That's not dissimilar to what's happening today,
except Congress started saying 'no' much earlier." Even so, during their final two years or so in office, Reagan was engaged with a new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Clinton helped
negotiate the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Bush dramatically expanded his initiative to combat AIDS in Africa. Former aides and analysts see some lessons from their experiences that Obama might want to consider:
1.Defy your party. The legislative achievements often involved compromises that put the president at odds with members of Congress from his own party. Clinton signed a balanced-budget bill in 1997 that acceded to Republican
demands to end deficit spending. During his final months in office, in 1988, Reagan signed a bipartisan welfare bill that brought complaints from conservatives about creating make-work public jobs. And the only members of
Congress who voted against Bush's proposal in 2008 to triple funding to combat global AIDS were fellow Republicans. In lobbying for the welfare bill, Reagan "called members of Congress; he had them over; he talked to them,"
including those who were ideological opponents, says Frank Donatelli, Reagan's White House political director. (One key ally on the welfare bill: Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas.) There's an early test of that for Obama now. As
a price for providing emergency funding to deal with the flood of children arriving illegally from Central America, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has demanded Obama break with Democratic congressional allies by lobbying to
change a 2008 law to make it easier to deport the immigrants. Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, says Obama has refused so far to engage in that sort of political give-and-take, although Democrats fault congressional
Republicans for unyielding opposition to the president. "This is not a job where you give a speech and expect people to just fall neatly in line and do what you ask them to do," Cornyn told USA TODAY's Capital Download. "You have to
do some deals. You have to compromise." USATODAY Capital Download: Optimism fades on immigration deal Obama better get used to the idea, especially if Republicans succeed in gaining control of the Senate as well as the House
in November, says William Galston, an adviser in the Clinton White House. "It's close to metaphysically certain that for the Obama administration to get anything done on the legislative front, it will have to swallow compromises,
including elements it regards as bad public policy." 2. Look abroad. The world tends to pay heed to presidents even when Congress no longer does a lesson applied by Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson even during the darkest
days of their presidencies. Late in their tenures, Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Gorbachev and Clinton helped negotiate the Wye River Memorandum between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama
seems to face an unpromising global landscape at the moment, amid crises erupting around the world. "This isn't unprecedented," Bruce Jones, director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution,
says of the confluence of events. "That said, these are crises of a political saliency, happening at the same time, (and) that is an unusual strain on the top of our foreign policy." He says it has created "this sense of overload."
Republican critics say Obama's lack of leadership on the world stage during his first term created a vacuum that has fueled some of the current problems. "The president has to be more engaged, frankly," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.,
said in an interview on MSNBC. "He has to demonstrate a level of engagement and leadership that we aren't seeing today." The most promising opportunity for Obama could be the negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. "I
have believed for some time that the only remaining game-changer would be a successful negotiation with Iran, producing a treaty that the Obama administration could then induce both the Congress of the United States and the
Israelis to accept," Galston says. "That would be a foreign policy achievement on the order of Camp David" President Carter's signature accord between Israel and Egypt. That said, there are no guarantees of success in foreign
policy, despite presidential effort. An ambitious 1986 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, collapsed. Intensive negotiations brokered by Clinton between Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000 failed. AP_Obama.2 President Obama arrives in Seattle on July 22, 2014, at the start of a three-day West Coast trip.(Photo: AP) 3. Brace for scandal. There's one more unifying theme for two-term
presidents: Scandals erupt. A study by Dartmouth professor Brendan Nyhan, published in the British Journal of Political Science, concluded that the likelihood of a presidential scandal peaks in the fifth year of his tenure. "Even
conditional on other things that matter, second terms really do seem to have a surge of them," he says. One reason is that there is time for misdeeds in the first term to be uncovered. "You're accumulating a set of actions that could
become the raw material for scandal as you're in office longer and longer." Another factor was how much voters who identify with the opposition party dislike the president the situation Obama has faced with Republicans for some
time. "You see a base that gets restless and is primed to encourage their elected officials to jump on potential evidence of misconduct," Nyhan says. Reagan was forced to admit in November 1986 that his administration had secretly
sold arms to Iran, violating federal law, and then funneled the profits to the Nicaraguan contras. For Bush, an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded he and others in his administration had exaggerated the
evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction a prime justification for the invasion of Iraq. Then, of course, there is the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Revelations of Clinton's affair with a White House intern in his
first term prompted the House to impeach him during his second, though the Senate ultimately acquitted him. 'ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN' Whatever Obama's current travails, the nature of the presidency means big events and his
response to them could change things in a snap. "Right now, fewer of the American people are paying attention to what he's saying and what's he's doing," says former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, "but
anything can happen any day to turn it around." "The man is commander of chief of the armed forces; he enforces and executes the laws," says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "They are invested with tremendous power,

It's also true that the president's ability to control the

legislative agenda is very limited. That's a fact of our political life."
irrespective of whether Congress or anyone else is listening to them." But he adds: "

4457 CONNECT 264 TWEET 8 LINKEDIN 380

COMMENT EMAIL MORE

(--) Non-unique: Obama executive order on immigration will

set off a political firestorm:
Clint Henderson, 7/30/2014 (Congress Running Out of Time,
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/happening-now/blog/2014/07/30/congressrunning-out-time, Accessed 7/30/2014, rwg)
There are numerous reports today that President Obama is considering drastic
moves on immigration reform. The Wall Street Journal today suggesting the White
House is considering dramatically scaling back deportations and granting work
permits to millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. The President would use
executive orders to make the moves blaming Congressional inaction on
comprehensive immigration reform. It would likely set off a political firestorm.

(--) FIAT takes out the linkplan doesnt spend political

capital.
(--) The plan would be palatable to Congress and give Obama a
win:
Erica Schroeder, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law,
2010 (California Law Review, 2010, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu /cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1069&context=californialawreview; Accessed 7/21/2014, rwg)
Further, it would give offshore wind proponents support in combating local opposition to projects. This revision
could come in tandem with revisions to the Energy Policy Act or as part of an entirely new energy agenda. President

Obama has repeatedly expressed interest in a new trajectory for energy policy
in the United States that focuses on climate change , energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
energy independence. 2 6 9 Congress could take advantage of this momentum to make
these related revisions to the CZMA as well. In fact, reform of an existing, familiar set of
regulations, like the CZMA, may be more palatable to Congress, and an easy first
step to take with regard to renewable energy.
Barack

(--) Political capital doesnt exist and isnt key to their DAmore likely winners win
Michael Hirsch, 2/9/2013 chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to
2012 Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for
Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweeks Washington web editor and
authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, The World from Washington. Earlier on, he was
Newsweeks foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks and the
war on terror. He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the
world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year.
For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration

pundits will do what they always do this

talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by
sagacious reckonings of how much political capital Obama possesses to push his program
through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the
reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the
time of year: They will

next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked
seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and guncontrol legislation at the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and
5 million votes (the actual final tally)this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license.
(It doesnt exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so
frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who
entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt
dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and that actually might
have been even less popular on the right than the presidents health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very
little to do with Obamas personal prestige or popularityvariously put in terms of a mandate or political
capitalchances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt
the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December.
The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to
precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of
the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The progun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC
with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony
to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind
of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy
them. Its impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more
than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very
little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didnt a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of
the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a
sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for
the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self-deport. But this turnaround has very little to do
with Obamas personal influencehis political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two
numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote
in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on
Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in
November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Partys recent introspection,
and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census
showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. Its got nothing to do with Obamas
political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a
synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician
ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he
was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still
defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman
Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of
political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your

the idea of political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly

defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. Presidents usually over-estimate it,
side. The real problem is that

says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The best kind of political capitalsome sense
of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some

capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is

distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the everelusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change
degree in 1980. For that reason, political

everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to
invest, just as someone might have real investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the
size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has
practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition
behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor
some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014
election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any
concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and guncontrol issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways
just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is
kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years

depending on Obamas handling of any particular

issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals,
depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can
ago, Winning wins. In theory, and in practice,

dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic
vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful

political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing
in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very
presidencies say that

abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says
Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more

Winning on one issue often changes the calculation

for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if an
complex than the term suggests.

issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it,

Ornstein says. If they think

hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a
bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done
then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors

just because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the
outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that
conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a
candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far
more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive
study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he
assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civilrights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and
appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the
presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes.
(Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the
presidency for? Johnson didnt worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else:
Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the
way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking
the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable fact of
political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have
unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the
presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting
a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding.
Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference
after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and
now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding
passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included
town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didnt have
enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thin
helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this
timebut that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had
earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most
peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stock-market

collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who
was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says
John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political
blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any
kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy
ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas going to make that mistake. Bush decided he
wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didnt understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum
on his side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.

Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says,
but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on
fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are
limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in
the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent
years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real
problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national
mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party
revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs,
appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into
their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of
another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like
Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did
ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the
governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start
the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really
have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with
loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of
momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a
science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told
well in Steven Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-thescenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move
peoples hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide
in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the
final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is
that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why
they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another
example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic
change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs
through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second
term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities
in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the
political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting
in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and
conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the
power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937.
He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the
wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way,
they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of
Obamas second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this:
Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in
the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood will supportsuch as, perhaps,
immigration reform and gun controlthere is no reason to think he cant win far more victories than any of the
careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction.
Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who

some early
winsas he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase that will create
momentum, and one win may well lead to others. Winning wins . Obama himself learned
has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get

some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive
victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself
naively as a post-partisan president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all
people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would lay the groundwork for
long-term economic growth. The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government
liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and

had sold the stimulus as what it mainly wasa giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure
emergency measurehe might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs,
and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist.
After that, Obamas public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the
president put his personal imprimatur on any planfrom deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform
Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the
chastened GOPs newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to
understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let
them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well:
You Republicans dont have to listen to what I say anymore. And dont worry about whos got the political capital.
Just take a hard look at where Im saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the
rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching
on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have
no choice but to move. Its your choice.

(--) Zero Threat of Cyber Attack their ev is hype

Singer, 12 (Peter Director 21st Century Defense Initiative, November,
The Cyber Terror Bogeyman Armed Forces Journal,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2012/11/cyber-terror-singer)
About 31,300. That is roughly the number of magazine and journal articles written so far that discuss the

Zero. That is the number of people that who been hurt or killed by
cyber terrorism at the time this went to press. In many ways, cyber terrorism is like the Discovery
Channels Shark Week, when we obsess about shark attacks despite the fact that you are roughly 15,000
phenomenon of cyber terrorism.

times more likely to be hurt or killed in an accident involving a toilet. But by looking at how terror groups actually
use the Internet, rather than fixating on nightmare scenarios, we can properly prioritize and focus our efforts. Part

the problem is the way we talk about the issue. The FBI defines cyber terrorism as
a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer
systems, computer programs and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by
of

subnational groups or clandestine agents. A key word there is violence, yet many discussions sweep all sorts of
nonviolent online mischief into the terror bin. Various reports lump together everything from Defense Secretary
Leon Panettas recent statements that a terror group might launch a digital Pearl Harbor to Stuxnet-like sabotage
(ahem, committed by state forces) to hacktivism, WikiLeaks and credit card fraud. As one congressional staffer put
it, the way we use a term like cyber terrorism has as much clarity as cybersecurity that is, none at all. Another

we often mix up our fears with the actual state of affairs . Last year,
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, the Pentagons lead official for cybersecurity, spoke to the top experts in
part of the problem is that

the field at the RSA Conference in San Francisco. It is possible for a terrorist group to develop cyber-attack tools on
their own or to buy them on the black market, Lynn warned. A couple dozen talented programmers wearing flip-

was conflating fear and

reality, not just about what stimulant-drinking programmers are actually hired to do, but also what is
needed to pull off an attack that causes meaningful violence. The requirements go well
beyond finding top cyber experts. Taking down hydroelectric generators, or designing
malware like Stuxnet that causes nuclear centrifuges to spin out of sequence doesnt just require the skills
and means to get into a computer system. Its also knowing what to do once you are in . To cause true
flops and drinking Red Bull can do a lot of damage. The deputy defense secretary

damage requires an understanding of the devices themselves and how they run, the engineering and physics
behind the target. The Stuxnet case, for example, involved not just cyber experts well beyond a few wearing flipflops, but also experts in areas that ranged from intelligence and surveillance to nuclear physics to the engineering
of a specific kind of Siemens-brand industrial equipment. It also required expensive tests, not only of the software,
but on working versions of the target hardware as well. As George R. Lucas Jr., a professor at the U.S. Naval
Academy, put it, conducting a truly mass-scale action using cyber means simply outstrips the intellectual,
organizational and personnel capacities of even the most well-funded and well-organized terrorist organization, as
well as those of even the most sophisticated international criminal enterprises. Lucas said

cyber terrorism has been vastly overblown.

the threat of

1ar: Non-Unique: Just gave $150 million

(--) Extend our Bastasch evidencethe Energy Department just
gave $150 million to fund offshore windtwo implications:
A) Makes the disad non-unique: it will trigger the link OR
B) If Obama has the political capital to pass NSA reform AND
we just funded offshore wind powerit disproves the link.

1ar: Vote Not Till September

(--) Extend our Volz evidencetheres no vote till September
this has two implications:
A) The plan cant trade-off with NSA reformthe decline in
political capital is too far away from the passage of the bill.
B) Calls all their Uniqueness into questionno proof the bill
will pass in September.
(--) September timeline prevents passage:
Politico 7/17/14 (Politico, 7-17-14, Hill surveillance reform: Time is not
on its side, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hill-surveillance-reformtime-109015.html, GIE)
The USA Freedom Act, the Hills preeminent measure to curb NSA authority in the
wake of Edward Snowdens leaks, cleared the House and has been waiting to see
movement in the Senate as advocates in and out of Congress try to navigate a
tough negotiating landscape. Privacy advocates and intelligence hawks primarily
disagree over how best to end the governments bulk phone records program. But a
diminishing resource in an election year may be an even bigger factor as to whether
anything gets done on that and other surveillance questions the calendar.
Lawmakers wont be around the Beltway in August, and much of the Senate will be
in full-on election mode by September.

1ar: NSA Bill Wont Pass Now

(--) Extend our Volz evidenceFeinstein will push through a
data-retention mandate that will prompt a cascade of groups
to abandon support for the NSA bill.
(--)NSA bill not pass nowmultiple reasons:
McCarter 7/17/14 (ND, "NSA vote in Senate faces time crunch,
power struggle", http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/17/1314618/-NSAvote-in-Senate-faces-time-crunch-power-nbsp-struggle., writer at Daily Kos, date
accessed 7-30-14 tck)
NSA spying in the 2015 Defense appropriations bill, there's
been a slight shift toward reform in the Senate. But that could be complicated by the fact
that the Senate has a lot of work to get through, a minority that is doing
everything in its power to keep that work from happening, and a White House and
Intelligence Committee chair in the form of Dianne Feinstein who are opposed to real
reforms. Nonetheless, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is trying to push ahead. Senate Judiciary
After the surprise vote in the House last month to limit

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the measures top sponsor in the upper chamber, is considering an attempt to bring
the bill straight to the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on surveillance reforms this
Congress but hasnt yet scheduled a markup. Leahy has been calling for these reforms for years and is working to
ensure the Senate seizes on this historic opportunity to pass real reform this work period, one of his aides said.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) doesnt have a floor plan for the surveillance bill yet, a Senate leadership aide
said last week. [] Would-be reformers have a tough needle to thread: The White House and NSA defenders in
Congress already support the current language. That means theres little room to strengthen the measures
protection against bulk collection and still keep the intelligence community happy. The current language needs to
be strengthened, which Leahy's bill would do. This bill is perhaps the highest-level power struggle you can imagine,
between the intelligence agencies and the White House and two of the more powerful committee chairs in the
SenateFeinstein and Leahyat loggerheads. Reid has been playing his own position close to the vest. All of this
has slowed the momentum of reform since the Snowden revelations began to highlight the vast overreach by the

The House vote pushed it back into

prominence, but it's still an uphill fight for Leahy and the reforms, including Mark Udall (Dintelligence community into the lives of American citizens.

CO), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and (god help us) Rand Paul. So American citizens need to stand with Leahy and get as
strong a reform bill as possible passed through the Senate.

(--) Differences between the House and Senate bill prevent

passage:
Hattem 7/29/14 (Julian Hattem, 07/29/14 9:00 PM, Senators aim to curb NSA
spying, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/213629-leahy-unveils-historic-nsareform-bill, Reporter @ The Hill covering tech policy, DSS)
More hawkish senators who have defended the NSAs bulk collection of phone records
are likely to fight the legislation. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
did not have an immediate reaction to the bill on Tuesday, but has pushed in the past for a controversial provision
to require that phone companies keep subscribers records for a specific amount of time so they can later be

Intelligence
Committee Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said that differences between the Senate
and House versions of the NSA legislation are going to make it very difficult for that
bill to go anywhere.
searched by the government. Leahys bill does not include that requirement. Earlier this week,

(--) Tough negotiating landscape in the Senate for the bill:

Byers 7/17/14( ALEX BYERS | 7/17/14, Hill surveillance reform: Time is not on
its side Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hill-surveillance-reformtime-109015.html#ixzz38xbjk1sT, AED)
The USA Freedom Act, the Hills preeminent measure to curb NSA authority in the
wake of Edward Snowdens leaks, cleared the House and has been waiting to see
movement in the Senate as advocates in and out of Congress try to navigate a
tough negotiating landscape. Privacy advocates and intelligence hawks primarily disagree over how best
to end the governments bulk phone records program. That reality isnt lost on the bills supporters. Senate Judiciary
Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the measures top sponsor in the upper chamber, is considering an attempt to bring
the bill straight to the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on surveillance reforms this
Congress but hasnt yet scheduled a markup.

1ar: Obama Has No PC Now

(--) Extend our Page evidence from July 27th: Obama is a lameduckhe cant get any legislation passedtwo implications:
A) Proves the DA is non-unique and the NSA bill wont pass
now OR
B) Takes out the internal link and proves that political capital
isnt key to the NSA bill.
(--) Obamas presidency is donecrises overseas are
overshadowing his presidency.
USA Today 7/27/14 (USA Today, 7/24/14, Obama's 2nd term travails: A lame
duck before his time?,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/07/27/obamas-secondterm-travails-president-lame-duck/13114305/, GIE)
Obama outlined a scaleddown agenda for his sixth year in office, acknowledging the difficulty of passing
legislation in a gridlocked Congress and vowing to use "the pen and the phone" to get things done.
Now even those circumscribed ambitions have been overshadowed by crises
overseas that are demanding his attention and buffeting his presidency . "He's a lame
In his State of the Union address, delivered precisely six months ago Monday,

duck and it's not even lame-duck time," says Sara Fagen, who knows the territory. As White House political director
during George W. Bush's second term, she saw that administration face growing resistance in Congress and have
to battle for attention as the political world turned to the next presidential election but not, she says, as early as
Obama has had to deal with those complications. White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri
acknowledges it has gotten harder to command the attention of the news media . "A lot of
the press around the first term is focused on what whatever action the president is taking will mean for his or her
ability to have a second term," she said. "That sort of motivation for the press is removed."

(--) Obama is a lame duck

Toth 7/30/2014 (tom toth 7-30-14, Obama's lawlessness will cost Democrats a
landslide defeat in November,
http://www.hngnews.com/sun_prairie_star/opinion/columns/article_f4564bc4-173e11e4-8a91-001a4bcf6878.html, AED)
Of course, this isn't a pure temper tantrum from the Oval Office it is, as is the
case for every word and decision that's flowed from the most powerful office the
world since 2009, a political calculation. During the last several weeks of fundraising
and campaigning, Barack Obama has incessantly referenced Democrats' habitual
failure to vote in midterm elections. This particular decision on immigration is
undoubtedly a desperate, "Hail Mary" attempt from the White House to stake the
political capital of his party in a gamble on hoped-for excitement from the party's
leftist base. It is nothing less than a callous attempt to create a voting bloc that will
turn out en masse for Democrats, allowing the Party to hold the Senate and retake
the House. Yet, history is not on their side. The trend against unpopular, lame duck
incumbent Presidents in midterm election is undeniable. Barack Obama and the
Democrats are desperate, and this move should be expected to come back to bite
them hard.

(--) Obamas PC low due to Russian conflict.

Wood 7/28/2014 (L. Todd Wood, 7/28/14, Our President Cannot Deal
With The Ukrainian Situation, http://www.westernjournalism.com/presidentdeal-ukrainian-situation, L. Todd Wood is a USAFA graduate, a former special
operations helicopter pilot, and emerging market bond trader. He has worked
on Wall Street for 18 years and has conducted business in over 40 countries
and travels extensively, kc)
The Moscow Times, the largest English newspaper in Russia, said recently in an op ed that, Like a teenager
exhibiting aggressive behavior, Russia needs the help of a very patient and high-minded adult. I agree with that

Russia needs to be shown

real red lines or they will continue to take what they want . President Obama is not
equipped to handle this situation. In fact, I think he has no idea how to handle the situation. The Leader
statement with the caveat that a rebellious teenager also needs tough love.

of the Free World is not acting in a manner the office requires him to act; in fact, there is no leadership. That is the
problem. Pat Buchanan wrote recently that every American president since FDR has reached out and engaged the

American leadership led the

world in the fight against the Soviet Union during the Cold War . Reagan led Europe to field
Russian leadership as the consequences of not doing so were too dire.

new classes of nuclear missiles against significant public opinion, to show Moscow that Europe was united in

Obama has been holding

neither. He is not taking the public step to overtly engage Putin to find a way to
solve this crisis that saves face on both sides because that would take leadership
and the willingness to risk political capital. Obama will not do this.
defending itself with Americas help. Reagan held a carrot and a big stick.

(--) Obamas PC is low losing approval

Bloomberg 7/29 (Mark Silva writing for Bloomberg, 07-29-14, Obamas
Approval Slump: Elders and Women Driving it Down,
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-07-29/obamas-approval-slumpelders-women-driving/, AS )
Its not only the support that President Barack Obama is losing that should concern his
party heading into the midterm congressional elections. Its whose support hes
losing. Below the surface of the latest measure of the presidents job approval today, measured
at 4o percent in the Gallup Poll, two blocs of voters in particular have registered the
biggest drop-off during the past month: The elderly and women. Looking at six-day blocks
of polling, with about 3,500 people surveyed, the presidents 41 percent approval during the latest period, through
July 27, was just a notch lower than the 42 percent recorded during the last week of June. Yet it had fallen from 37

When a
Democratic president is losing support among women, his party takes immediate
notice. And, when it comes to midterm elections, that loss of support for the
president is registering among those most likely to vote . In the 2010 elections, 45.5 percent of
percent to 32 percent among those 65 and older, and from 47 percent to 43 percent among women.

Americans eligible to vote did so, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, as weve noted before. The youngest, those
18 to 24, turned out the least, at 21.3 percent. The oldest turned out the most, with 62.1 percent of those aged 65

The president continually

mentions the congenital disease that Democrats demonstrate during midterm
elections a persistent drop-off in voter turnout . Yet, 100 days out from the midterm
elections, the recent souring of older voters and women on the presidents job
performance could become more of an environmental factor . As the Washington Post notes
to 74 voting. Only the youngest voted Democratic, exit polls showed.

today, midterm election polling going back to 1946 shows few presidents have seen their fortunes improve by any
significant measure between July and November. The Cook Political Reports Jennifer Duffy wrote this week:
Primary season is largely completed, the August congressional recess starts next week, and the general election is
a mere 102 days away. As such, this is as good a time as any to assess where the battle for the Senate stands. Just
how close are Republicans to picking up the six seats they need to win the majority? The short answer is pretty

Republicans still have more advantages going into the fall , especially when
it comes to the Senate race map, national environment, and President Obamas
unpopularity. All these factors mean that Republicans will certainly gain seats. It is not yet clear that they will
close Overall,

gain the six seats they need for a majority.\

(--) Obama is losing support near Mid-term

Bloomberg, July 29 (MARK SILVA , July 29 14, Obamas Approval Slump:
Elders and Women Driving it Down, http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/201407-29/obamas-approval-slump-elders-women-driving/, Access Date 7-30-14, SM )
Its not only the support that President Barack Obama is losing that should concern
his party heading into the midterm congressional elections. Its whose support hes
losing. Below the surface of the latest measure of the presidents job approval today, measured at 4o percent in
the Gallup Poll, two blocs of voters in particular have registered the biggest drop-off during the past month: The

the presidents
41 percent approval during the latest period, through July 27, was just a notch lower
than the 42 percent recorded during the last week of June. Yet it had fallen from 37
percent to 32 percent among those 65 and older, and from 47 percent to 43 percent
among women. When a Democratic president is losing support among women, his party takes immediate
elderly and women. Looking at six-day blocks of polling, with about 3,500 people surveyed,

notice. And, when it comes to midterm elections, that loss of support for the president is registering among those

In the 2010 elections, 45.5 percent of Americans eligible to vote did

so, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, as weve noted before. The youngest,
those 18 to 24, turned out the least, at 21.3 percent. The oldest turned out the
most, with 62.1 percent of those aged 65 to 74 voting. Only the youngest voted
Democratic, exit polls showed. The president continually mentions the congenital disease that
most likely to vote.

Democrats demonstrate during midterm elections a persistent drop-off in voter turnout. Yet, 100 days out from
the midterm elections, the recent souring of older voters and women on the presidents job performance could
become more of an environmental factor. As the Washington Post notes today, midterm election polling going back
to 1946 shows few presidents have seen their fortunes improve by any significant measure between July and
November.

Obama has no political capital - lost respect to both Democrats

and Republicans.
Delamaide 7-17 (Darrell Delamaide, 7-17-14, Right and left finally agree:
Obama has checked out, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/right-and-left-finallyagree-obama-has-checked-out-2014-07-16, smt)
Its one thing if hardened critics like Fox New s anchor Megyn Kelly ask whether the Obama
presidency is imploding, as she did last month , citing a string of foreign policy debacles and domestic scandals.

Or if Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers says Obama seems to have taken something like an early
retirement, as he did in his Washington Post blog earlier this month, finding that the presidents recent speeches

has checked out. It is another, however, if the chief U.S.

commentator for the Financial Times, Edward Luce, takes Obama to task, as he did this week, in an
op-ed titled Farewell to trust: Obamas Germany syndrome. Luce takes the flap over the CIA spying
on an ally like Germany as symptomatic of an administration that has lost the trust
of the public both at home and abroad. The British journalist notes that Obama dismisses such
reveal a state of mind that suggests he

charges as cynical, but Luce rejects that label for himself and other critics in the press. Most reporters are better
described as skeptical, Luce says. A cynic believes there is nothing new under the sun. A skeptic resists gullibility.
On the basis of the latter, Mr. Obama does not appear to relish being chief executive. Kelly dismissively refers to
Obamas response to crisis as smiling, golfing and at this very moment partying, but Luce, too, notes that Obama
has played golf 179 times while in office, much more than avowed golf lover George W. Bush, and headlined 393
fundraisers, more than double his predecessors total. If

Mr. Obama put half as much effort into

co-opting or wrong-footing his opponents as he does raising cash from the wealthy,
people might be less skeptical, Luce writes. Veteran journalist Patrick Smith, who has written for liberal
publications like The Nation and the New Yorker, also takes Obama to task for the German spy scandal and the
insufficient response by American officials. I can think of two names for this, Smith wrote this week in Fiscal
Times. One

is outmoded arrogance. The other is asleep at the wheel. Whatever the

moniker, some measure of incompetence lies behind it. When MSNBC anchor Mika
Brzezinski interviewed Obama last month on the subject of Iraq, network commentator Donny
Deutsch, an avowed Democrat, said, Ive never seen a less-engaged look in his
eyes. Deutsch added: He almost seemed I dont want to say checked-out because that is not the right thing
but watching him, his cadence was different. He feels like he almost wants to go home at this point. Another
commentator on that program, Mark Halperin, said that Obamas answers on the Syrian situation were nuanced and
accurate, but people expect more from a president than great analysis of problems.\

(--) Obamas PC low now.

Delamaide July 7, 2014 [Delamaide, Arrell. "Obama Dilemma: More Jobs,
Less War, Low Polls." WAPT. Marketwatch, 07 July 2014. Web. 30 July 2014.
<http://www.wapt.com/politics/obama-dilemma-more-jobs-less-war-lowpolls/26786320#!bqUaIx>. j.L.] J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L. J. L. J.L. J.L. J.L.
WASHINGTON (CNN) Which one of these doesn't fit? More jobs, a record stock market, wars ending and dismal poll
numbers. Ukraine: Rebels plant mines near... 8min Bergdahl to be questioned soon about... 12min WH mulls steps
on immigration it can... Surprise Senate highway vote near... More VA employees told to falsify data House GOP
leaders unveil smaller... All apply to Barack Obama's presidency as it passes the 2,000-day mark, raising questions

A strengthening economy
and robust stock market traditionally mean general public satisfaction with
government. Bringing soldiers home from war zones has always boosted
presidential popularity. Not this time with this President. A CNN compilation of recent national
polls indicates only 41 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the job ,
down 6 percentage points from a year ago and matching the low of the past 12 months. Why the
disconnect? A convergence of factors -- uneven economic growth, government
crises both real and exaggerated, foreign policy problems, hyper-partisan
Washington politics now on election-year steroid s -- helps explain it. Here's a closer look at some
about the viability of what used to be known as conventional political wisdom.

of the issues involved: 1) Jobs, but not for everyone Another strong jobs report Thursday added to growing evidence
that U.S. economy has hit its full stride after the recession Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009. A
White House statement noted the 288,000 jobs created in June contributed to the strongest start to a year since
1999 and the best six-month period overall since 2006. The unemployment rate dropped to 6.1 percent, well below
the almost 10 percent level in the immediate aftermath of the recession as well as the more than 7 percent level
when Obama's presidency began. In addition, the job growth last month spread across the economy instead of
coming mostly from low-paying sectors such as food and drink, as occurred previously. Obama touted the positive
report Thursday but added that "there are still folks out there who are struggling." "My hope is that the American
people look at today's news and understand that, in fact, we are making strides," he said. 2) Who benefits from a
strong stock market? The jobs report that exceeded expectations of analysts sent the stock market to record

Obama stands to benefit less

from a healthy stock market than a Republican president from the party more
traditionally tied to the banking-investment sector. 3) Wars ending, sort of Obama campaigned
heights, with the Dow crossing 17,000 for the first time. As a Democrat,

twice on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wars started by his predecessor, and he is on track to fulfill that
promise. He withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, and almost all American forces will be out of Afghanistan by the

However, the lightning advance by Sunni

militants through northern Iraq threatens renewed civil war and partition, raising
fears of a jihadist-controlled safe haven for terrorists threatening U.S. interests. That
end of 2016 -- and his presidency -- under his plan.

is the exact scenario the wars were supposed to end, and critics have accused Obama of allowing previous gains
made in Iraq to be erased by keeping his promise to get American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama
administration blames Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his country's collapse, saying the Shiite leader rejected
an agreement to keep a small contingent of U.S. forces in the country and marginalized Sunni and Kurd populations

in Iraq. Now Obama is sending a small contingent of U.S. forces back to Iraq to bolster security and advise Iraqi
forces. Another problem involves chronic delays faced by returning war veterans seeking health care from the
Veterans Affairs Department. The crisis already has brought the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, various
investigations and a White House report that essentially said the entire department needed an overhaul. 4)
Governing woes The VA crisis follows other problems in the Obama administration such as the dysfunctional website
for health care reform, IRS political targeting of groups seeking tax-exempt status and questions from congressional
Republicans over the handling of the 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. As
expected, Republicans have mounted a series of investigations, some necessary and others intended to wring as
much political capital out of the controversies as possible heading up to the November elections and beyond. They
also adopted obstructionist tactics after getting overrun by Democratic majorities in Obama's first term on
transformative, key issues such as health care and Wall Street reforms. After the Republicans gained control of the
U.S. House in 2010, the result was a gridlocked Congress and a President who appears to have thrown up his hands
in disgust, making promises to act on his own as much as he can. "We can make even more progress if Congress is
willing to work with my administration and to set politics aside, at least occasionally," Obama said of Thursday's job
report. House Speaker John Boehner replied that "there's no shortage of common ground where he can push his
party's leaders in the Senate to work with us," he said in a swipe at Senate Democrats. "Until he provides that
leadership, he is simply part of the problem." Polls show the public dislikes Congress more than him, with the CNN
compilation of recent surveys showing 14 percent approval for the legislators. By identifying Republicans
obstructionism and declaring his intent to govern by regulation instead of legislation, Obama turns off voters who
want to see the President engaged and trying, said Wendy Schiller, a political scientist at Brown University. "He sort
of looks like a kid on the playground who's hiding, saying, 'Forget it, I'm not playing with you guys anymore,'"
Schiller told CNN, adding that "even though it can be explained, the concept of a president giving up doesn't sit well
with people." Schiller noted that under the circumstances, Obama's tactic to work around recalcitrant congressional
Republicans is sound. "The truth is the executive branch structure is enormously powerful," she said. "The less
Congress does, the more power the executive gets." 5) "Nattering nabobs of negativism" Speechwriter William
Safire came up with that phrase for former Vice President Spiro Agnew to complain about a liberal-leaning

Now Obama faces the resulting backlash -- a

vitriolic right-wing media machine that feeds and enhances Republican attack
politics. From talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh to Fox News to the rest of an industry spawned in the past two-plus
decades, the conservative messaging reflects the deep ideological divide in the country. Obama has
provided fodder to his detractors, getting cited for "Lie of the Year" in 2013 by
PolitiFact.com for his oft-repeated, erroneous declaration that his health care
reforms meant "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." Schiller credited the
mainstream media during the Nixon administration.

political right with "persuading people who do benefit from the federal government that they don't" as part of the
conservative effort to shrink the government's size and cost. "Democrats have failed miserably to counter that,"
she said. Now, 45 percent of the public automatically opposes Obama, America's first African-American president,
"no matter what," she said, "whether racism or ideology or both." Read more: http://www.wapt.com/politics/obamadilemma-more-jobs-less-war-low-polls/26786320#ixzz38xjFzdHM

(--) Obama PC low now

BRETT LOGIURATO 13 (May 1st, 2013, Any Political Capital That Obama Had Is
Now Gone, http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-obama-approval-rating-gunseconomy-immigration-2013-5#ixzz38yE6DzTY, EHS/MKS)
President Barack Obama's approval rating on three key issues is distinctly underwater,
according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University released Wednesday. The poll found that at least 10 percent
more respondents disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the economy, gun policy, and immigration
issues: On the economy,

53 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance, while only 41

percent approve. Two weeks after the Senate failed to pass a measure that would have expanded background
checks, Obama's approval rating on "gun policy" is also 41 percent. Meanwhile, 52 percent disapprove. And as the
immigration debate continues to flare on Capitol Hill,

only 40 percent approve of Obama's handling

of the issue. Fifty percent disapprove.

Together, the three issues are perhaps the ones that will
dominate Washington on a domestic scale for the foreseeable future. The poll also found that on two of the issues
the economy and guns respondents said they trusted Congressional Republicans to handle the issue more
than Congressional Democrats. On immigration, Democrats narrowly hold a 39-38 edge. In a press conference
Tuesday,

Obama tried to downplay any notion that he had lost any "juice" in getting
his legislative agenda through Congress. "If you put it that way maybe I should just pack up and

go home! Golly," he told a reporter. "As Mark Twain said, rumors of my demise might be a bit exaggerated at this
point."

1ar: Extensions Obama Immigration

(--) Extend our Henderson evidenceObama is about to take
unilateral action on immigrationtwo implications
A) It non-uniques the disadit will create a problem for Obama
and de-rail the NSA reforms OR
B) It proves the link is falseif this issue doesnt spill over
theres no reason the plan will.
(--) Obama executive order on immigration will cause instant
fireworks:
Paul Steinhauser, 7/29/2014 (staff writer, An Obama executive action
on immigration could impact midterms,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/29/obamas-big-move-onimmigration-could-impact-midterms/; Accessed 7/31/2014, rwg)
A large scale move by the White House on immigration could cause instant
fireworks. Conservatives would yell "amnesty" - their interpretation of a pathway to
citizenship for those who entered the country illegally - and the roster of
Republicans calling for Obama to be impeached would surely increase.

Politics Iran Answers (2ac)

Iran Politics Answers

(--) No link: the plan is a tiny issue compared to Benghazi,
Ukraine, and Israel.
(--) Non-unique: The Energy Department just gave $150
million to fund offshore wind in Massachusetts
Bastasch 7/1/14 (Michael Bastasch, writer for the Daily Caller, 7/1/14, Feds Give Cape Wind
Project $150 Million Loan Guarantee, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/feds-give-capewind-project-150-million-loan-guarantee/#ixzz388kDOpx5, mgsk-sd)

The Energy Department has given a conditional $150 million loan to the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts in a move to fund the first offshore wind farm in the United
States. Cape Wind will receive the $150 million loan after it secures $2.6 billion in financing, according to the
Energy Department. Once it has secured the balance of the funding, it will get taxpayer dollars to help
construct 130 wind turbines that will have a capacity of 360 megawatts of power . If
built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern
Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant U.S. offshore wind industry , said Peter Davidson, executive
director of the DOEs loan program in a statement. The lessons that could be learned from this project can help
catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind resources. Massachusetts
Democrats hailed the loan as a boom to the state and a step in the right direction in fighting global warming.
Offshore

wind will not only provide a new, clean source of energy for the United States, it
will reduce American reliance on fossil fuel, mitigate climate change and jump start
a new U.S. industry that will create thousands of clean energy jobs , said
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. This funding will help Massachusetts make energy history and continue
our leadership as a clean energy jobs hub for the entire nation, said Sen. Ed Markey.

(--) Non-intrinsic: rational policy maker could do the plan and

pass NSA reform.
(--) Turn: Offshore wind power has support from both sides of
the political aisle:
Ben Deninger (associate in the law firm Cole, Scott & Kissane) 20 14
(Texas Environmental Law Journal, May 2014, Lexis/Nexis, Accessed
7/22/2014, rwg)
The idea of an offshore wind farm seems like a perfect way to comply with the Massachusetts RPS;
however, nearly 12 years after the projects' initial phases, no turbines have been erected. n20 Despite wide
ranging support from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, as well as
expressions of political support from both sides of the aisle , the project has flowed
through various regulatory bodies and lawsuits incredibly slowly. Perhaps some of this is to be expected for the first
offshore wind farm in America, but according to Jim Gordon of EMI "most projects and most developers that would
get involved in a process like that would probably throw up their arms and walk away." n21 The project occupies
about 25 square miles with turbines 258 feet tall and blades reaching 440 feet at the peak of their rotation, with a
projected average capacity of 30%-40% of their maximum capacity of 468 MW. n22

(--) Fiat solves the linkCongress wont backlash against

something they passed.
Reid will block Iran sanctions in the senate
Washington Post 7/22/14 (Washington Post, 7-22-14, Trying to stop an Iran
giveaway, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/22/tryingto-stop-an-iran-giveaway/, GIE)
There have been multiple expressions over the last year or so by huge bipartisan majorities in the House and
Senate on the contours of an acceptable deal: The vast majority of Irans centrifuges and the Arak and Fordow
facilities must be disabled, and Iran must come clean on its past activities and must allow unfettered inspections.
President Obama will be hard pressed to sell any deal that falls short of this to Congress in order to lessen

Reid (D-Nev.) is allowing no votes on

sanctions, but he is powerless to prevent most of his members from withholding support for a bad deal. On
sanctions, especially if the Senate flips to GOP control. Sen. Harry

Friday at a conference on the Iran deal put on by the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
argued, Were in a weaker bargaining position than we should be. Instead of dealing with an Iran on the ropes
about to fall apart economically after over a dozen years of the toughest possible sanctions, we have an Iran that
has a two percent economic growth rate. . Here in America we call that a recovery. He reiterated the terms of
an acceptable deal: A final deal has got to say that Iran must [be] years away from breakout, years between when
we know theyre violating the agreement to when they have a first bomb. The ranking member on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), said much the same thing: In my view, and I think I speak for a
lot of other members of Congress on this scene, if we ease sanctions without having a good deal in hand, were
giving away the farm. And, if the Iranians want to get this weight off their backs, they need to earn it. I agree with
Secretary Kerry when he says that no deal is better than a bad deal. The question is we need to define what a bad
deal is and what a good deal is. Like many of you, I have trouble stomaching that the worlds leading sponsor of
terrorism would have any kind of enrichment capability. And thats why strong provisions are needed to ensure Iran
is living up to its word. Any sort of agreement would be contingent on inspections, transparency, and verifications
measures and how long theyll last. In essence, Obama has made things harder for himself by refusing to allow
the imposition of sanctions. Without that additional leverage, the chances of accomplishing an acceptable deal are
virtually nil, and hes going to find it near impossible to get Congress to buy into a rotten deal. Obama therefore
faces a united and recalcitrant Congress and a new deadline he likely cannot meet. Iran will have no reason to make
any more concessions; Congress, especially after the midterms, will have no excuse to refrain from imposing
additional sanctions. As Sherman explained, first, we expose Irans militarization and we rally world support.
Second, we pass triggered sanctions. Frankly, Kerry can keep talking in Vienna until the cows come home (and
Congress is powerless to stop him), but it will be under new circumstances, biting sanctions and, if we are fortunate,
other measures that will signal unity among allies. If Iran walks from the table, it will have failed to accomplish its

it is important to
understand what Congress can and cannot do with a Senate majority under Reids
thumb and Obama in the White House. Congress can and is laying a measuring stick to assess a final
key objective rollback of all the sanctions. As was the case in the government shutdown,

deal that it hopes will preclude a giveaway. Congress can and should conduct exacting oversight hearings and put
the administration negotiators feet to the fire. Why trust that we are narrowing the gaps when Iran still is declaring
it will increase not dismantle centrifuges? How can we possibly conduct effective inspections if Iran doesnt come

so long as Reid is in charge in the Senate theyll be no

sanctions vote unless the White House relents, and so long as Obama is in the
White House, Iran will remain convinced he has no red line except the avoidance of
confrontation. Elections do have consequences, and there will be far-reaching ones based on the outcome of
clean on its past activities? But candidly,

the midterms and the 2016 presidential election.

(--) Obama will veto the bill

Gibson 7/31/2014 (Bryan R Gibson 7-31-14,
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/battle-lines-drawn-washingtonover-iran-talks-2092722224#sthash.GouVwG8H.dpuf, PhD in International
History at the London School of Economics and author of Covert Relationship:
American Foreign Policy, Intelligence and the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988, SSN)

Within the US, divisions are split into two competing camps. On the one side, there
are those within Congress and the pro-Israel community, who are steadfast in their
opposition to any deal with Iran. Since the election of Irans moderate president,
Hassan Rouhani, this group has been pressing the Obama administration to impose
additional sanctions against Iran, or a least indicate a more robust military threat either real or imagined - from the United States or Israel. This camp believes that a
genuine military threat will give the American negotiating team enough leverage to
force Iran into making the concessions necessary to secure a deal. However, on the
other side, realists in the Obama administration and at the State Department
believe the exact opposite. Their fear is that any unilateral action taken by Congress
could scuttle the talks altogether and leave the US empty handed. Indeed, as
President Obama made perfectly clear in his State of the Union Address last January:
if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill that threatens to derail these
talks, I will veto it. For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a
chance to succeed.

(--) Israel wont attack Iranfive reasons:

Zachary Keck (associate editor of The Diplomat), 11/28/2013 (Five
Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/five-reasons-israel-wont-attack-iran9469, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
Although the interim deal does further reduce Israels propensity to attack, the truth is that the likelihood of an

There are at least five

reasons why Israel isnt likely to attack Iran. 1. You Snooze, You Lose First, if Israel was
going to strike Irans nuclear facilities, it would have done so a long time ago. Since
Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities has always been greatly exaggerated.

getting caught off-guard at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel has generally acted proactively to
thwart security threats. On no issue has this been truer than with nuclear-weapon programs. For example, Israel
bombed Saddam Husseins program when it consisted of just a single nuclear reactor. According to ABC News, Israel
struck Syrias lone nuclear reactor just months after discovering it. The IAEA had been completely in the dark about
the reactor, and took years to confirm the building was in fact housing one. Contrast this with Israels policy toward
Irans nuclear program. The uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy-water reactor at Arak first became
public knowledge in 2002. For more than a decade now, Tel Aviv has watched as the program has expanded into
two fully operational nuclear facilities, a budding nuclear-research reactor, and countless other well-protected and
-dispersed sites. Furthermore, Americas extreme reluctance to initiate strikes on Iran was made clear to Israel at
least as far back as 2008. It would be completely at odds with how Israel operates for it to standby until the last
minute when faced with what it views as an existential threat. 2. Bombing Iran Makes an Iranian Bomb More Likely

an Israeli air strike against Irans nuclear

facilities would only increase the likelihood that Iran would build the bomb . At home,
Much like a U.S. strike, only with much less tactical impact,

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could use the attack to justify rescinding his fatwa against possessing a nuclearweapons program, while using the greater domestic support for the regime and the nuclear program to mobilize
greater resources for the countrys nuclear efforts. Israels attack would also give the Iranian regime a legitimate (in
much of the worlds eyes) reason to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and kick out
international inspectors. If Tehrans membership didnt even prevent it from being attacked, how could it justify
staying in the regime? Finally, support for international sanctions will crumble in the aftermath of an Israeli attack,

an
Israeli strike on Irans nuclear program would be a net gain for Iran and a huge loss
for Tel Aviv. Iran could use the strike to regain its popularity with the Arab street and increase the pressure
giving Iran more resources with which to rebuild its nuclear facilities. 3. Helps Iran, Hurts Israel Relatedly,

against Arab rulers. As noted above, it would also lead to international sanctions collapsing, and an outpouring of
sympathy for Iran in many countries around the world. Meanwhile, a strike on Irans nuclear facilities would leave
Israel in a far worse-off position. Were Iran to respond by attacking U.S. regional assets, this could greatly hurt
Israels ties with the United States at both the elite and mass levels. Indeed, a war-weary American public is
adamantly opposed to its own leaders dragging it into another conflict in the Middle East. Americans would be even
more hostile to an ally taking actions that they fully understood would put the U.S. in danger. Furthermore, the quiet

but growing cooperation Israel is enjoying with Sunni Arab nations against Iran would evaporate overnight. Even
though many of the political elites in these countries would secretly support Israels action, their explosive domestic
situations would force them to distance themselves from Tel Aviv for an extended period of time. Israels reputation
would also take a further blow in Europe and Asia, neither of which would soon forgive Tel Aviv. 4. Israels Veto

Although Netanyahu may be ready to attack Irans nuclear facilities, he

operates within a democracy with a strong elite structure, particularly in the field of national
security. It seems unlikely that he would have enough elite support for him to seriously
consider such a daring and risky operation. For one thing, Israel has strong institutional checks on
Players

using military force. As then vice prime minister and current defense minister Moshe Yaalon explained last year: In
the State of Israel, any process of a military operation, and any military move, undergoes the approval of the
security cabinet and in certain cases, the full cabinet the decision is not made by two people, nor three, nor
eight. Its far from clear Netanyahu, a fairly divisive figure in Israeli politics, could gain this support. In fact,
Menachem Begin struggled to gain sufficient support for the 1981 attack on Iraq even though Baghdad presented a
more clear and present danger to Israel than Iran does today. What is clearer is that Netanyahu lacks the support of
much of Israels highly respected national security establishment. Many former top intelligence and military officials
have spoken out publicly against Netanyahus hardline Iran policy, with at least one of them questioning whether
Iran is actually seeking a nuclear weapon. Another former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces told The
Independent that, It is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] leadership do not support
military action at this point. In the past the advice of the head of the IDF and the head of Mossad had led to

Finally, Israel wont attack Iran

because it is ultimately in its interests for the US and Iran to reach an agreement ,
even if it is a less than an ideal one. To begin with, an agreement is the only way to prevent Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons short of an invasion and occupation of the country. Moreover, Israel
military action being stopped. 5. A Deal is Better Than No Deal

would benefit both directly and indirectly from a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal and especially larger rapprochement.
Israel would gain a number of direct benefits from a larger warming of U.S.-Iranian relations, which a nuclear deal
could help facilitate. Iran currently pays no costs while benefiting significantly from its anti-Israeli tirades and
actions. A rapprochement with the U.S. would force Iranian leaders to constrain their anti-Israeli rhetoric and
actions, or risk losing their new partner. While Israel and Iran might not enjoy the same relationship they did under
the Shah or the first decade of the Islamic Republic, a U.S.-allied Iran would be much less of a burden for Israel.
History is quite clear on this point: U.S. Middle Eastern alliesnotable Egypt under Sadathave been much less
hostile to the Jewish state than countries that have been U.S. adversaries.

(--) No efforts to derail the Iran talks will get through the
Senate:
Bob Dreyfuss, 7/28/2014 (staff writer, Did Hillary Clinton Just Join the
Neocons on Iran Policy? http://www.thenation.com/blog/180793/did-hillaryclinton-just-join-neocons-iran-policy#, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
Clintons unfortunate decision to associate herself with the no-enrichment idea is likely pure politics, designed to
insulate herself from criticism from Republican and neoconservative hawks in preparation for her presidential bid.

barring
an unexpected reversal Iran and the United States may have reached a parallel accord
Needless to say, by the time shes inaugurated in 2017, the Iran-P5+1 talks will be long concluded, and

to re-establish diplomatic relations and reopen embassies in Washington and Tehran. And the onerous sanctions on
Iran will be in the process of gradually being phased out in concert with Irans implementation of whatever final
accord is struck. However, by parroting the hawks and, as Zakaria notes, Israels view, Clinton will only strengthen

On Capitol
Hill, various members of Congress are competing with each other to design monkey
wrenches to throw into the machinery of the talks. None are likely to be
successful. None of these measures is likely to get though the Senate, and were
one to do so, President Obama will certainly veto it. But thats not stopping the hawks,
the clamor in Congress and elsewhere in opposition to the Obama administrations deal-making.

including several Democrats, from posturing. As reported by Al Monitor, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) is one of several
senators demanding that Congress get the right to approve (read: vote down) a final agreement, while Senator
Mark Kirk (R-IL) is backing legislation that would make it difficult or impossible for the United States to relax its
sanctions regime as part of a deal. And Mr. Shutdown, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), has a bill requiring immediate reimplementation of sanctions, additional enforcement mechanisms, and an end to the failed negotiations.

(--) New sanctions wont cause waronly increases leverage:

Jim Lobe, 12/27/2013 (staff writer, Iran sanctions bill: Big test of
Israel lobby power,
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?
mod=article&cat=World&article=8046, Accessed 1/22/2014, rwg)
But none of that has deterred key Israel lobby institutions. Far

from being a step which will

make war more likely, as some claim, enhanced sanctions together with
negotiations will sustain the utmost pressure on a regime that poses a threat to
America and our closest allies in the Middle East, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
argued Thursday.

(--) Iran cant produce a nuclear weapon now:

Bryan R Gibson, 7/31/2014 (PhD in International History at the London
School of Economics, Battle lines drawn in Washington over Iran talks,
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/battle-lines-drawn-washington-overiran-talks-2092722224, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
the JPA has temporarily blocked each of the paths that Iran would
need to go down to build a nuclear weapon . Noting that the JPAs critics had openly doubted
whether Iran would keep its commitments, Sherman countered that, according to the IAEA, Iran has
done what it has promised to do during these past six months, including oxidizing
much of its uranium stockpile, which rendered it no longer capable of producing a
nuclear weapon. The result, Sherman argued, is a nuclear program that is more
constrained, more transparent, and better understood than it was a year ago , a
She argued that

program that has been frozen for the first time in almost a decade.

(--) No US-Iran war:

David Rohde, 9/19/2013 (staff writer, Iran's offer is genuine and
fleeting, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-irans-offeridUSBRE98I18B20130919, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)
Skepticism is understandable. But given Iranian hardliners' track record of using
lethal force to crush uprisings, there is little chance of Khamenei and his
Revolutionary Guard backers being toppled. And given the American public's
sweeping opposition to U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, there is little
chance of a major American military action against Iran.

(--) Obama not exerting political capital on Iran now:

Jennifer Rubin, (staff writer), 7/18/2014 (What now on Iran?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/18/what-nowon-iran/, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
The task force also recommends closer coordination with allies to credibly signal that any final deal must also
reflect their concerns and interests, and to articulate alternatives should diplomacy fail. . . . The United States

to
prevent a nuclear Iran. Im not optimistic that the White House will embrace any of these items or let
should also develop an understanding with its partners on the conditions that could prompt them to use force

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hold a vote on any of them. But Congress should try, and it should
demand that the administration justify its no leverage approach. If Hillary Clinton is serious about separating

herself from the dreadful policies of her ex-boss, she should do the same; if not, we know that shes just as
misguided as President Obama. Then there are the midterms, when a new GOP Senate majority could tip the scales

the success of the talks is a matter of

presidential will and credibility. Since we have a dearth of both, there is reason
to worry and for Israel to prepare its own military option after it finishes with Irans surrogates in Gaza.
in favor of congressional action. Ultimately, however,

(--) Positive inducements wont prevent Iran from going

nuclear:
Zachary Keck, 7/20/2014 (staff writer, Can Iran Be Deterred from Going
Nuclear? http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-iran-be-deterred-goingnuclear-10916, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
Positive inducements would be unlikely to deter Iran from building nuclear weapons
for similar reasons. First, the United States would only offer limited positive inducements for
Iran remaining nonnuclear. Second, many important factions in the Iranian regime
would actually oppose Iran rejoining the international community and especially a rapprochement
with the United States. This position would not be limited to the IRGC; many hardline clerics fear that a
rapprochement with America would leave Iran vulnerable to U.S. culture exports. This would not only undercut their

Third, an important faction

inside Iran argues that a confrontational foreign policy best advances the countrys
interest. According to this camp, by taking a hardline and assertive stance, Iran raises the costs of Israeli, Arab
own influence but also leave Iran at risk to a so-called color revolution.

and American efforts to isolate it. Eventually, these costs will become so high that these countries will be forced to
engage Iran from positions of weaknesses.

(--) Even if Iran develops a bombthey can be successful

deterred:
Jim Lobe, 5/14/2013 (staff writer, Nuclear Iran Can Be Contained and
Deterred: Report, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/05/nuclear-iran-can-becontained-and-deterred-report/, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
the
United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran, according to a new report released
WASHINGTON, May 14 2013 (IPS) - While preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is preferable,

here Monday by the Center for a New American Security, an influential think tank close to the administration of

The report, If All Else Fails: The Challenges of Containing a Nuclear-Armed Iran,
outlines a detailed containment strategy designed to deter Tehrans use of a
nuclear bomb or its transfer to non-state actors, and persuade other regional
states not to develop their own nuclear arms capabilities .
President Barack Obama.

1ar: Reid will block the sanctions

(--) Extend our Washington Post evidenceReid wont allow
the bill on additional sanctions to come to the flooreven if
they win more support for the billReid will just block it.
(--) Reid will block sanctions
Hogan Lovells 14 (Jeanne s. Archibald writing for Hogan Lovells, a large
multinational law firm, 07-22-14, Extension of Iran sanctions update,
The extension of the negotiations is likely to precipitate a renewed debate within the
U.S. Congress whether or not to enact additional sanctions legislation while the talks are
continuing. Critics of the Obama administration will argue that legislation imposing additional sanctions or at least
threatening to impose additional sanctions if the talks fail will give the administration additional leverage in this
new round of talks. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), an active proponent of tougher sanctions against Iran, issued a statement
in the wake of the extension announcement calling for passage of tougher sanctions legislation he and Sen. Robert

Reid (D-NV), a supporter of the

administrations efforts, worked during the first six-month JPOA period to block any
such legislative efforts in the Senate. He is likely to play the same role during
this extension. However, renewed criticism of the administration and the possibility for landscape-changing
Menendez (D-NJ) have sponsored. Senate Majority Leader Harry

developments make this situation potentially volatile. Therefore, the congressional dimension of this debate bears
watching.

(--) Reid wont allow a vote on Iran sanctions.

Rubin 7/30 (Jennifer Rubin, writer for the Washington Post, 7-30-14, Harry Reid, the bane
of Senate Dems, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/30/harry-reid-thebane-of-senate-dems/, smt)
Senate Democrats act is wearing thin. Oh, wed like to fix Obamacare but Harry Reid wont
let us vote. Oh, wed like to vote for the Keystone XL pipeline, but Harry Reid wont let us. Oh,
we really support Iran sanctions, but Harry Reid wont let us vote. Oh, we think Obama acting
unilaterally on immigration would be a mistake, but Harry Reid would never let us vote to
countermand it.

Reid wont allow vote on Iran sanctions

JPUpdates, 7-8 (Jacob Kornbluh, 7-8-14, Cruz: Harry Reid Blocking
Stand with Israel Act of 2014 Bill, http://jpupdates.com/2014/07/08/cruzharry-reid-blocking-stand-israel-act-2014-bill/, Access date 8-4-14, SM)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the one blocking the Senate to pass a bill that would halt US financial aid to
the Palestinian Authority until her elements in its unity government recognizes Israel and abides by recents
agreements, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) charged on Monday. Just today, Hamas launched 80 rockets into Israel
designed to murder innocent civilians.. And in my view, the U.S should not send a single penny to any unity
government that has Hamas as a part of it, Cruz said during an interview with Conservative radio host Mark Levin.
Cruz argued that the bill named Stand with Israel Act of 2014, proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), would
receive the support of a majority of Senators if we had a vote on it. Which is precisely why Harry Reid, in all

Harry Reid will not allow a vote on Iran sanctions

Because he doesnt want to oppose the Obama administration, and the Obama
administration is unwilling to stand up to Islamic terrorists effectively . The bill was last
likelihood, would prevent a vote, he said.

stopped from being brought forward on Monday by Republican Senator Bob Corker. For the second time, Sen. Rand
Paul tried to get unanimous consent Monday to pass S. 2265, the Stand with Israel Act. Paul said he renewed his call
for the legislation in part because of the killing of three Israeli teenagers. The only thing thats consistent about
foreign aid is that it continues to flow, he said on the Senate floor. I dont believe that foreign aid should go to

countries that host terrorists within their government. However, Sen. Corker said Pauls legislation deserved the
consideration of the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is an issue I really believe the committee itself
should deal with first, Corker said.

(--) Reid Siding with Obama about Iran Sanctions

EVERETT congressional reporter 2/26/14 (Burgess, 2-26-14,
Harry Reid blocks GOP on Iran sanctions,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/harry-reid-senate-republicans-iransanctions-104017.html, ekr)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blocking a vote on Iran sanctions demanded by
Senate Republicans. The GOP rolled fresh economic penalties on Iran into their alternative to Democrats
veterans benefits bill, pressing for Congress to weigh in on diplomatic talks between global powers and Iran on

Reid moved to cut off debate on

the bill and block consideration of amendments to the legislation, dimming any
chance of an immediate vote on Iran sanctions. Senate Democrats have largely
backed away from calling for an immediate vote on imposing Iran sanctions if the
country breaks off ongoing negotiations or doesnt adhere to a current, interim
agreement. But Republicans have continued to press for a vote on sanctions legislation written by Sens. Robert
scaling back the countrys nuclear program. On Wednesday evening,

Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), proposing it be voted on as an amendment to a 2013 defense bill, as a
condition for voting on military sexual assault legislation and as an amendment to the veterans bill. There is no
excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security, to the security of
Israel our closest ally in the Middle East and to international stability, said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) on Wednesday morning. This is that rare issue that should unite the two parties in common purpose. And
theres no question that it would, if the majority leader would simply drop his reflexive deference to a president

But Reid has sided with

President Barack Obama on Iran, heeding the presidents warning that any vote on
Iran sanctions even conditional ones as suggested by McConnell would shatter
delicate diplomatic talks. The Democratic leader blamed Republicans for using
sanctions as cover for their opposition to the veterans bill and for turning Iran into a
partisan issue. The first amendment the Republicans demand is an unrelated issue on Iran, Reid said on
whose foreign policy is focused on withdrawing from our overseas commitments.

Wednesday morning. Republicans say they want to help veterans; a strange way of showing it. We introduced a bill
that would do just that, Republicans immediately inject partisan politics into the mix.

(--) Sanctions wont pass

McAuliff 2-26-14(Michael, Top Foreign Relations Republican Predicts Iran
Sanctions Won't Get A Vote, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/bob-corkeriran-sanctions_n_4861429.html, ekr)

WASHINGTON -- The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is

admitting that the GOP push to attach Iran sanctions to a veterans benefits bill will
not succeed. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard Burr
(R-N.C.) are leading the effort to pass new Iran sanctions, even though the White
House has warned that such a move could make war more likely. The Obama
administration has little to worry about, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) suggested
Wednesday. "It doesn't look to me like we're going to get a vote," Corker told
several reporters on Capitol Hill. Many Democrats have signaled support for new
sanctions, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) backed away from taking
a vote, deferring to White House concerns that it could harm ongoing nuclear
negotiations with Iran. Reid has criticized the Republican attempt to force a vote on

sanctions as politicizing the issue. Besides the veterans bill, GOP senators tried
earlier in the week to attach sanctions to measures aimed at curbing sexual assault
in the military. Corker declined to criticize that effort, saying the matter needs to be
debated, but he offered no endorsement of his colleagues' specific tactic.

(--) The sanctions bill is being stopped from discussion on the

senate floor.
Pecquet 7/15
(Julian, 7/15/2014, Republicans eye new Iran sanctions http://www.almonitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/iran-talks-sanctions-deadline-nucleardeal.html, Julian Pecquet is Al-Monitor's Congressional Correspondent. He previously
led The Hill's Global Affairs blog, kc)
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said he expected support to build for the sanctions bill he
introduced in December with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert
Menendez, D-N.J., as well as more recent human-rights legislation he wrote with
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. That first bill has been backed by 60 of 100 senators but
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has stopped it from coming up on the
floor. "

(--) Reid will block the bill:

Julian Pecquet, 7/17/2014 (staff writer, Lawmakers: Kerry floats new
sanctions on Iran, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/kerrynew-sanctions-iran-lawmakers-nuclear-deal.html, Accessed 8/3/2014, rwg)
Some lawmakers suggested that the change in tone is an indication that the administration believes that the
negotiations are now far enough along that new sanctions wouldn't doom them. Rather, triggered sanctions could
help by proving to Iran that Congress is determined to pass new sanctions if talks fail, as Kerry and others have

The House passed a new sanctions bill with a 400-20 vote in July, but it
remains stalled in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has blocked Iran
sanctions bills at the administration's behest.
warned all along.

Reid wont allow the sanctions bill to come up for a vote:

Jennifer Rubin, (staff writer) 7/29/2014 (Harry Reids cheap talk,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/29/harry-reidscheap-talk/, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
It is Reid who single-handedly blocked the Menendez-Kirk sanctions. A large
bipartisan majority was prepared to vote on conditional sanctions to give the
administration additional leverage against Iran. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.) argues vigorously for such sanctions to this day. The sole reason there is not a
vote is that Reid puts partisan loyalty to the White House above national security
(the United States as well as Israels.)

1ar: Obama will veto

(--) Extend our Obama veto evidenceeven if they get 60
Senators on board, Obama will just veto the bill meaning you
need 67 Senators to override the vetothis proves Uniqueness
overwhelms the link, because theyll never get 67 Senators on
board.
(--) Obama will veto sanctions:
Susan Khazaeli (fellow at the NESA Center for Strategic Studies in
Washington) 7/21/2014 (Ignore the naysayers a nuclear deal with Iran is
close, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ignore-the-naysayersa-nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-close/article19688926/, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
One challenge is managing public expectations. Iran and the United States must
persuade conservative domestic groups of the merits of continuing negotiations.
President Barack Obama must restrain a Congress that is eager to implement
sanctions that could scuttle talks. Mr. Obama may again have to veto sanctions
legislation, although four months is not enough time for Congress to take decisive
action.

(--) Obama will veto new sanctions on Iran:

Bryan R Gibson, 7/31/2014 (PhD in International History at the London
School of Economics, Battle lines drawn in Washington over Iran talks,
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/battle-lines-drawn-washington-overiran-talks-2092722224, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
However, on the other side, realists in the Obama administration and at the State Department believe the exact
opposite. Their fear is that any unilateral action taken by Congress could scuttle the talks altogether and leave the

as President Obama made perfectly clear in his State of the Union Address last
this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill that threatens to derail
these talks, I will veto it. For the sake of our national security, we must give
diplomacy a chance to succeed. On July 25, the two camps collided during a congressional hearing of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, held to discuss the extension of the Iran nuclear talks .
US empty handed. Indeed,
January: if

Testifying before the committee was Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, who is the
lead American negotiator at the nuclear talks, and Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
David Cohen, the administrations point man on enforcing the existing sanctions against Iran.

1ar: ExtensionsIsrael wont attack Iran

(--) Extend our Keck evidenceIsrael wont attack Iran for 5

reasons
1) If it was true, Israel would have already done it.
2) It just increases the odds that Iran would build a bomb.
3) It would make Iran look good and Israel look bad.
4) Netanyahu cant get enough elite support to do it.
5) Israel wants a diplomatic solution.
(--) Israel is just bluffingthey wont attack Iran:
Such 7/28/2014 (Rod, 7/28/14, Does Iran really pose an existential
threat to Israel? http://electronicintifada.net/content/does-iran-really-poseexistential-threat-israel/13567, Rod Such is the senior editor at Websters
Multimedia, Inc, kc)
Gareth Porters Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books) is a denselyresearched investigation into how the United States and Israeli governments have exaggerated the threat posed by
Irans civilian nuclear program. Among the many theses Porter puts forward are the claim that the US and Israel
conspired to transform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from a technical agency charged with
ensuring compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) into a politicized agency that could be

Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu

engaged in a kind of good cop, bad cop charade in which Israel appeared to be on
the verge of attacking Iran when it had no intention of doing so.
manipulated to sway world opinion. Porter argues that Barack

(--) Risk of an Israeli attack on Iran is remote:

Zachary Keck (associate editor of The Diplomat), 11/28/2013 (Five Reasons Israel
Won't Attack Iran, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/five-reasons-israel-wontattack-iran-9469, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
the
possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran was already remote long before Iran and the
P5+1 held their talks in Geneva last month.
For these reasons, the interim nuclear deal has made it less likely that Israel will attack Iran. That being said,

(--) Israel Wont Strike Iran

Dreyfuss 12 (Robert, Why Israel Wont Attack Iran,
http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/why-israel-wont-attack-iran/, investigative journalist
ekr)

For starters, by attacking Iran even in the midst of a U.S. election campaign
Israel would run the risk of angering and alienating Washington, its main patron, in
a manner likely to forever change the U.S.-Israeli relationship for the worse. Second,
with nearly the entire Israeli national security establishment strongly opposed to
striking Iran, Netanyahu and Barak would isolate themselves politically, collapse
their own government, and perhaps propel a much more dovish coalition into
power. Third, striking Iran would trigger devastating counterattacks from Tehran and
its allies, including the well-armed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, leading to
hundreds if not thousands of Israel civilian casualties. Fourth, already isolated

internationally, Israel would turn itself into a global pariah, a kind of rogue state
blamed for the subsequent spike in oil prices, economic carnage, and military
conflict in and around the Persian Gulf that could roil the region for a decade or
more. Perhaps most important, nearly all military analysts, in Washington and in
Israel itself, believe that even an all-out Israeli attack on Iran would not
eliminate its ability to produce a nuclear weapon, Indeed, as Martin Dempsey,
the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated last week, I think that its a fair
characterization to say that they could delay but not destroy Irans nuclear
capabilities. Worse, as Israel knows, an attack would solidify the power of hawks in
Irans government.

(--) Israel will never strike Iran

Menon 12 (Menon, Rajan, Why Israel Wont Rush to War With Iran,
Huffington Post, 3/15/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajanmenon/israel-wont-rush-to-war_b_1346263.html, Menon is a professor of
international relations at Lehigh University, YX-LL)
The prevailing view among experts seems to be that there is a strong likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear
installations. This may be the only point on which the opponents and proponents of that move agree. But the

True, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he won't wait for
proof that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at bomb building before deciding
to strike, adding that the American and Israeli clocks are not in sync on this matter . But this rhetorical
flourish amounts to an admission that Netanyahu couldn't get Obama's
unconditional support during their recent meeting, despite his efforts to influence
the President by campaigning for public and Congressional solidarity . Nor was the Prime
consensus is questionable.
definitive

Minister mollified by the President's statement that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons
and that military option is not "off the table." But applying Netanyahu's standard would entail waging preventive
war, which is altogether different from a preemptive one. The Israeli government would be claiming the right to
attack based not an evident and compelling threat from Iran but on its assessment that Iran might acquire the
wherewithal to harm Israel at some undefined juncture. That's an extremely permissive justification, one that few
countries, even those well disposed toward Israel, will endorse, not least because Israel itself has nuclear weapons
and thus a deterrent. While it's hard to imagine a U.S. president reproaching Israel, Netanyahu shouldn't bet that
Obama would order American forces to join in. As for the reaction elsewhere, it will range from tepid support (at

The Arab Spring has increased

Israel's isolation in its neighborhood, and bombing Iran will make matters far worse.
best) to condemnation, with the latter being the predominant one.

It's said that several Sunni Arab states fear the prospect of an Iran wielding nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and the
Persian Gulf sheikdoms are most often mentioned, but so is Egypt. But no matter what the leaders of these

none will stand up and approve

an Israeli attack for fear of a backlash from "the street," particularly after the mass
protests of the Arab Spring. Nor will Israel find support elsewhere in the Muslim
world. Take Turkey, for instance. Ankara believes that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the Middle East an even
countries might think, or communicate subtly to Washington or Tel Aviv,

more dangerous place. The Turks nevertheless insist that the evidence on Tehran's intentions remains inconclusive;
that Iran is, in any event, not close to manufacturing a bomb; and that diplomacy, not sanctions, let alone force, is

Then there's Israeli public opinion. If you've assumed that Netanyahu's bellicosity has
deep support among Israelis, you are not alone. Yet the reality is different. A recent poll shows that only
19 percent of Israelis support an attack without American support and that only 43
percent favor proceeding without it. Only 28 percent expect America to join an
Israel strike, 39 percent anticipate only political support, while a third believes that
Washington would stay neutral or even punish Israel. The vast majority does not think that an
the best solution.

attack would delay an Iranian nuclear weapons program for more than five years, and a third opines that it will
either accelerate it or make no difference. Similarly, prominent Israelis (including two former heads of the
Mossad, Ephraim Halevy and Meir Dagan, and a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Amnon Lipkin-

have declared that an attack on Iran is unnecessary to safeguard Israel and

would indeed be counterproductive. Now, Netanyahu could ignore polls and pundits, but, like all
Shahak)

politicians in democracies, he cares for votes and cannot dismiss the electoral consequences of a decision, the
ripple effects of which leave Israelis more vulnerable. The operational obstacles that Israel will confront in executing
a successful attack -- whatever that means -- have received much attention: the distance Israeli jets will have to fly
(1,861 miles to and fro); the need to refuel them en route, using aerial tankers; the size of the strike force that will
be needed to overcome Iran's substantial air defense network; and Iran's dispersal of its nuclear facilities, some of
which are deep underground and reinforced so as to protect them against even America's most powerful bunkerbusting bomb, the 30,000 lb. GBU-57 A/B "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," which Israel lacks. While these are

the bigger problem is strategic rather than operational. An Israeli strike

would likely guarantee that Iran makes a determined and explicit bid to build
nuclear weapons because its leaders will conclude that Israel would never have
struck if Iran had them. That assessment will have wide support in Iran, even among those who dislike the
important,

current regime. It would be strategically obtuse to attack Iran knowing this, and there's no reason to assume that
Netanyahu doesn't know it. Moreover, Israel leaders have been sending continual warnings intended to sway Iran's
leaders (insisting, nevertheless, that they are irrational and hence immune to nuclear deterrence) -- an odd thing to
do if Netanyahu is counting on maximizing surprise and effectiveness. An Israeli attack on Iran will have
consequences that are multiple, prolonged, and pernicious. But it's hardly a foregone conclusion that it will occur;
indeed, it's less likely than generally assumed.

1ar: Iran will be deterred

(--) Extend that Iran will be deterredthey are actors who are
interested in maintaining control over Iran and a war would
threaten that.
(--) Iran can be deterred from launching a nuclear attack:
Ted Galen Carpenter, 4/12/2012 (CATO Institute, The Pernicious Myth
That Iran Cant Be Deterred,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/pernicious-myth-iran-cant-bedeterred, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)
leaders in any political system usually prefer to enjoy the riches and
other perks of this life rather than seek to bring about prematurely the speculative
benefits of a next life. There is no credible evidence that the Iranian leadership
deviates from that norm. And those leaders certainly know that a nuclear attack
on Israel, the United States, or Washingtons NATO allies would trigger a devastating counterattack that would end their rule and obliterate Iran as a functioning society. It is
appropriate to demand that hawks produce evidence not just allegations that
deterrence is inapplicable because Iranian leaders are suicidal. But one will search
in vain for such evidence in the thirty-three years that the clerical regime has held
power.
The reality is that

Iran will be deterred through new strategy

Keck July 20 (2014) (Zachary, 07/20/2014, Can Iran Be Deterred from Going
Nuclear? Associate Editor of The Diplomat, intern at the US Congress,
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-iran-be-deterred-going-nuclear-10916?
page=2, TG)

One approach that has been absent from U.S. nuclear policy towards Iran is deterrence by
punishment. Deterrence by punishment is the more well-known type of deterrence. It consists of one state
deterring another from taking an action by credibly promising retaliation that is
more severe than any possible gains that could be accrued from taking the action.
Perhaps the best known example of deterrence by punishment is the Mutually Assured Destruction relationship between the

the United States would seek

to deter Iranian leaders from seeking nuclear weapons by promising to respond in
ways that would far outstrip any gains Iran can accrue from going nuclear. For example,
the United States could threaten to: 1) provide Israel with nuclear submarines and
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs); 2) forward deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East; 3)
form an anti-Iran NATO-like alliance with Arab nations; 4) seek to undermine Shia control of
Iraq and Syria, 5) support the Taliban in its effort to regain control over Afghanistan; 6) directly intervene
militarily against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and/or roll up its operations abroad; 7) more aggressively root
out Iranian intelligence networks throughout the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Europe; 8)
dramatically ramp up support to anti-Iran militant groups in Pakistan and elsewhere; and 9)
drastically increase Americas military presence in the Middle East. This is only a partial list of
United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. With regard to the Iran example,

possible retaliatory actions the United States could take in response to an Iranian bomb, and not all these measures would
necessarily be needed or advisable. Regardless of the specific threats used,

the goal of a deterrence by

punishment policy would be to convince Iranian leaders that they would be worse
off with nuclear weapons. In other words, it would attempt to convince Iranian
leaders remaining nonnuclear is in their interest.

Iran will be deterred.

Ben-Meir 2/25 (Alon Ben-Meir 2/25/14, The Perils of Nuclear Iran,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-perils-of-nuclearira_b_4855864.html, senior fellow at center of global affairs, SSN)

Given the strong likelihood that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, why and how to
prevent it from achieving its goal must be based on the assumption that the
consequences will be dire should Iran realize its objective. There are two intertwined
implications for the Gulf States and Israel in particular that a nuclear Iran presents:
the physical and the psychological. Whereas Iran's physical possession of nuclear
weapons can be neutralized through deterrence and containment, the
psychological aspect will linger as it will constantly bear a high degree of
uncertainty. Together they radically change the geopolitical calculations of the
countries in the region as well as outside powers, especially the US, who have
significant strategic interests and security obligations to its allies in the region.

1ar: Will Never Pass

(--) UQ overwhelms the link: Cant get a veto proof majority:
Timothy Gardner, 1/6/2014 (staff writer, Iran sanctions bill opposed by
Obama gains Senate backers,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/06/us-usa-sanctions-iranidUSBREA0516E20140106, Accessed 1/22/2014, rwg)
While the bill has gained support, it remains uncertain if backers can put together
the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to override a veto by President Barack
Obama.

Spending DA Answers (2ac)

(--) No link: the plan is a drop in the bucket compared to
overall spending.
(--)Non-unique: The Energy Department just gave $150 million
to fund offshore wind in Massachusetts
Bastasch 7/1/14 (Michael Bastasch, writer for the Daily Caller, 7/1/14, Feds Give Cape Wind
Project $150 Million Loan Guarantee, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/feds-give-capewind-project-150-million-loan-guarantee/#ixzz388kDOpx5, mgsk-sd)

The Energy Department has given a conditional $150 million loan to the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts in a move to fund the first offshore wind farm in the United
States. Cape Wind will receive the $150 million loan after it secures $2.6 billion in financing, according to the
Energy Department. Once it has secured the balance of the funding, it will get taxpayer dollars to help
construct 130 wind turbines that will have a capacity of 360 megawatts of power . If
built, the Cape Wind Project could transform the fishing ports and manufacturing towns in Eastern
Massachusetts into a hub for a vibrant U.S. offshore wind industry , said Peter Davidson, executive
director of the DOEs loan program in a statement. The lessons that could be learned from this project can help
catalyze similar projects in other areas of the U.S. with excellent offshore wind resources. Massachusetts
Democrats hailed the loan as a boom to the state and a step in the right direction in fighting global warming.
Offshore

wind will not only provide a new, clean source of energy for the United States, it
will reduce American reliance on fossil fuel, mitigate climate change and jump start
a new U.S. industry that will create thousands of clean energy jobs , said
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. This funding will help Massachusetts make energy history and continue
our leadership as a clean energy jobs hub for the entire nation, said Sen. Ed Markey.

(--) No thresholdno point at which the deficit gets out of

control.

(--) Non-unique: Federal Deficit High Now

Bradenton 7/18/2014 (Bradenton.com, 7/18/14, No relief on federal deficit; no solution in sight,
http://www.bradenton.com/2014/07/18/5259281/no-relief-on-federal-deficitno.html#storylink=cpy, mls)
Washington has taken an indefinite break from the budget debate that marked the early part of this decade. No one's expecting a grand bargain any time soon. Nor a small bargain, nor
even serious incremental reform.

Deficits have come down from their historic highs during the Great Recession and its

aftermath. Health-care costs have not risen as quickly in the last few years, helping to right the country's fiscal balance and making the long-term budget outlook a bit more

But the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday rained on this bipartisan parade. In its latest long-term budget projection, the country's arbiter of all things
fiscal warned that federal spending remains dangerously unsustainable in the long
term. Over the next 25 years, mandatory spending on entitlement programs such as
Medicare is set to rise to 14 percent of gross domestic product, double the average over the
past several decades. Debt service will become increasingly costly, gobbling up 4.5 percent of GDP in 2039. These obligations will drastically reduce the
manageable.

resources left for everything else in the budget. Some may take solace in the finding that debt relative to GDP has stabilized and will hover around the current 74 percent through 2020.

the CBO concluded that "federal debt held by the public is projected to grow faster
than the economy starting a few years from now, and because debt is already
unusually high relative to GDP, further increases could be especially harmful ." If that process
But

of debt accumulation proceeds, the CBO reckons, debt as a percentage of GDP would rise to 106 percent 25 years from now. That level of indebtedness would have a variety of negative
economic effects. Among them: The country might well be incapable of taking strong action to support the economy during the next crisis. We should also note that the CBO projects a
much larger debt problem if Congress decides to renew a variety of expensive policies -- a realistic bet. Many analysts argue that taking action on the long-term debt is senseless when
interest rates are low and the economy remains sluggish. The CBO answers that excuse, too: "If lawmakers wanted to minimize both the short-term economic costs of reducing deficits
quickly and the longer-term costs of running large deficits, they could enact a combination of changes in tax and spending policies that increased the deficit in the next few years relative
to what it would be under current law but reduced the deficit thereafter." Finally, those who argue against addressing the long-term budget imbalance may point out that the CBO's
estimates are very uncertain. As the unanticipated recent slowing in the growth of health-care costs shows, expert predictions aren't foolproof. But there is a downside to uncertainty,
too: Things could turn out much worse than expected.

(--) Offshore wind is just as cheap as fossil fuels:

Merchant 7/30/14(Brian, Senior Editor at Motherboard, 7-30-14, In Two Years Denmark's Wind Power Will Be Half the Cost of
Fossil Fuels, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-two-years-wind-power-will-be-half-the-cost-of-fossil-fuels-in-denmark) AJ Jr.

Wind power is officially the cheapest source of energy in Denmark , according to the
nation's governmentand by 2016, it claims the electricity whipped up by its
newest turbines will be half the price of fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.
Denmark's Energy Association (everything about Scandinavia is friendlier, even its DEA) announced the news last

Wind and solar are achieving grid parity with

fossil fuelsthat is, it's just as cheapin many places around the world. Even without the tax
breaks, declining manufacturing costs and growing scale have rendered wind power
just as cheap as natural gas in many states right here in the gas-rich US. And at least one analyst
determined that this is the "beginning of the grid parity era " for solar, worldwide. But
Denmark is blowing past grid parity and towards a scenario in which clean energy is
actually much, much cheaper: When its two massive offshore wind farms come online, they'll be the
nation's most inexpensive energy source by a wide margin, analysts say. "Electricity from two new
onshore wind power facilities set to begin operating in 2016 will cost around 5 euro cents per
kilowatt-hour," Yale 360 explains. "Wind power would remain the cheapest energy option
even if interest rates on wind power projects were to increase by 10 percent , the report
week, and it's an achievement worth highlighting.

found." That's good news for a nation that's hoping to get 50 percent of its power from wind turbines by 2050.
Right now, the nation already boasts an impressive clean energy mix of 43 percent. Wind power today is cheaper
than other forms of energy, not least because of a big commitment and professionalism in the field, Rasmus
Peterson, Denmark's energy minister, said at a press conference. This is true for researchers, companies and
politicians. We need a long-term and stable energy policy to ensure that renewable energy, both today and in the
future, is the obvious choice. Importantly, the DEA's analysis "was not based on a full cost-benefit
assessment of different technologies that included an assessment of environmental benefits, taxes or subsidies.

did not factor in the health and environmental costs of burning fossil
fuelswhich are considerableand instead looked directly at the market forces in the country. Natural
That is, the agency

gas and coal are much more expensive in Denmark than it is in the US, which helps make wind such an economic

improving technology, falling

costs, and the strong, consistently blowing offshore winds that will turn the new
turbines are making the case airtight. Yesterday brought the good news that Germany was meeting
bargain, and the nation has explicitly pursued wind power for decades. But

a full 28.5 percent of its energy needs with clean sources. Now Denmark is proving that running your nation on
clean energy can be cheaper than we possibly could have imagined, even ten years ago.

(--) Impact is empirically denied: had high deficits before with

no impact.
(--) Turn: deficit spending saves the economy:
Krugman 5/1/14 (Why Economics Failed PAUL KRUGMAN- NY Times, PHD at MIT,
Nobel Prize winner, best economist everrrrrr, MAY 1, 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/krugman-why-economics-failed.html)
In what sense did economics work well? Economists who took their own textbooks seriously quickly diagnosed the nature of our
economic malaise: We were suffering from inadequate demand. The financial crisis and the housing bust
created an environment in which everyone was trying to spend less, but my spending is your income and your spending is my
income,

so when everyone tries to cut spending at the same time the result is an

overall decline in incomes and a depressed economy . And we know (or should know) that depressed
economies behave quite differently from economies that are at or near full employment. For example, many seemingly
knowledgeable people bankers, business leaders, public officials warned that budget deficits
would lead to soaring interest rates and inflation . But economists knew that such
warnings, which might have made sense under normal conditions, were way off
base under the conditions we actually faced . Sure enough, interest and inflation rates
stayed low. And the diagnosis of our troubles as stemming from inadequate demand had clear policy implications: as long
as lack of demand was the problem, we would be living in a world in which the usual
rules didnt apply. In particular, this was no time to worry about budget deficits and cut
spending, which would only deepen the depression. When John Boehner, then the House minority leader,
declared in early 2009 that since American families were having to tighten their belts, the government should tighten its belt, too,

We needed more government

spending, not less, to fill the hole left by inadequate private demand . But a few months later
people like me cringed; his remarks betrayed his economic ignorance.

President Obama started saying exactly the same thing. In fact, it became a standard line in his speeches. Nor was it just rhetoric.

Since 2010, weve seen a sharp decline in discretionary spending and an

unprecedented decline in budget deficits, and the result has been anemic growth

and
long-term unemployment on a scale not seen since the 1930s. So why didnt we use the economic knowledge we had? One answer
is that most people find the logic of policy in a depressed economy counterintuitive. Instead, what resonates with the public are
misleading analogies with the finances of an individual family, which is why Mr. Obama began echoing Mr. Boehner. Continue
reading the main storyContinue reading the main story Advertisement And even supposedly well-informed people balk at the notion
that simple lack of demand can wreak so much havoc. Surely, they insist, we must have deep structural problems, like a work force
that lacks the right skills; that sounds serious and wise, even though all the evidence says that its completely untrue. Meanwhile,
powerful political factions find that bad economic analysis serves their objectives. Most obviously, people whose real goal is
dismantling the social safety net have found promoting deficit panic an effective way to push their agenda. And such people have
been aided and abetted by what Ive come to think of as the trahison des nerds the willingness of some economists to come up
with analyses that tell powerful people what they want to hear, whether its that slashing government spending is actually
expansionary, because of confidence, or that government debt somehow has dire effects on economic growth even if interest rates
stay low. Whatever the reasons basic economics got tossed aside, the result has been tragic. Most of the waste and suffering that
have afflicted Western economies these past five years was unnecessary. We have, all along, had the knowledge and the tools to
restore full employment. But policy makers just keep finding reasons not to do the right thing.

1ar: Deficit Out of Control

(--) Extend our Bradenton evidencedeficits are dangerously
unsustainable and will soon grow faster than the economy.
(--) Deficit will soon spiral out of controlshrinking deficits are
temporary
Meghan Foley, 7/8/2014 (Why Cant the Government Forecast Obamacares
Financial Future http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/why-cant-the-governmentforecast-obamacares-financial-future.html/?a=viewall)
Is the U.S. Budget Deficit Going to Increase? Despite the April 2014 reports veneer of good Obamacare

U.S. budget deficits will still increase after 2015, even if

budgetary shortfalls will decrease by smaller percentages than shown in earlier CBO
projections. If current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will
soon come to an end, the CBO said in the report. According to the agency, the aging baby
news, the fact remains that

boomer generation is at fault. As those born between the late 1940s and mid-1960s retire in greater
numbers, more individuals will be drawing federal benefits. Consequently,

the CBO expects the

costs of mandatory spending programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid
will soar, accounting for 11.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2024, up from 2013s 9.5 percent.
By 2024, spending on those programs will cost the government $3.1 trillion
and represent more than half of all federal spending. While the federal deficit
will reach a low of $469 billion, or 2.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2015, it will
then begin to climb. The CBO expects it will surpass $1 trillion once again in 2023 and 2024 a
level representing around 4 percent of GDP.

(--) Short-term deficit declines are irrelevantlong-term deficit

picture is for high deficits:
Trumbull, Deputy National News Editor, 7/15/2014

(Mark,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0715/National-debt-will-exceed-entire-annual-US-output-by-2039CBO-projects, ASM)
WASHINGTON Americans, your government is getting larger, and the debt you shoulder as taxpayers is going up.
Thats the message embedded in the latest Long-Term Budget Outlook reported annually by the Congressional
Budget Office. The CBO slices and dices the numbers various ways, but the overarching conclusion is that federal
debt is on a rising path a track that poses risks to the economy. Recommended: How much do you know about US
entitlement programs? Take our quiz. [F]ederal debt held by the public is projected to grow faster than the
economy starting a few years from now, and because debt is already unusually high relative to GDP, further
increases could be especially harmful, says the report, prepared by CBO staff thats led by director Douglas

Public debt is on track to grow to an amount equal to 78 percent of one

years gross domestic product (GDP) by 2024 and more than 100 percent of GDP by
2039. That compares with its level of about 74 percent of GDP today . Short-term
improvement in federal deficits isnt changing the long-term picture . The CBO sees the
Elmendorf.

deficit the gap by which federal spending exceeds revenue declining to an amount below 3 percent of GDP in the
2015 fiscal year. The pace of health-care inflation has also slowed in recent years. But later in this decade, the
rising costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare push deficits higher. Federal spending is on
track to rise to 26 percent of GDP by 2039 under the status quo assumptions of the CBOs extended baseline.
That compares with an average of 20.5 percent over the past four decades. The driver is those entitlements.
Spending on discretionary programs is projected to be 7 percent of GDP in 2039, down from about 11 percent in the
past four decades. Tax revenue will also be rising, but not as much as spending. Revenue would equal 19.5
percent of GDP under the extended-baseline forecast, compared with 17.5 percent of GDP in the past four decades.
That rise in revenue would be fueled partly by people migrating into higher tax brackets and also by features of
President Obamas Affordable Care Act (such as an excise tax on some high-premium health insurance plans). The
reports baseline view shows how the overall size of the federal government is poised for continued growth, relative
to GDP whether that growth is measured in spending or taxes. But the CBO, as a nonpartisan accounting arm of

Congress, does not take a stand on whether thats a good or bad thing. The debt is a separate issue. It represents
the ongoing mismatch between spending and tax revenue, and Mr. Elmendorf and his colleagues argue the rising
debt is unequivocally a bad thing over the long term. Thats because, in general, high debt levels will tend to draw
money out of private-sector investment, lowering the growth of GDP and personal incomes. High debt will also tend
to push up interest rates, reduce global confidence in the dollar, and give policymakers less room to maneuver in a
financial crisis. To put the federal budget on a sustainable path for the long term, the report says, Congress must
find ways to restrain entitlement spending, raise more tax revenue, or adopt some combination of those
approaches. The size of the needed shifts is significant. To put the debt on a path back down to its long-term
average of about 39 percent of GDP, spending (other than on debt interest payments) would have to fall by about
14 percent or taxes raised by 13 percent. The shifts could be smaller if a mix of the two approaches were taken or
if Congress didnt try to reduce the debt that much. The CBO analyzed various scenarios beyond the status quo
baseline. Debt could soar even faster (to 180 percent of GDP by 2039) if certain tax breaks and other policies that
are set to phase out get extended. Or debt could fall back toward its long-term norm (reaching 42 percent of GDP
by 2039) if Congress enacts about $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2024.

(--) Deficit still high and unsustainable.

Bradenton 7/18/2014 (Bradenton Herald, 7/18/2014, No relief on federal
deficit; no solution in sight, http://www.bradenton.com/2014/07/18/5259281/norelief-on-federal-deficit-no.html, Bradenton Herald is a local newspaper in
Bradenton, FL, kc)

Washington has taken an indefinite break from the budget debate that marked the
early part of this decade. No one's expecting a grand bargain any time soon . Nor a
small bargain, nor even serious incremental reform. Deficits have come down from their historic
highs during the Great Recession and its aftermath . Health-care costs have not risen
as quickly in the last few years, helping to right the country's fiscal balance and
making the long-term budget outlook a bit more manageable. But the
Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday rained on this bipartisan parade. In its
latest long-term budget projection, the country's arbiter of all things fiscal warned
that federal spending remains dangerously unsustainable in the long term. Over the
next 25 years, mandatory spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare is set to rise to 14 percent of gross

Debt service will become

increasingly costly, gobbling up 4.5 percent of GDP in 2039 . These obligations will drastically
domestic product, double the average over the past several decades.
reduce the resources left for everything else in the budget.

(--) Deficit high nowwill cause harmful economic

consequences:
Boccia 13 (ND, "How the United States High Debt Will Weaken
the Economy and Hurt Americans",
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debtwill-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans., president Grover M. Hermann Fellow
in Federal Budgetary Affairs, date accessed 7-30-14 tck)
U.S. federal spending in 2013, combined with depressed receipts from a weak economy, is on track to result
in a deficit of $850 billion. Publicly held debt in the United States will exceed 76
percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, and chronic deficits are projected to
push U.S. debt to 87 percent of the economy in 10 years .[1] Debt is projected to grow even more
rapidly after 2023. Recent economic research, especially the work of Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff,

federal debt at such high levels puts the United States at risk for a number
of harmful economic consequences, including slower economic growth, a weakened ability to respond to
confirms that

unexpected challenges, and quite possibly a debt-driven financial crisis.[2] Entitlements and Interest Drive Future Spending Surge

The federal government is quickly exhausting its ability to manage its bills, with debt having already reached the statutory debt
ceiling. The resulting debate should focus on the need to reduce federal spending immediately and over the long term by making
necessary and prudent reforms to the nations major entitlement programs, and thus reduce the continued buildup of debt and the
expected harmful consequences increasingly confirmed by academic research. Vulnerable Budget Path In the contentious 2011
debate over the U.S. debt limit, President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion in exchange
for specified spending reductions over 10 years. The Budget Control Act allowed the President to raise the limit in three increments
from $14.29 trillion to $16.39 trillion.[3] At the time, the United States lost its seemingly permanent AAA rating from Standard &
Poors, starkly affirming the risk arising from the nations budget path.[4] Americas budget problems are twofold: (1) spending and
debt are dangerously high today, and (2) future spending and debt are on track to rise even higher. As dangerous as these trends
are, the long-term unfunded obligations in the nations major entitlement programs loom like an even darker cloud over the U.S.
economy. Demographic and economic factors are expected to combine to drive spending in Medicare and Social Security to
unsustainable heights. The major entitlements and interest on the debt are on track to devour all tax revenues by in less than one
generation.[5] High Public Debt Levels Depress Economic Growth While tax revenues are expected to return to their historically
average levels of 18.5 percent, total federal spending driven in large part by entitlements is projected to hover well above the
historical level of about 20 percent in the near term.[6] In a mere 25 years, federal spending under current policy is projected to
consume as much as 36 percent of GDP.[7] Americas entitlement programs, by definition, span generations. It is vital in assessing
their sustainability to consider their long-term implications. Over the 75-year long-term horizon, the combined unfunded obligations
arising from promised benefits in Medicare and Social Security alone exceed $48 trillion.[8] The federal unfunded obligations arising
from Medicaid and even from veterans benefits are unknown, but would likely add many trillions more to this figure. The
International Monetary Fund,[9] the intergovernmental organization of 188 member states that seeks to ensure the stability of the
international monetary system, warned that the U.S. lacks a credible strategy to stabilize its mounting public debt.[10] Such a
strategy must begin with putting entitlement spending on a more sustainable long-term path. The sooner policymakers act, the less
severe and the more gradual the necessary policy changes can be. Policymakers should not delay, since the economic
consequences, particularly the impact on individuals in or planning retirement, would be pronounced and severe.

(--) The US deficit is huge

New Republic 7/16(new republic 7 16-14, The Ultimate, Definitive Guide to
the Budget Deficit,http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118284/deficit-isnt-bigproblem-right-now-economist-henry-aaron-says, AED)
If you want to know how big the deficit is, you cant simply go by the raw number.
Annual deficits are very big numbers, but the U.S. economy is very large too. The
best way to get a sense of scale is to compare deficits to the total national
economy, Gross Domestic Product or GDP. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that GDP will be $17.3 trillion in 2014 and that the federal budget deficit
will be $506 billion. Do the math and youll see that its projecting a budget deficit
equal to 2.9 percent of GDP. The total outstanding debt held by the public the sum
of this years and all past deficitsis much larger than this years deficit alone. The
total debt in 2014 is estimated to be equal to 73.8 percent of GDP in 2014 .
Projections suggest it will fall a bit next year, to 73.6 percent, because the economy
itself will grow a little faster.

(--) US deficit is rising steadily

Ransom, 7/16/2014 (John, 7-16-2014, More Bad News for Obama and
Obamacare: Deficit Set to Explode Sooner Than You Think,
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2014/07/16/more-bad-news-forobama-and-obamacare-deficit-set-to-explode-sooner-than-you-thinkn1862745/page/full, Ransom worked primarily in finance as an investment
executive for NYSE member firm Raymond James and Associates, JW Charles and as
a new business development executive at Mutual Service Corporation, Accessed 730-14,SM )
Buy now, pay later. That will be the epitaph on the tombstone of the Obama administration. The Congressional
Budget Office, a research outfit that justifies government spending, is warning that while deficit may appear tame
now-- comparatively speaking-- the budget path we are on is unsustainable. The extended baseline projections
show a substantial imbalance in the federal budget over the long term, says the new CBO report, with revenues
falling well short of spending. As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2039, to push federal
debt held by the public up to a percentage of GDP seen only once before in U.S. history (just after World War II). The
harm that such growing debt would cause to the economy is not factored into CBOs detailed long-term projections

but is considered in further analysis presented in this report. See, the CBO isnt charged with considering how bad
this will get, but is still willing to take a stab at how future and current spending will negatively impact the economy.
Where were these guys during sequester, or the Cruz shutdown? All we heard back then was how the lack of
government spending was killing the economy. Thats kind of like blaming a hospital doctor for the death of a
patient when Kevorkian has just left the room. At least the CBO is willing to admit it. They are equally blunt about

The CBO cites an aging

population and rising government subsidies for healthcare as reasons why the
deficit will balloon to unprecedented levels. Remember when saving money was the reason for
the reasons why, although perhaps not as pessimistic as the case may warrant.

Obamacare? Yeah I dont really either, but I remember when they said it was. It will cut the deficit! they said.
Wheres your Ezra Klein now Obama? Moreover, CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their
current unusually low levels, raising the governments interest payments, the government budget service
continues. That additional spending would contribute to larger budget deficitsequaling close to 4 percent of GDP
toward the end of the 10-year period spanned by the baseline, CBO anticipates. Altogether, deficits during that
20152024 period would total about $7.6 trillion. Previously the CBO projected interest rates at 5%, which
historically is about right. At $25 trillion, the debt service at 5% could be $1.25 trillion. Military defense spending,
not including veterans, is a bit north of $600 billion today. That is interest on the debt in ten years will be twice as
large as defense spending is today.

1ar: AT: DA Turns Case

DA doesnt turn the case Obama will block NOAA cuts even in
bad economic conditions
Conathan 13 {Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American
Progress, An Ocean Champion in the White House, Center for American Progress,
4/26, http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/04/26/61493/an-oceanchampion-in-the-white-house/#THUR}
It should come as no surprise a president who grew up in Hawaii
would prioritize policies that result in improved
oceans
Obama has met such expectations His administration released a
final implementation plan for the
Policy
established by executive order
It
also finalized a budget for
NOAA, which, even in a time of
sequestration
asks for an 11 percent boost
Both actions show
that the administration understands
marine resources and is willing to
prioritize them
that

and has been known to enjoy the occasional

vacation on Marthas Vineyard

the

past few weeks, President Barack

management of Americas

and coasts. In the

National Ocean

that he

in 2010.

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or

and fiscal austerity,

from current funding levels.

the challenges facing our

. President Obamas National Ocean Policy has drawn fire from Capitol Hill, primarily from congressional Republicans who have painted it as yet another example of government intrusion.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) has decried it as an imposition of a new job-killing regulation. Rep. Hastings and his colleagues peppered administration witnesses at a 2011 hearing on the
National Ocean Policy, concerned that the policy might constitute a jurisdictional overreach that could make life more difficult for agriculture and other industries with upstream impactsand apparently unwilling to accept the idea
that the policy neither creates any new regulations nor kills any jobs. Message received, Chairman Hastings. The updated implementation plan released earlier this month includes new language asserting in no uncertain terms that
the concerns of pro-small-government Republicans have been heard. The Policy does not create new regulations, supersede current regulations, or modify any agencys established mission, jurisdiction, or authority. Rather, it helps
coordinate the implementation of existing regulations and authorities in the interest of more efficient decision-making, it reads. As a result, the policy received endorsements from both the National Corn Growers Association and
the American Soybean Association, the latter of which called out the plan as a serious and thoughtful example of regulatory streamlining. Overall, the National Ocean Council did a bang-up job of taking notes, internalizing
comments, and taking them into consideration before finalizing its implementation plan. And it didnt just pay attention to members of Congress, but also to the folks who commented on the draft plan or raised issues with the policy
in general. One aspect of the plan that drew a great deal of consternation is its call for comprehensive ocean management on a regional scalein effect, the development of regional plans to prioritize certain ocean activities in
appropriate areas. Many coastal regions in this country are already participating in what the implementation plan calls regional planning bodies, which are coordinated management entities among neighboring states. In fact,
several of these regional ocean partnerships predate even the first draft of the National Ocean Policy released in 2010. While the final implementation plan clearly articulates the benefits of a regional approach to ocean management
and planning, it also recognizes that differences in priorities, problems, and ecosystems exist across different areas of the country. In the Northeast, for example, plans aim to resolve conflicts between future offshore-wind-energy
development and existing fishing interests, while the Pacific Coasts priorities will differ since offshore wind cannot be developed there at this time because of technological limitations. Alaska has resisted implementing any of the
principles of comprehensive ocean planning at all, prompting sharp criticism from its congressional delegation of the draft implementation plan that would have required regional planning bodies to be developed in all regions. Many
Alaskans viewed this imposition as top-down government meddling in what they consider to be state affairs. Recognizing the need for each region to come to its own conclusions about how best to manage the areas that it knows
best, the final implementation plan stresses that regional ocean-planning efforts are voluntary, not mandatory. States may choose to participate on regional planning bodies, reads the final version, which goes on to say that,
Should all states in a region not choose to participate a regional planning body will not be established. Even with these changes to the regional ocean-planning structure, the plan received a lukewarm reception from Sen. Marco
Rubio (R-FL), the newly minted ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. During a hearing earlier this week, Sen. Rubio expressed his concern about the plan, saying that, Too
often the administration puts forth voluntary documents like the National Ocean Policy that, when all is said and done, were faced with a new regulatory regime with questionable value and severe economic consequences.
Fishermen, particularly recreational fishermen, also balked at the lack of attention the initial draft of the National Ocean Policy paid to their issues. Commercial fishermen have been plying our waters since before the nation was
founded, and anglers comprise arguably the most populous group of ocean users at more than 12 million strong, according to NOAA. Many feared that the National Ocean Policy would infringe upon their access to fish, even
spawning a conspiracybriefly reported by ESPN as newsthat it was the Obama administrations goal to shut down Americas waters to fishing. The final implementation plan should help assuage these unfounded fears, as it
specifically states that one of its goals is to ensure continued access for recreational fishermen and another is to improve the science that supports increased sustainable fishing opportunity. If thats not enough to convince
fishermen that this administration has their back, they need look no further than the presidents fiscal year 2014 budget request for NOAA. At a time when squeezing pennies out of the federal government is nearly impossible, this
budget actually calls for an 11 percent increase in the agencys funding from current levels. This includes boosts to fishery stock assessments, surveys, and monitoringprograms critical to ensuring that fishery managers have the
best possible data with which to set catch limits and other fishery regulations that ensure maximum possible access for fishermen today and into the future. Increased ocean funding isnt just good news for folks who enjoy trips to
Hawaii and Marthas Vineyard. The National Ocean Economics Program has found that ocean-related industries generate more than $258 billion of our gross domestic product, or GDP, and employ more than 2.7 million Americans,
with 1.9 million of those jobs in the recreation and tourism industries. This research was fundamental to the establishment of CAPs Blue Economy Initiative, which seeks to better define the economic value of healthy oceans and
coasts. Protecting and sensibly managing our oceans and coasts is more than a ticket to a few nice vistas and vacation spotsits an economic imperative. And these recent actions by the Obama administration prove that they get
the message.

1ar Deficit Spending Key to Growth

(--) Extend our Krugman evidencedeficit spending is key to
growthprefer our evidence Krugman won a Nobel Prize in
Economicsfar more qualified than their evidence.
(--) Deficit spending key to growth WWII proves
Amy 11
[The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount
Holyoke College, 2011, http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?
aid=30&p=3]
Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national
debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look
back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The
best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP nearly twice
the size of todays debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression
but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and
60s. Massive investments were made in science and technology, American workers were
re-trained and re-employed, private investment was encouraged, and consumer
purchasing power was increased. That 25-year post-war economic boom, with the
most rapid increase in living standards in our history, would not have happened
without the stimulus of all this deficit spending . History also shows that balancing
the budget does not necessarily ensure a spurt of economic growth. In fact, in most periods
when we have not had deficits , such as the 1990s, this was followed by an economic
recession.6 So there is clearly little historical evidence to show that deficits and
debt inevitably hurt economic growth.

(--) Deficit spending goodstopped a Great Depression:

Krugman 13 (Dwindling Deficit Disorder PAUL KRUGMAN- NY Times, PHD at MIT,
Nobel Prize winner, best economist everrrrrr, March 10, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html?
_r=1&)

policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of
budget deficits. A few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is all wrong, that deficit spending is
actually appropriate in a depressed economy . But even though the deficit scolds have
been wrong about everything so far where are the soaring interest rates we
were promised? protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on deaf ears. Whats really remarkable at
this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing
facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding , as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable path; in fact,
the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down to sustainable levels, and it is too
small given the state of the economy. Start with the raw numbers. Americas
budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on
unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing! Federal
spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the private sector was in
For three years and more,

panicked retreat; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government

was the

main reason the Great Recession didnt turn into a full

replay of the Great Depression.

But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The

Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the
state of the economy it really isnt. Bear in mind that the budget doesnt have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt
grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II in fact, our debt doubled in the 30 years that followed the war.
But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period. Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But
according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The cyclically adjusted deficit what the deficit would be if
we were near full employment is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And thats
why budget office projections show the nations debt position more or less stable over the next decade. So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years
to come. There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have
yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently
too small. Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector wont, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when
it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom and it is headed down. Yes, well want to
reduce deficits once the economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still
unacceptably high. The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity, John Maynard Keynes declared many years ago. He was right all you have to do is look at Europe to see the
disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a boom. Now, Im aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal
fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
People whose careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry dont want to let evidence undermine their scare tactics; as the deficit dwindles, were sure to encounter a blizzard
of bogus numbers purporting to show that were still in some kind of fiscal crisis. But we arent. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy
concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.

Whales DA Answers
(--) Warming and oceans outweighwe protect the oceans and
solve mass species extinction.
(--) Offshore wind companies will make agreements to provide
measures to protect the whales:
Kennedy, Head of Environment Protection at New York State
Attorney Office, 5/08/14 (Kit Kennedy, May 8 2014, Head of Environment Protection at New York State Attorney Office and
th

was Attorney General at the State of New york, New England Offshore Wind Developer Announces Protections for
Whaleshttp://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/new-england-offshore-wind-developer-announces-protections-for-whales, JJ)

a major agreement between offshore wind developer Deepwater Wind, a

leading U.S. offshore wind developer based in Providence, RI, as well as other major environmental
NRDC is happy to announce

organizations, that will help us capture this potential, while at the same time protecting neighboring endangered North Atlantic right
whales. The agreement covers the Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind Energy Area, where Deepwater holds a lease from the federal
government and plans to build a 1,000-MW offshore wind project known as Deepwater ONE. (Deepwater Wind is also planning a 30MW offshore wind demonstration project off Block Island, Rhode Island, with construction slated to begin soon). An agreement

will protect
endangered right whales as Deepwater Wind develops an offshore wind farm (in area
pictured above) in the federally designated Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind Energy Area. The groups and the developer
have outlined a number of precautionary measures that Deepwater Wind will take at the Deepwater
ONE lease area above and beyond the current government requirements to protect the whales from harmful
underwater noise and other impacts that could be caused by the early stages of site
development for the wind farm and related activities when theyre migrating through the area, which is located off
among offshore wind power developer Deepwater Wind, NRDC and other environmental groups

the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The agreement builds on a similar agreement reached in December 2012 for the MidAtlantic region by NRDC, other environmental groups and three offshore wind developers (including Deepwater).

Alt causes to whale deaths

HSUS 4-10-14(Humane Society of the United States 4-10-14, Three Things That
Are Driving North Atlantic Right Whales Toward Extinction,
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/fisheries/facts/right_whale_extinction.html,
AED
Fewer than 400 North Atlantic right whales remain out of a population that once numbered in the tens of thousands in the Atlantic
Ocean. Once hunted to near extinction, they are slowly recovering, but collisions with fast-moving ships, entanglement in fishing

Being struck by
large ships has been a leading cause of death for right whales. They tend to live
close to the Atlantic coast, feeding during the spring and summer off New England
and Canada. During late fall and winter, as pregnant females migrate to their only known calving grounds off the coast of
Georgia and Florida, they must cross the mouths of busy ports such as New York and the Chesapeake Bay. Females and
their newborn young are killed in greater numbers than adult males along this
dangerous route. Working to prevent ship strikes Following a legal petition filed by The HSUS and our allies, in December
gear, and climate change threaten their survival. 1. Collisions with ships killing right whales and their young

2013 the federal government made permanent a regulation requiring certain ships to slow down in designated areas. The rule
comes after a five-year trial period of mandatory speed limits, during which there were no right whale deaths within 40 miles of any

Right whales share their habitat

with some of the busiest fishing areas in the U.S., and fatal entanglement in
commercial fishing gear is the second major cause of death in right whales. Right
whales may become entangled in nets, in the lines between underwater nets, or in
buoy lines that go from the ocean floor to the surface to mark the location of nets or
lobster and crab traps. Once entangled, right whales may drown if they are unable to reach the surface to breathe.
Others may be able to swim off, entangled in the lines, only to die a slow death from infection or starvation. Chronic
of the seasonal speed restricted zones. 2. Deadly entanglement in fishing lines

entanglement can also impair movement, making the whale more vulnerable to
ship collisions. Fishing gear along our coast is so dense in places that some whales become entangled multiple times. One
right whale was entangled in commercial fishing gear once in late 1997, and then two more times in 1998, before being freed of
most of the gear. However, some of the fishing gear remained deep in the whale's mouth. This whale was considered seriously
injured by this last entanglement and indeed was never again seen alive. In 2001, the nation watched the tragic story of Churchill, a
right whale who died slowly of infection despite several well-publicized attempts to disentangle him from the fishing line cutting into
him. These sorts of sad stories play out year after year. The HSUS fighting for fishing industry regulations Both the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act require the government to address the issue of entanglement in fishing gear.
On several occasions over the past decade, the HSUS has sued the government to force progress. Most recently, in 2010, our
litigation resulted in a regulation requiring that the lines used to connect lobster pots sink to the ocean floor, as a way of reducing
the chance of whales encountering the lines. We are still pushing to have the federal government address the risk to whales from
the heavy lines that go from fishing lines on the bottom to marker buoys on the surface. These lines, called vertical lines, are
responsible for at least half of the risk to whales. The HSUS is also appointed to a federal task force currently seeking solutions. 3.

Right whales reproduce very slowly, often not giving birth

until their teens and having a single calf only every three to five years. In some
years only one calf has been born to the entire population. Warming climates and changes in
Climate changes and habitat depletion

ocean currents mean there are years when food is harder to find, and the thinner females cannot sustain a pregnancy. What The
HSUS is doing to protect right whale habitat The HSUS filed a legal petition to expand the boundaries of the designated critical
habitat for right whales. Critical habitat defines areas most important to a species survival. Once designated, regulations can help
reduce pollution in critical habitat and reduce other human impacts. In 2010, the federal government promised to propose changes
to the boundaries by the end of 2011. In 2014, a coalition of environmental and animal protection groups, including The HSUS, sued
the federal government to vastly expand the right whales protected area more than tenfold, from roughly 4,000 square miles to
more than 50,000 square miles. Time is running out for right whales Again and again, The HSUS has been forced to file suit to win
overdue protection for North Atlantic right whales. While the National Marine Fisheries Service continues to take its time protecting
this critically endangered population, time may be running out to save right whales from extinction.

Normal means of permitting is environmental regulations that

protect the North American Right Whale:
Catherine Bowes & Justin Allegro, 2012 (http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/GlobalWarming/Reports/NWF_2012OffshoreWind_Final.ashx, Accessed 8/4/2014, rwg)

, t h e c u r r e n t p e r m i t t i n g p r o c e s s (seep.15)w i l l o f
fer leases
to developers within identified Wind Energ
y A r e a s this year t h a t
include mandatory require
ments to avoid and minimize harm to
wildlife. Measu
r e s s u c h a s m o n i t o r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , boat speedrestrictions,sea
sonal restrictions,exclusion zones, s o u n d r e d u c t i o n t e c h n o l o g i e s a
nd
m e t h o d s,and ramp-up procedures p r i o r t o c o m m e n c i n g c
ertain surveys are
critical for ensuring wildlife is pro
t e c t e d d u r i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . S o l o n g as
robust meas
ures adequate to protect critical species like the Nort
h A m e r i c a n R i g h t W h a l e ( s e e p . 2 0 ) ar e r e q u i r e d , N W F b e l i
eves
t h a t a l l o w i n g d e v e l o p e r s t o m o v e f o r w a r d , while stat
Looking forward

e a n d f e d e r a l r e g u l a t o rs w o r k t o a d d r e s s t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n n e e d s i d e n t i f i e d a b o v e , c r

forthis
c r i t i c al cl e a n e n e r g y s
ource without sacrificing environmental
review . A c
eates an efficient permitting timeline

omprehensive, project-specific environmental analysis will be required once develop

e r s s u b m i t d e t a i l e d c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n s p l a n s f o r t h e i r p r o j e c t.

Developers Already Taking Measures to Protect Right Whales

Grant 5/7 (Miles, Senior Communications Manager for National Wildlife Federation,
Leading Environmental and Conservation Groups and Deepwater Wind Announce
Agreement to Protect Endangered Whales at Deepwater ONE Offshore Wind Farm
Site Agreement Will Reduce Noise Impacts on North Atlantic Right Whales,
http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/media-center/news-by-topic/global-

warming/2014/05-07-14-conservation-groups-and-deepwater-wind-protectendangered-whales.aspx, ASM)

A coalition of leading environmental and conservation organizations Conservation Law

Foundation (CLF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and

announced an agreement to implement additional protections for

endangered North Atlantic right whales during pre-construction activities for the
Deepwater ONE offshore wind farm, which will be developed off the Rhode Island and Massachusetts coasts.
Deepwater Wind today

"Offshore wind power benefits wildlife by cutting the industrial carbon pollution thats fueling climate change, the
single biggest threat to wildlife today," said Catherine Bowes, Senior Manager for Climate and Energy at the
National Wildlife Federation. With this agreement, Deepwater Wind is leading the way to provide additional
protections for vulnerable marine mammals as America pursues this new energy frontier that is critically needed to
make our power supply cleaner, more wildlife-friendly, and more secure." CLF, NRDC and NWF have developed a set

protective measures with Deepwater Wind that will minimize potential impacts on North
Atlantic right whales and other marine mammals from underwater noise and
construction vessels during the developers site characterization and assessment
activities. The agreement was developed with input from leading North Atlantic right whale scientific experts
of

and has been endorsed by Environment America, International Fund for the Animal Welfare, Sierra Club, and
Oceana. "We take our responsibility to be a national leader in responsible offshore wind development very seriously,
and ensuring marine mammals are protected is just one way were fulfilling our commitment," said Jeffrey
Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind. Deepwater Wind in July 2013 acquired a 30-year lease to develop the
Deepwater ONE project in the Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind Energy Area, located in Rhode Island Sound, after
winning the first-ever competitive lease auction for offshore wind energy development in America. The lease area
covers approximately 256 square miles in the Atlantic Ocean, roughly 30 miles east of Montauk, N.Y. and roughly 17
miles south of Rhode Island, between Block Island, R.I., and Marthas Vineyard, Mass. "By working with CLF and our
partners to protect North Atlantic right whales and other marine mammals, Deepwater Wind shows that offshore
wind can achieve its potential to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels while maintaining great sensitivity to our
important natural resources, said Tricia K. Jedele, Vice President and Director of Conservation Law Foundations
Rhode Island Advocacy Center. We are proud to partner with Deepwater Wind, NWF and NRDC to come to this
significant agreement, and hope our collective work will be replicated nationally to help bring the economic and
environmental benefits of clean, renewable offshore wind power to communities throughout the U.S. without
compromising vulnerable marine animals." The measures outlined in the agreement provide further protections for
the North Atlantic right whales, including a commitment by Deepwater Wind to avoid all noise-producing activities
during specific periods in the spring when North Atlantic right whales have been known to frequent Rhode Island
Sound, as well as reduced speed limits for all vessels involved in site characterization and assessment activities for
the Deepwater ONE project during these periods. "This industry leader is demonstrating that smart from the start
development can help American offshore wind get off the ground fasterso it can start delivering clean, climate
change-fighting energy that benefits all creatures on this planet, said Kit Kennedy, Director of the Energy and
Transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Many of these endangered whales have been
spotted in this area of Rhode Island Sound, making these additional protections particularly important for their
conservation." Construction at the Deepwater ONE site could begin as early as 2017, with commercial operations by
2018. Deepwater ONE will produce enough energy to power approximately 120,000 homes annually and displace
significant greenhouse gas emissions annually. Details of the Agreement The full details of the latest agreement can

The agreement reduces the threat to

right whales by restricting meteorological tower construction and certain other site
activites during the peak foraging season, when whales venture to southern New
England waters to feed. During other times of the year, when the whales frequent the area less, the
be found here: http://www.clf.org/right-whales-offshore-wind.

activities may occur with additional protective measures in place. These additional protective measures include:
enhanced real-time human monitoring for whale activity in the site area; restriction of pile driving activities to
daylight hours when whales can be spotted; use of noise-reducing tools and technologies; and a lower speed limit
for vessels during periods in the spring when North Atlantic right whales have been known to frequent Rhode Island
Sound. The agreementwhich was developed with input from leading right whale scientists, including those from
the New England Aquariumalso has the support of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Sierra Club and
Environment America. The agreement has been sent to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
which oversees offshore renewable energy development. This effort builds on two previous agreements aimed at
protecting North Atlantic right whales: In 2012, a coalition led by CLF, NRDC and NWF, working together with
Deepwater Wind, Energy Management, Inc. (owner of Cape Wind in Massachusetts) and NRG Bluewater Wind,

drafted a similar set of protective measures that developers agreed to implement in the Mid-Atlantic Wind Energy
Areas, which stretch from New Jersey to Virginia. An agreement between Deepwater Wind and CLF in October 2013
restricts all Block Island Wind Farm foundation construction activities during the month of April. This agreement will
be reflected in the stipulations to any approval granted to Deepwater Wind by Rhode Islands Coastal Resources
Management Council. About the Coalition Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New Englands environment
for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural
resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in 1966, CLF is a
nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and
Vermont. Visit us at www.clf.org and follow us on Twitter @theCLF. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is
America's largest conservation organization with an over 75-year history of inspiring Americans to protect wildlife
for our children's future. NWF believes that responsibly-developed renewable energy is critical for protecting wildlife
from the dangers of global warming. NWF is headquartered in Washington DC with regional offices in Vermont,
Maryland, Texas, Michigan, Colorado, Montana, and Washington. Visit us at www.nwf.org/offshorewind and follow us
on Twitter @NWF. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental
organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other
environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment.
NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and
Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. Deepwater Wind is a leading U.S. offshore wind
and transmission developer. The Company is led by a veteran management team with extensive experience in
developing renewable-energy projects in the northeastern United States. The Company is actively planning offshore
wind projects to serve multiple East Coast markets located 15 or more miles offshore, including New York,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. The Companys Block Island Wind Farm is on target to become the
nations first offshore wind farm. Visit www.dwwind.com and follow us on Twitter @DeepwaterWind for more info.

Non-unique Seismic Air guns and noise pollution cause mass

extinction in the squo
Oceana 12-19-13 (Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales off Virginia Coast
Threatened by Seismic Airguns, According to New Data, http://oceana.org/en/newsmedia/press-center/press-releases/endangered-north-atlantic-right-whales-offvirginia-coast-threatened-by-seismic-airguns-a, ekr)
Right whales and other large whales are highly sensitive to the intense pulses of lowfrequency sound such as those produced by seismic airguns. Impacts to marine mammals
from seismic airgun blasts can include temporary or permanent hearing loss, disruption of vital
behaviors like communicating, feeding, mating, calving and migrating, and masking
of biologically important sounds. According to the governments own estimates,
such testing would injure and possibly kill 138,500 dolphins and whales along the
East Coast. Imagine dynamite going off in your living room every 10 seconds, for days to weeks at a time,
said Matthew Huelsenbeck, marine scientist at Oceana. You could be injured or possibly killed, and
at the very least you would be forced to leave your home. This is what seismic
airguns would mean for endangered right whales unless the government provides
them with better protections. We dont have to turn the Atlantic Ocean into a blast zone to fulfill our
energy needs. For creatures that depend on their sense of sound to survive, this is a
severe threat, said Margaret Cooney, campaigns officer at IFAW. Unbridled noise pollution is
drowning out the calls of whales and other marine mammals with life-threatening
consequences for finding food, mating, nurturing young, navigating and
communicating. With fewer than 500 individuals left, the loss of even one North Atlantic right whale could
have a severe impact on the overall population.

Building offshore wind will not kill whales

Deepwater Wind No Date (Deepwater Wind, No Date, Offshore Wind
Developers, Environmental Groups Reach First-of-kind Agreement To Protect
Endangered Right Whales, Help Expedite Clean Energy In Mid-Atlantic,
http://dwwind.com/news/offshore-wind-developers-environmental-groups-reachfirst-of-kind-agreement-to-protect-endangered-right-whales-help-expedite-cleanenergy-in-mid-atlantic, U.S. leader in offshore wind power, GIE)

a coalition of leading environmental organizations and

offshore wind developers has agreed to a series of voluntary measures that will
protect critically endangered North Atlantic right whales , while helping to expedite responsible
In a first of its kind collaboration,

offshore wind development, in the Mid-Atlantic. Building upon proposed federally mandated protections, the
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), working together with

Deepwater Wind, Energy Management, Inc. (owner of

Cape Wind in Massachusetts) and NRG Bluewater Wind, have drafted a set of
protective measures that these developers will voluntarily implement over the next
four years in areas designated by the administration as Mid-Atlantic Wind Energy
Areas, which stretch from New Jersey to Virginia (map available here: http://on.doi.gov/UWoNPF).
The measures outlined in the agreement provide further protections for the North Atlantic right whale, primarily by
reducing or avoiding sound impacts from exploratory activities that developers use to determine where to build
wind farms, such as the construction of temporary towers that measure weather conditions and underwater surveys
that assess the geology just beneath the ocean floor. This is important because acoustic disturbances under the
water can disrupt whale communication, safety of migration and feeding. This agreement was born out of a shared
objective to expedite environmentally responsible development and deployment of clean, renewable offshore wind
energy in the Mid-Atlantic region a critical step to reducing carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that threaten
the ocean, wildlife and the climate. It was sent today to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which
oversees offshore renewable energy development. We

share with these leading developers a

common objective to get offshore wind up and running as quickly as possible as a
key tool in the fight against climate change , said Tricia K. Jedele, vice president and director of
Conservation Law Foundation Rhode Island. To be clear, removing obstacles to offshore wind
doesnt mean cutting corners. Indeed, these companies have worked pro-actively
with scientists and members of the environmental community to develop these new
right whale protections and build them into their business plans . Its a win-win
agreement that both enhances protection for critically endangered right whales and
advances offshore winds progress in the Atlantic . Climate change is the single biggest threat to
wildlife today and we urgently need to transition to clean energy sources like offshore wind, said Justin Allegro,
renewable energy and wildlife program manager at the National Wildlife Federation. This

collaborative
agreement between key ocean stakeholders helps ensure these Atlantic offshore
wind industry leaders can develop while protecting critically endangered right
whales. This first-of-a-kind agreement will help industry leaders more quickly
capture the enormous potential of wind blowing off the Mid-Atlantic coast, while
protecting a critically endangered species at the same time , said NRDC Clean Energy
Counsel Kit Kennedy. These companies have shown great leadership. Climate change is the single biggest
environmental threat to all life on Earthon land and in the waterand the only way we can rise above it is by
switching to clean energy sources. With proactive action like this, responsible American wind energy can start
delivering the sustainable energy and jobs our country needs right now, while safeguarding marine life.
Deepwater Wind is proud to sign this historic agreement to help protect the North Atlantic right whale, said Jeffrey
Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind, which led the industry in developing the agreement, tasking its construction
and environmental permitting staffs to share information with leading national experts on the North Atlantic right
whale and leading the dialogue that gave rise to the agreement. Offshore wind energy is a critical component to
our nations long-term energy security. We have an enormous energy resource right off of our coast and developing

it will help preserve our environment and protect species like the North Atlantic right whale. But this energy
resource must be developed responsibly, and we are committed to being a national leader in responsible
development. This agreement and Deepwater Winds role in negotiating it is proof of that commitment. We are
pleased be working with these leading environmental organizations who have been forceful advocates for launching
Americas offshore wind industry on this measure to help safeguard North Atlantic Right Whales, said Mark
Rodgers, Communications Director at Energy Management. Details of the Agreement The full details of the

The agreement
reduces the threat to right whales by limiting weather tower construction and
certain other activities during the peak migration season, when whales travel
through the mid-Atlantic region between southern calving and northern feeding
grounds. During other times of the year, when the whales frequent the area less,
the activities may take place with additional protective measures.
agreement can be found here: http://docs.nrdc.org/oceans/files/oce_12121101a.pdf.

Off-shore Wind Developers plan to protect whales

Nunez 12 (Christina Nunez, 12/19/12, Producer of Energy Content at the National
Geographic, As U.S. Eyes Offshore Wind Development, Whales Get New
Protections
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/19/as-u-s-eyes-offshore-winddevelopment-whales-get-new-protections/, JJ)

One of the concerns for offshore wind development along the East Coast involves the endangered North Atlantic

week, three wind

developers announced an agreement with environmental groups designed to mitigate
impact on the right whales migration, feeding and breeding grounds . The provisions of the
voluntary plan include restrictions on development activity , noise levels and ship speeds
during certain times of the year, along with increased monitoring for whale presence as
right whale, which routinely migrates up and down the Atlantic off the U.S. coast. Last

companies assess potential turbine sites.

Offshore Wind Companies plan to Protect North Atlantic Right

Whales
Kuffner May 07 (Alex, 05/07/2014, Offshore wind farm developer agrees to
steps to protect endangered whales,
http://www.providencejournal.com/business/content/20140507-offshore-wind-farmdeveloper-agrees-to-steps-to-protect-endangered-whales.ece, writer for the
Providence Journal, Bachelors degree, TG)

PROVIDENCE, R.I. Deepwater Wind has reached an agreement with a coalition of

environmental groups to minimize disturbances to endangered whales when it
builds a proposed wind farm of up to 200 turbines in federal waters in Rhode Island
Sound. The agreement between the Providence-based developer and the
Conservation Law Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the
National Wildlife Federation was announced Wednesday morning and is aimed at
reducing impacts to North Atlantic right whales, a critically endangered species with

a total population of between 400 and 500 individuals. It follows similar pacts
Deepwater has signed with the groups that cover an area off the mid-Atlantic states
and the area off Block Island where the company is planning its first offshore wind
farm, a five-turbine demonstration project. The agreement restricts pile driving and
other construction activities during the winter and early spring months when the
whales are known to feed in the waters of Rhode Island Sound. It also calls for lower
speed limits for project vessels, better surveillance to spot whales and the use of
the latest technology to reduce underwater noise. We take our responsibility to be
a national leader in responsible offshore wind development very seriously, and
ensuring marine mammals are protected is just one way were fulfilling our
commitment, said Jeffrey Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater. Deepwater won leasing
rights to the area in Rhode Island Sound in an auction last summer. The company
would build the wind farm in stages, with the first phase coming on line in 2018 at
the earliest.

Offshore wind doesnt hurt whales Deepwater Wind

agreement solves
Kennedy 14 (Kit, the Clean Energy Counsel at the Natural Resources Defense
Council, worked at NRDC for almost twenty-five years, 05-08-14, New England
Offshore Wind Developer Announces Protections for Whales,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/new-englandoffshore-wind-developer-announces-protections-for-whales, AS)

This agreement will help guard against potential localized risks for this specific area during
the initial phases of phases of wind power development, while at the same time allowing
the company to proceed toward a project that will spin clean energy and help to
combat the threats of ocean acidification and climate change to our seas and the
entire plant. Specifically, the agreement reached today includes practical, science-based
measures, including seasonal restrictions (primarily during winter and spring) on certain
noise-generating activities that could disrupt whales. These measures are tailored to this specific lease
area. The measures include but are not limited to: Restrictions on noisy sub-bottom profiling
(used to survey areas for possible turbine installation) and pile driving for meteorological towers during likely
times of whale presence in the area 10-knot speed limit restriction for vessels moving through the area during
certain periods when whales are likely to be in the area, to reduce likelihood of strikes Use of best
commercially available noise attenuation and source level reduction technologies to reduce noise during tower

visual human monitoring by dedicated, qualified National

These practical
and do-able precautions offer enhanced protection for the whales at this site while
allowing Deepwater Wind to proceed with this important project . Indeed, they offer more
construction during certain periods Real time

Marine Fisheries Services-approved observers during pile driving and sub-bottom profiling

certainty to Deepwater that the project will proceed smoothly and on time. After all, any impact on right whales, in
addition to being negative for the species, could also cause a major setback and prolonged delays for the project.
Significantly, Deepwater ONE could provide clean renewable power not just to one state, but to several. The project
is sited close to both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and could deliver clean power to both those states. And it is
also just 30 miles east of Long Island, which means it could provide power to New York. Indeed, Deepwater ONE is
seeking a contract with the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) to provide Long Island with a portion of its clean
energy output. If it goes through, Deepwater ONE could produce enough energy to power 120,000 homes in Long
Islands East End. Together with increasing solar energy there, the addition of wind from Deepwater ONE would help

diversify Long Islands power sources, reduce the pollution that is turbocharging our weather. A decision by LIPA is

American offshore wind is ramping up along our coasts.

Todays agreement with Deepwater Wind provides additional proof positive that,
with smart planning from the start, we can develop it responsibly in harmony with
its underwater neighbors and start spinning clean, pollution-free energy to power
us into the future.
expected at the end of this year.

CP Answers

Prizes CP Answers
(--) Counterplan doesnt solve the case:
A) It doesnt do an explicit mandate for offshore windour
Schroeder evidence indicates this is necessary to bolster
support for offshore wind power.
B) They dont require revisions in states CZMPsthis is
necessary to give wind power statutory support against state
litigation or to deter the litigation altogetherthats our
Schroeder evidence.
C) You have to give funding increases for offshore wind power
developmentour Schroeder evidence says studies have
shown an increase in renewable energy investment when this
occurstheir prize doesnt guarantee offshore wind power
developmentwhich is necessary to solveextend the
evidence from our advantages.
(--) A revised regulatory framework is necessary to solve:
Erica Schroeder, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law,
2010 (California Law Review, 2010, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu /cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1069&context=californialawreview; Accessed 7/21/2014, rwg)
V THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT: A POTENTIAL SOLUTION The Cape Wind example
poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local costs and national benefits with regard to offshore wind power

The
federal government needs a stronger role in the process to counteract narrowminded state and local opposition. With a well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and developers
could properly weigh regional, national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its limited local costs. The
CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory framework. It
development, and the potential for local interests to hijack state and federal processes and stall a project.

already covers the states' coastal zones-that is, the area three miles or less from the shore-and leaves states with
substantial power. 2 2 7 However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the national interest in the benefits
of offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and
minor.228 Now is a time for more decisive and bold action . With the change in the United States'
administration, the deteriorating climate situation, and the nation's ongoing energy and economic crises, the
country has both the opportunity and the need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new
regulatory scheme, as some have suggested, 2 2 9 goes too far: it fails to acknowledge what Congress can

With some
strengthening revisions, the CZMA might become the simple solution that helps
the United States turn offshore wind on.
realistically accomplish and ignores the tools we already have in our hands in the CZMA.

(--) Perm: Do bothPrizes should be used in combination with

other federal tools
Frangione 14 Christopher Frangione, Vice President of Prize Development,
XPRIZE Subcommittee on Research and Technology Hearing - Prizes to Spur
Innovation and Technology Breakthroughs Subcommittee on Research and

Technology | 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | Apr 9,
2014 10:00am http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-research-andtechnology-hearing-prizes-spur-innovation-and-technology
We strongly believe that the private and public sectors must work together to utilize
every tool available to facilitate meaningful innovation that drives economic growth.
Prizes are not a replacement to traditional financing mechanisms, but are
complements to them. They are one of many innovation tools that agencies and the
Federal government should consider utilizing in tandem with other financial
mechanisms such as grants, contracts, investments and incentives.

(--) Conditionality Bad:

A) Time Skew: They can kick the counterplan whenever they
want at no cost to them.
B) Strategy Skew: Cant make our best answers to the
counterplan.
C) Voting Issue: Reject the teamrejecting the counterplan
gives them what they want.
(--) Prizes wont solvetwo reasons:
Adler 11
Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and
Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES ON A CLIMATE
PRIZE:REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol35_1/HLE101.pdf
prizes are not without their drawbacks. Most notably, prize
systems require researchers to obtain funding for their research up front. For
some types of research, particularly where expensive equipment is required, this
can create a significant obstacle. Prizes are also not particularly well-suited to
situations in which the funding authority cannot articulate clear criteria upon
which the prize would be awarded. For this reason, prizes are not as useful for the
funding of basic research. In the climate change context, however, there is a need for practical
It bears repeating, however, that

innovations that are commercially viable. This makes prizes particularly well suited for the climate policy challenge.

(--) C-plan links to politicsPoliticians oppose prizes

Adler 11 Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for
Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES
ON A CLIMATE PRIZE:REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE
STABILIZATION
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol35_1/HLE101.pdf
As government became an ever-larger source of science funding, the shift away
from prizes continued. Today, most prizes are privately funded, while most government-supported scientific
research comes in the form of research grants.145 Reviewing the trends, Hanson suggests that "[grants may have
won not, as their advocates claimed, because they were a superior institution, but instead because non-local and
non-autocratic governments tended to prefer them."146 According to Hanson, " governments

might prefer

grant-like funding to prize-like funding because they were susceptible to distributive

pressures from leaders of scientific societies, who preferred the 'pork' of increased
discretion over the money that passed through their hands ."147

1ar: Prizes Wont Solve the AFF

(--) Extend our Schroeder evidenceyou should view the
counterplan through a lens of optimalityif there is the tiniest
risk that the counterplan wont solve the case theres a risk of
extinction.
(--) They dont change the regulatory structurewhich means
even if we have the technology it wont be implemented
because states will veto it.

1ar: Prizes Wont Solve

(--) Extend our Adler evidenceprizes wont solvetwo
reasons
A) Researchers would need to obtain funding for their research
up frontoffshore wind is expensive and this would delay its
development.
B) Funding authority cannot articulate clear criteria upon
which the prize would be awardedmeans researchers dont
have a clear target to meet.
(--) Prizes cant work because startup costs are prohibitive
Adler 11
Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and
Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES ON A CLIMATE
PRIZE:REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol35_1/HLE101.pdf
A potentially significant drawback of prizes is that researchers must obtain funding
for their research in order to compete. From a fiscal policy standpoint, this is a
benefit, as funding prizes does not require the government to appropriate money
up front.105 Yet in fields in which research may be capital intensive, the lack of
upfront funding can be inhibitive.106 A theoretical mathematician may not have
many fixed costs, but the same may not be true for a scientist researching particle
physics or even nuclear power plant design. If research toward a prize requires the
construction of expensive equipment, these costs may be a substantial barrier to
participation. This concern may justify retaining traditional grant-based funding for
basic research and for other particular types of research. It does not, however,
undermine the broader case for prizes.

(--) Prizes trade off with other solutions and can be politicized
Vaitheeswaran 12 Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran China Business Editor of The
Economist The Rise of the Prize, http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/14/the-rise-ofthe-prize/
This all is very exciting, but there are some tradeoffs and limitations. Nobody should care if a plutocrat tries to
spend his fortune on fanciful prizesas one Robert Bigelow, heir to an American budget-hotel fortune, did on an

government resources are scarce,

and taxpayer money spent on prizes may come at the expense of other policies,
such as grants to universities or tax credits for corporate investment in research .
What is more, prizes used as public policy can be vulnerable to political
manipulation. In one case, an American government prize for environmental
performance saw the winning firm suppress its breakthrough when the losers
lobbied Congress to relax the relevant regulations in their favor .
overly ambitious $50 million space prize that failed miserably. But

(--) Prizes are difficult to structure and they fail

Adler 11 Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for
Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES
ON A CLIMATE PRIZE:REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE
STABILIZATION http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol35_1/HLE101.pdf
Setting the appropriate level for a prize can be difficult as well, particularly if the prize is
expected to substitute for patent protection.103 A prize that is too small will fail to stimulate
sufficient investment, but a prize that is too high will waste resources .104 Of course, if
the prize is set too low, and it is insufficient to spur sufficient levels of research, the
prize will not be claimed, so the fiscal cost for a sponsoring government agency is zero. In such an
instance, the government may have failed to spur valuable research, but it will not have wasted taxpayer dollars on
an unadvised investment. Prizes may also be the subject of controversy , particularly if the criteria
for winning a prize are insufficiently clear or fail to account for possible means of satisfying the prize requirements.

1ar: Links to Politics

(--) Extend our Adler evidencepoliticians dont like prizes
because it doesnt give them discretion over where the money
goesthey have to go to whomever wins the prize.
(--) Politicians oppose prizes and prefer direct funding of
projects
Adler 11 Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for
Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of
Law, EYES ON A CLIMATE PRIZE:REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION TO
ACHIEVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol35_1/HLE101.pdf
To their detriment, the same characteristics that make innovation prizes so effective
discourage their use by politicians. Grant programs empower government officials
to dole out funds to favored constituencies and institutional insiders. Even where
efforts are made to insulate the decision making process, grant-making officials are
influenced by knowledge of who will receive grant support, and the grants go out
whether or not a grant recipient delivers or a problem is solved. Prize money, on the
other hand, is only paid out if someone fulfills the preset conditions and is available
to all comers, irrespective of their political influence or institutional connections.
Indeed, as with the longitude prize, the reward may go to an innovation disfavored
by political and scientific elites.

K Answers

Climate-Technics K Answers

Climate-Technics K Answers
(--) Policy Framework:
A) The resolution is framed as a policy question.
B) Infinite number of frameworks: impossible for the AFF to
predict and be prepared for these.
C) Means we get to weigh the case vs. their K.
(--) Alt doesnt solve any of the casewe read specific
evidence that offshore wind is key to solve.
( ) Particularitys the best standard
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

and because it is question driven, with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

(--) Specific history disproves the Kif their impacts are true
past uses of technology should have caused the link.
(--) Perm is the best optioncombining technological solutions
with re-thinking buys us time for the mindset shift to occur:

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
I have analogized geoengineering to trying to treat lung cancer instead of trying to
quit smoking. A deep environmentalist, one who cares about root causes and
philosophical underpinnings rather than just the effects thereof, would want to find and
eliminate the factors behind the desire to smoke. But is it trivial in forming policy to take
into account that the world really likes to smoke? I think not: politics and policymaking
are largely a world of competing preferences, not an academic forum where the ideal
theoretical answer is the right answer. Of course, it is sad that the world's smoker would
rather suffer serious illness than kick the habit. Thus, it is right for leaders to preach
sensibility from their bully pulpits. We should teach "living lightly," simple frugality, and
critical thinking to our children. We should try to soften the blow of consumerism and
advocate sustainable development in place of rapacious deforestation and biodiversity
loss. But while we do all of that, what do we do about climate change? While the
preacher is at the bully pulpit, the deacons should be working to solve the problem. Were
the planet a teenager trying her first cigarette, it surely would be smarter to address 'root
causes' to prevent her from smoking at all. But in the case of climate change, the smoker
has been at it for many years, and the addiction is firmly in place. In such a situation,
focusing on the "real problem" simply may not work. Strong interests anchor the status
quo, and they are not easily condemned "black hats," but a wide range of actors with
motives that are not necessarily selfish or shortsighted.

(--) Technological solutions solve best for the environment

weve already overshot:
Hoekstra 2014, (Jon Hoekstra is Chief Scientist at World Wildlife Fund, He
served as Senior Scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Science Director
for TNCs Washington State Chapter, and has worked with the federal
government at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAAs National Marine
Fisheries Service. Jon holds a B.S. and M.S. in biological sciences from
Stanford University and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Washington
where he now maintains a faculty appointment, Networking Nature,
[ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140748/jon-hoekstra/networkingnature ] , //hss-Rj)
Conservation is for the first time beginning to operate at the pace and on the scale
necessary to keep up with, and even get ahead of, the planets most intractable
environmental challenges. New technologies have given conservationists abilities that would have
seemed like super powers just a few years ago. We can now monitor entire ecosystems -- think of the Amazon
rainforest -- in nearly real time, using remote sensors to map their three-dimensional structures; satellite
communications to follow elusive creatures, such as the jaguar and the puma; and smartphones to report illegal
logging. Such innovations are revolutionizing conservation in two key ways: first, by revealing the state of the world
in unprecedented detail and, second, by making available more data to more people in more places. Like most

technologies, these carry serious, although manageable, risks: in the hands of poachers, location-tracking devices

Yet on balance, technological

innovation gives new hope for averting the planets environmental
collapse and reversing its accelerating rates of habitat loss, animal
extinction, and climate change. CELL PHONES FOR ELEPHANTS In 2009, I visited the Lewa Wildlife
could prove devastating to the endangered animals they hunt.

Conservancy, in northern Kenya. A cattle ranch turned rhinoceros and elephant preserve, Lewa has become a model
for African conservation, demonstrating how the tourism that wildlife attracts can benefit neighboring communities,
providing them with employment and business opportunities. When I arrived at camp, I was surprised -- and a little
dismayed -- to discover that my iPhone displayed five full service bars. So much for a remote wilderness

Since the mid-1970s,

people have been consuming more resources than the planets natural
capital can replenish.
experience, I thought. But those bars make Lewas groundbreaking work possible.

(--) Lack of coalitions will doom the alternative:

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
Clearly, this is an oversimplified example, but the point should be clear: holism is not always effective.
Treating the Earth system's problem of climate change, while separately addressing
deforestation, fossil fuel consumption, habitat loss, population growth, and so on, may
well be the overall best strategy. Different coalitions may be assembled to reach a
consensus on each individual issue where no one coalition could be assembled to tackle it
all together.

(--) Only technological discourse creates a knowledge base

necessary to create effective environmental policy
-the impact is the case

Fischer 2000 Professor of Political Science

Frank Fischer, Professor of Political Science, Citizens Experts, and the Environment:
The Politics of Local Knowledge, pg. 22-23
With respect to the political process more generally, it is no longer enough for its leaders to rely on the

For those seeking to extend their political

influence, the complexity of modern policy issues necessitates attention to
policy arguments. Regardless of their political strength, interest groups and social movements
without access to expertise can scarcely participate in the policy process ,
certainly not effectively. One sign of this has been the great proliferation of think tanks and the
politics of oppositional expertise or counterexpertise, a theme to which we return (Fischer 1991a}. The
lack of access to policy-relevant knowledge hinders the possibilities of an
active and meaningful involvement in the political decision processes for the
large majority of the public. Similarly, others have identified the appearance of "policy discourse
coalitions'* that form among experts and political leaders (Ilajer 1995). Such discourse coalitions
formulate and advance policy strategies very differently than do traditional party coalitions. Even while
party elites retain their formal authority, they must increasingly justify their decisions by
appeal to the technical analyses of their coalition experts. With regard to the public, it
strategic exercise of their political influence.

becomes increasingly clear that in many policy domains, politics more and more becomes a struggle

This is especially the case in

technically based fields such as environmental policy . Indeed, access to technical
knowledge and skill has allowed those with the power to legitimate their
political decisions in these areas. Conversely, as we shall see in later chapters, the lack of
between those who have expertise and those who do not.

access to such knowledge-hinders the possibility of an active and meaningful involvement on the part of the
large majority of the public. One of the most important contemporary functions of technocratic politics, it
can be argued, rests not as much on its ascent to power (in the traditional sense of the term) as on the fact
that its growing influence shields the elites from political pressure from below (Laird 1990). Not only are
experts socially situated between the elites and the public, but their technical languages provide an
intimidating barrier for lay citizens seeking to express their disagreements in the language of everyday life.

Speaking the language of science, as well as the jargon of particular policy

communities, becomes an essential credential for participation . Indeed, in the cases

of highly developed professions such as medicine and law, the credential is formally conferred and regulated
by the state.

1ar Permutation Block

(--) Extend our permutation: our Michaelson evidence says we
need to use technological solutions in the interim to prevent
death from climate change while re-thinking our view on
climate change.
(--) Environmental management is justified to compensate for
the effects of past environmental mismanagement:

Holly Doremus, 2000 (Professor of Law, University of

California at Davis, Washington & Lee Law Review,
Winter 2000, The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature
Protection: Toward a New Discourse. Accessed via
Academic Lexis/Nexis, May 23, 2011)
Besides potentially inhibiting the creation of large reserves, a strict hands- off strategy is inconsistent with
the protection of species, ecosystems, or natural processes. No place in the United States remains entirely
unaffected by human actions. Ongoing management efforts are often necessary to compensate for
the effect of past actions, or current actions outside the designated reserves. Competition with or predation by alien
species, for example, is one of the leading threats to domestic biodiversity. Once introduced, alien species often spread rapidly and are
difficult, if not impossible to remove. Protecting native species from the threat of such exotics requires ongoing management.
Intensive management may also be required to substitute for changes in historic fire regimes, predation levels, and other elements of
the biophysical environment. Given

the extensive changes in background conditions, ecologists tell

us that most areas dedicated to the preservation of nature cannot simply be left to their
own devices, but will require active human management.

(--) Technological solutions arent inconsistent with deep

ecology.

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
Part V insists that it

is time for environmentalists to reclaim the Big Fix, that holists and deep ecologists must, in

a Rawlsian vein, learn to speak the pragmatic language of political discourse. If for no other reason, they
must do this because geoengineering offers hope for solving climate change beyond the too-little, too-lates of Kyoto essentially if
you are one of the people who care about climate change, you should support geoengineering, because most people still do not care

on a deeper level, geoengineering asks environmentalists how much they value

their private philosophies, and how much they value the estuaries, islands, and trees that
are threatened by climate change.
enough. But

(--) The permutation gives breathing room for the mindset shift
to occur.

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
On the practical side, this debate echoes in many quarters of the environmental movement. Should we try to force reduced levels
of consumption, or settle for "green fees?" Should we attempt to revalue "living lightly" or try to develop "no-regrets"

Should an environmentalist tell McDonald's to "shut its doors"

or work to package its unsustainable product in more sustainable containers? Ultimately,
it may be that the only way to a sustainable future is for McDonald's to shut its doors, but
this will not happen today, or next year . Likewise, other engines of industry will continue to run for a long time.
In the meantime, ought we not do what we can to address the climate change problem
itself?
environmentally-friendly technologies?

(--) Holistic approaches should be kept in mind while creating incremental

solutions.

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
Finally, holism is flawed because it tries to take the "big picture" into account without
necessarily knowing how to frame the picture. Holism multiplies uncertainty. It requires
large-scale guessing regarding both present conditions, causes for present conditions, and
likely future conditions, with each guess clouded in uncertainties and information costs. Acting
holistically makes sense if we know exactly where we are, why we are here, and where we are headed, but in an uncertainty-riddled
context such as global climate change, wholesale, holistic alterations radically amplify the risks of making mistakes. Of course, holism
remains important; only a fool would not look at causes, contexts, and consequences for points of leverage in battling climate change.

In some cases, however, holistic policy prescriptions actually lessen the opportunity for
consensus-building and may magnify the uncertainties and information costs associated
with environmental policy.

1ar: Tech Necessary to Solve

(--) Extend Hoekstra evidenceweve overshot now and need
technology in order to solve climate change. Their alternative
will fail and you should prefer our specific evidence on how to
solve.
(--) Technological progress is necessary to save the
environmentradical environmentalism will fail.
Frank B. Cross, 2002 (Professor of Business Law, University of Texas at Austin,
Case Western Reserve Law Review, Winter, 2002, 53 Case W. Res. 477; Lexis)
When we discover a serious environmental problem, what
should we do about it? The essence of Lomborg's book is the claim that radical action is not required to
An equally critical question is:

deal with environmental problems, that the growth of the economy and technology will itself help to address the

In the past, the doomsayers have called

for a variety of radical responses, such as zero or negative population growth, a halt to economic
development or even de-development, and the prohibition of various technological advances ,
problems, with some supplementary government regulation.

such as genetic modification. While such proposals may have declined in number, they are still heard today. This is
the more severe flaw in the environmental movement. They have identified real problems in the past, even as they
exaggerated them. Pollution was a serious problem in the twentieth century. But the radical solutions were
unnecessary to solve the pollution problem; in fact, they probably would have exacerbated pollution.

The world

does face a number of serious environmental problems in the developing world. The more
developed nations, affluent, with well-developed technology, have gone far toward curing their internal

the answer to our greatest problems

lies not in stopping growth or new technologies, but advancing them. A plenitude of evidence
environmental problems. This observation would suggest that
supports that suggestion.

(--) Developing environmentally benign technologies is the

only way to solve the impacts
Lewis 94 Professor of Environmental Studies
Martin Lewis professor in the School of the Environment and the Center for
International Studies at Duke University. Green Delusions, 1992 p135-136
The eco-radical attack on the reductionism and specialization inherent in science is environmentally

If we were to abandon scientific methodology we would have to

relinquish our hopes that environmentally benign technologies might be developed. Advances in
solar power will not come about through holistic inquiries into the meaning of nature . The
scientific method also must be applied in environmental monitoring. Had it not been for highly
specialized measuring techniques, we would not have known about the CFC threat until it was too
late. Moreover, the requisite devices would never have been made were it not for the organization of the
threatening in its own right.

scientific community into distinct specialties, each framing its inquiries in a reductionistic manner. To avoid
environmental catastrophe we need as much specific knowledge of environmental processes as possible,
although it is also true that we must improve our abilities to combine insights derived from separate
specialities. Much greater emphasis must be placed on basic environmental science, in both its reductive
and synthetic forms, a project that would be greatly hindered if we insist that only vague and spiritually
oriented forms of holistic analysis are appropriate. Eco-radicals can be expected to counter that
environmental monitoring is only necessary in the first place because of industrial poisoning; dismantle
industry, and environmental science will cease to be useful. Although seemingly cogent, this argument fails
on historical grounds. As discussed previously, toxins can be produced by nature as well as by humanity. For
centuries Europeans attributed the delusions they suffered after eating ergot-infected bread to evil spirits.
Thousands of women were burned at the stake because of the fearful reactions of a patriarchal, religiously

Once
scientists, using special -ized techniques, isolated the agent, ergotism and its associated social
pathologies began to disappear (Matossian 1989). In many different fields specialized scientific
techniques are now proving invaluable for the efforts to control pollution and preserve natural di versity For example, the development of biosensorsmechanisms that combine biological membranes or
fundamentalist society to the psychological effects of an unknown, natural, environmental toxin.

cells with microelectronic sensors (Elkington and Shopley 1988:14)promises vastly improved means of
pollution detection. Similarly the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIs), based on the
construction of spatialized computer data bases, has allowed geographers and planners to predict the
ecological consequences of specific human activities and thus minimize deleterious impacts on critical
ecosystems. Nature Conservancy field agents, for example, have found cis a useful tool in devising
conservation strategies for Ohios Big Darby Creek, one of the Midwests few remaining clear-flowing
streams (Allan i 991). Geographers have also repeatedly proved the utility of satellite image interpretation
for developing and implementing conservation plans at the national level (Elkington and Shopley 1988). We
may expect eco-extremists to have little patience with such philosophically impure forms of environmental
work. Yet rejecting such techniques outright would only intensify environmental destruction.

(--) Climate scientists use a defensible method

Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental
Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in
London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what
to do about it, pg. 19
A more recent survey found that 82% of Earth scientists and 97.4% of
climatologists agreed human activity was a significant contributing factor in
changing global temperatures. The authors concluded 'the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of
long-term climate processes'. Whether that consensus is correct is a separate
question, which cannot be addressed by criticism or falsification of individual
studies or data sets. Climate science, and hence the current consensus on
anthropogenic global warming, is firmly grounded in a consilience of method,
evidence and theory.

1ar: Alternative Fails

(--) Extend our Michaelson evidencelack of coalitions will
doom the alternative to failurepeople cant rally around their
holistic solution.
(--) The alternative is too radical: Radical environmentalism
will not be embraced by the majority of the population.
Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, 2007 (JD, Boston College Law School,
Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Fall/Winter, 2007, Accessed via Academic
Lexis/Nexis, May 23, 2011)
The federal government's inaction regarding climate change, ostensibly based in a
belief that more environmentally protective policies would adversely affect the
nation's economy, is reflected at the individual level. While many people are willing
to engage in limited actions to reduce their environmental "footprint," few are
willing or able to drastically restructure their daily affairs to protect the
environment. Recently, such strategies as carbon offsets a market-based approach
that allows individuals to "pay to have their greenhouse gas emissions . . . cancelled
out by a corresponding emissions reduction elsewhere" have enabled individuals
to limit their own contribution to environmental devastation while only mildly
altering their lifestyle.

(--) Consumption habits are deeply entrenchedthe alternative

will fail.

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
Moreover, an environmentalist's distaste for the materialistic ideals that undergird
the root causes of climate change does not make attempting to thwart those ideals
either practical or morally justified. Conspicuous consumption is deeply entrenched
in American self-conceptions, and in conceptions of Americans by people in the
developing world who want to be like them.

(--) Deep ecological approaches risk delaying measures to

solve environmental problems.

Jay Michaelson, 1998 (J.D. Yale Law School, Stanford

Environmental Law Journal, January 1998,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project Accessed May 23, 2011 on Academic
Lexis/Nexis)
What the deep environmentalist, holist, and political environmentalist all have in common is an agenda wider than climate
change, and the Big Fix lets them down every time. Yet these factions cast a long shadow on the intellectual ambiance of
contemporary environmentalism. The

desire to "take everything into account" is admirable. It is grounded

in good science, respectable philosophy, and seasoned political savvy. Yet the practical, philosophical, and
political motivations behind doing so often act at cross-purposes with the need to protect
the Earth's climate from potentially devastating change.

(--) Critiquing technological advances are regressive and doom

the environment to catastrophe its impossible to solve
environmental problems without applying tech and
instrumental rationality
Bronner 4 Professor of Political Science
Stephen Eric Bronner, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, 2004,
Reclaiming the Enlightenment: Toward a Politics of Radical Engagement, p. 160
Critics of the Enlightenment may have correctly emphasized the price of progress, the costs of
alienation and reification, and the dangers posed by technology and scientific
expertise for nature and a democratic society. Even so, this does not justify romantic
attempts to roll back technology. They conflate far too easily with ideological justifications for
rolling back the interventionist state and progressive legislation for cleaning up the environ ment.
Such a stance also pits the Enlightenment against environmentalism: technology,
instrumental rationality, and progress are often seen as inimical to preserving
the planet. Nevertheless, this is to misconstrue the problem. Technology is crucial
for dealing with the ecological devastation brought about by modernity. A redirection
of technology will undoubtedly have to take place: but seeking to confront the decay
of the environment without it is like using an umbrella to defend against a hurricane. Institutional
action informed by instrumental rationality and guided by scientific specialists is
unavoidable. Investigations are necessary into the ways government can in fluence ecologically
sound production, provide subsidies or tax-benefits for particular industries, fund
particular forms of knowledge creation, and make risks a matter of public debate. It is
completely correct to note that: neither controversial social issues nor cultural
concerns can be settled simply by scientific fiat, particularly in a world where
experts usually disagree and where science can be compromised by
institutional sponsors. No laboratory can dictate what industrial practices are
tolerable or what degree of industrialization is permissible. These questions
transcend the crude categories of technical criteria and slide-rule
measurements.7

(--) The alt doesnt solveRejection makes the impacts

inevitable

Reitan 98
Eric Reitan (Seattle University Writer for the Electronic Green Journal) Pragmatism,
Environmental World Views, and Sustainability. December 1998
With the urgency of the current environmental crisis, we cannot afford to get
bogged down in theoretic disputes that mask a common mission and get in the way
of making the practical changes that are so pressing. Pragmatic Mediation of Deep Ecology and Christian
Stewardship The example I have chosen to discuss is the theoretic debate between two environmental
philosophies that have emerged in the last few decades: the philosophy of stewardship that has evolved in
Christian communities, and the philosophy of deep ecology. I choose these two not on the basis of any
special status they have, but rather because they are the two environmental perspectives with which I have
the most personal acquaintance, and because the nature of the debate between them usefully illustrates the
value of using pragmatic principles to guide theoretic environmental discourse. Before applying pragmatic
principles to this example, some preliminary comments may be helpful. First, it is important to keep in mind
that complex worldviews or philosophical systems may impact more than one domain of human life, and
that they may have radically opposing pragmatic implications in one or more of those domains while
implying substantially the same behaviors in the domain of the human-nature relationship. In such a case,
we can say that while the worldviews do not have the same pragmatic meaning overall, they have the same

it is important not to let the real differences in other areas

mask the genuine agreement in the environmental domain . Second, it is worth noting
environmental meaning. As such,

that there is almost certainly more than one human social arrangement that harmonizes sustainable with the
natural environment. Put another way, there is more than one set of human practices that works in terms of

more than one

worldview can be pragmatically true: while two worldviews may imply environmental
behaviors that are different, and hence have a different pragmatic meaning, insofar as they both
promote sustainable behaviors they are both true from a pragmatic standpoint. Pragmatic truth
is not monistic, but pluralistic. Given the urgent pragmatic goals of environmental philosophy , sustained
theoretic debates about meaning differences of this sort appear to be unwarranted, and should
be put aside in favor of the task of finding practical ways of integrating and accommodating
those alternative social arrangements which serve the common goal of sustainable human-natural
promoting a healthy human-natural system. And it follows from this observation that

systems.

(--) The alternative isnt feasible only new technologies can

solve
Winter 3 PhD in Psychology, Professor @ Whitman
Deborah, The Psychology of Environmental Problems, Google Book
Giving up comforts and conveniences may be more than we can fathom, and
reverting to preindustrial culture is probably impossible anyway. Even if we could
scale down consumption to preindustrial levels, most people would not want to.
However, many preindustrial cultures have sustained themselves for centuries, demonstrating that
sustainable culture is possible. While copying preindustrial cultures may not be feasible, selecting certain
features might be useful. In addition, sustainable cultures may offer some benefits to human psychological
needs that are not well provided for by industrialized cultures. The modern Western tradition of emphasizing
the individual has given us both unsustainable technology and increasing social alienation. Embedded in the

It may not even be

necessary to "give anything up" in order to ac-complish a reduction or reversal
of environmental degradation. Improving efficiency or productivity is typically
modern Western worldview, we try to use the former to mitigate the latter.

much more effective than significantly reducing overall use, and much relevant
technology is already available. For example, it would be far easier to find an
automobile with twice the fuel efficiency of our present cars than to cut our
driving in half, and buying an efficient water heater is a lot easier than
reducing our use of hot water (Stern, 2000).

Eco-Phenomenology K Answers
(--) Policy Framework:
A) The resolution is framed as a policy question.
B) Infinite number of frameworks: impossible for the AFF to
predict and be prepared for these.
C) Means we get to weigh the case vs. their K.
(--) Alt doesnt solve any of the casewe read specific
evidence that offshore wind is key to solve.
( ) Particularitys the best standard
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

and because it is question driven, with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

(--) Specific history disproves the Kif their impacts are true
the growth of onshore wind should have triggered them.
(--) Prioritizing ontology fails results in endless death
Jarvis 2000 (Darryl, Senior Lecturer in International Relations University
of Sydney, International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism, p.
128-9)
More is the pity that such irrational and obviously abstruse debate should so occupy us at a time of great global
turmoil. That it does and continues to do so reflect our lack of judicious criteria for evaluating theory and, more

Certainly it is right and proper that

our theoretical imaginations, engage in epistemological and ontological
debate, and analyze the sociology of our knowledge. But to support that this is the only task of
international theory, let alone the most important one, smacks of intellectual
elitism and displays a certain contempt for those who search for guidance in their daily struggle as actors in
importantly, the lack of attachment theorists have to the real world.

we ponder

the depths of

international politics. What does Ashleys project, his deconstructive efforts, or valiant fight against positivism say

How does it help solve the plight of the poor,

the displaced refugees, the casualties of war, or the migrs of death squads? Does
it in any way speak to those whose actions and thoughts comprise the policy and
practice of international relations? On all these questions one must answer no. This is not to say, of
to the truly marginalized, oppressed, and destitute?

course, that all theory should be judged by its technical rationality and problem-solving capacity as Ashley forcefully
argues. But to support that problem-solving technical theory is not necessaryor in some way badis a
contemptuous position that abrogates any hope of solving some of the nightmarish realities that millions confront

we need ask of these theorists and their theories the ultimate

question, So what? To what purpose do they deconstruct , problematize,
destabilize, undermine, ridicule, and belittle modernist and rationalist approaches?
Does this get us any further, make the world any better, or enhance the human
condition? In what sense can this debate toward [a] bottomless pit of epistemology
and metaphysics be judged pertinent, relevant, helpful, or cogent to anyone other
than those foolish enough to be scholastically excited by abstract and recondite
debate. Contrary to Ashleys assertions, then, a poststructural approach fails to empower the
marginalized and, in fact, abandons them. Rather than analyze the political economy of power,
daily. As Holsti argues,

wealth, oppression, production, or international relations and render and intelligible understanding of these
processes, Ashley succeeds in ostracizing those he portends to represent by delivering an obscure and highly
convoluted discourse. If Ashley wishes to chastise structural realism for its abstractness and detachment, he must
be prepared also to face similar criticism, especially when he so adamantly intends his work to address the real life
plight of those who struggle at marginal places.

(--) Permutation: do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts

of the alternative-- activism within and outside the state is key
to effective social change
Schlosberg and Dryzek 2002, (David Schlosberg is Professor of
Environmental Politics in the Department of Government and International
Relations at the University of Sydney, and is known internationally for his
work in environmental politics, environmental movements, and political
theory - in particular the intersection of the three with his work on
environmental justice, John Dryzek is Professor of Social Theory and Political
Theory in University of Canberra's Institute for Governance and Policy
Analysis. He has a B.A. (Honours) in Economics and Politics from the
University of Lancaster (1974), an M.Sc. in Politics from the University of

Strathclyde (1976) and received a Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the
University of Maryland in 1980, Political Strategies of American
Environmentalism: Inclusion and Beyond,
[ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08941920290069353 ], //hssRJ)
Environmental activism in an oppositional public sphere, which has grown in large measure as a result of disillusion

Among
political theorists who have contemplated the question of inclusion versus opposition, most conclude
that social movements should operate both inside and outside the state . Referring to the
with the results of inclusion, demonstrates that the life of environmentalism can go on beyond the state.

exemplary case of the womens movement, Cohen and Arato believed that ``The dual logic of feminist politics . . .
involves a communicative, discursive politics of identity and influence that targets civil and political society and an
organized, strategically rational politics of inclusion and reform that is aimed at political and economic institutions
(Cohen and Arato 1992, 550). For Cohen and Arato, the justification of the dual strategy is largely the well-being of
civil society: Groups or their supporters influential within the state would help build a constitutional, legal, and
policy context for the movement outside. Hilary Wainwright (1994) reached the same conclusion from a more

Action within the state is needed to supply collective decisions

with ``binding national and international authority (p. 195), but without the movement outside,
instrumental perspective.

such policy action is unlikely (p. 197). Iris Young, arguing against those who pin their hopes on civil society rather
than the state, concluded that ``social

movements seeking greater justice and well-being

should work on both these fronts, and aim to multiply the links between civil society
and states (Young 2000, 156). A number of movement activists also advocate a dual
strategy. David Brower, the leading American environmentalist of the 20th century, was fond of saying that he
was glad someone like Dave Foreman (founder of Earth First!) came along, because it made Browers position seem
more reasonable. Browers own then-radical presence was once praised in identical terms by moderate
environmentalist Russell Train. Mark Dowie (telephone conversation with the author, 26 August 1999) argued that
such a recognition is becoming more widespread in the U.S. movement: `` I

think wise people at both

levels, grass roots and national, value the work of the other side and see ways of
partnering and working together on some of these issues. . . . I think there is a certain
maturity coming now in the movement that has accepted the work of the different styles and different tactics of
different people with the same objective.

(--) Technological solutions solve best for the environment:

Hoekstra 2014, (Jon Hoekstra is Chief Scientist at World Wildlife Fund, He
served as Senior Scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Science Director
for TNCs Washington State Chapter, and has worked with the federal
government at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAAs National Marine
Fisheries Service. Jon holds a B.S. and M.S. in biological sciences from
Stanford University and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Washington
where he now maintains a faculty appointment, Networking Nature,
[ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140748/jon-hoekstra/networkingnature ] , //hss-Rj)
Conservation is for the first time beginning to operate at the pace and on the scale
necessary to keep up with, and even get ahead of, the planets most intractable
environmental challenges. New technologies have given conservationists abilities that would have
seemed like super powers just a few years ago. We can now monitor entire ecosystems -- think of the Amazon
rainforest -- in nearly real time, using remote sensors to map their three-dimensional structures; satellite
communications to follow elusive creatures, such as the jaguar and the puma; and smartphones to report illegal
logging. Such innovations are revolutionizing conservation in two key ways: first, by revealing the state of the world
in unprecedented detail and, second, by making available more data to more people in more places. Like most
technologies, these carry serious, although manageable, risks: in the hands of poachers, location-tracking devices
could prove devastating to the endangered animals they hunt.

Yet on balance, technological

innovation gives new hope for averting the planets environmental

collapse and reversing its accelerating rates of habitat loss, animal
extinction, and climate change. CELL PHONES FOR ELEPHANTS In 2009, I visited the Lewa Wildlife
Conservancy, in northern Kenya. A cattle ranch turned rhinoceros and elephant preserve, Lewa has become a model
for African conservation, demonstrating how the tourism that wildlife attracts can benefit neighboring communities,
providing them with employment and business opportunities. When I arrived at camp, I was surprised -- and a little
dismayed -- to discover that my iPhone displayed five full service bars. So much for a remote wilderness

Since the mid-1970s,

people have been consuming more resources than the planets natural
capital can replenish.
experience, I thought. But those bars make Lewas groundbreaking work possible.

1ar: Particularity the Best Standard

(--) Extend our Price evidenceyou should prefer particular
evidence to generic claims
(--) None of their evidence is specific to offshore windit is just
generic dualism bad evidence.
(--) Since NOTHING will solve for 100% for speciesism, we must
focus on solving more immediate dangers.
David Sztybel (Fellow with the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics) JOURNAL FOR CRITICAL
ANIMAL STUDIES. 2007. http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/animal-rights-law.pdf

It may help to think of these options for the short-term as a dilemma in which none
of the options deliver animals from speciesism, so we should choose the best
one(s). Think of the classic burning house situation. In such a case, one can only
rescue one animal from the fire, and so not everyones right to life can be satisfied.
This is an important way in which a rights proponent accepts that rights cannot
dictate the outcome of every single decision. Perhaps we can likewise only choose
in the short-term among laws that fall short of anything strongly resembling rights.

1ar: Ontology shouldnt be first

(--) Extend our Jarvis evidencewe can engage in endless
ontological questioning or we can solve real problems.
(--) Pure ontological focus precludes politics leads to endless
questioning and inaction
Wolin 90 (Richard Wolin is a professor of Modern European Intellectual
History at Rice, 1990, The Politics of Being, pg. 117-118)
Moreover, as Harries indicates, Heidegger's theory of the state as a "work" is modeled upon his theory of the work
of art. Thus, as we have seen, in Heidegger's view, both works of art and the state are examples of the "setting-towork of truth." In essence, the state becomes a giant work of art: like the work of art, it participates in the
revelation of truth, yet on a much more grandiose and fundamental scale, since it is the Gesamtkunstwerk within
which all the other sub-works enact their preassigned roles. However, the idea of basing political judgments on
analogy with aesthetic judgments is an extremely tenuous proposition. Though we may readily accept and even
welcome Heidegger's claim that works of art reveal the truth or essence of beings ("The work [of art] ... is not the
reproduction of some particular entity that happens to be present at any given time," observes Heidegger; "it is, on

we must question the attempt to

transpose aesthetico-metaphysical criteria to the realm of political life proper. Is it in
point of fact meaningful to speak of the "unveiling of truth " as the raison d'etre of
politics in the same way one can say this of a work of art or a philosophical work? Is
not politics rather a nonmetaphysical sphere of human interaction , in which the
content of collective human projects, institutions, and laws is articulated, discussed,
and agreed upon? Is it not, moreover, in some sense dangerous to expect "metaphysical results" from politics? For
the contrary, the reproduction of the thing's general essence"),66

is not politics instead a sphere of human plurality, difference, and multiplicity; hence, a realm in which the more
exacting criteria of philosophical truth must play a subordinate role? And thus, would it not in fact be to place a type
of totalitarian constraint on politics to expect it to deliver over truth in such pristine and unambiguous fashion? And
even if Heidegger's own conception of truth (which we shall turn to shortly) is sufficiently tolerant and pluralistic to
allay such fears, shouldn't the main category of political life be justice instead of truth ?
Undoubtedly, Heidegger's long-standing prejudices against "value-philosophy prevented him from seriously
entertaining this proposition; and thus, as a category of political judgment, justice would not stand in sufficiently

Heideggers political
philosophy is overburdened with ontological considerations that end up
stifling the inner logic of politics as an independent sphere of human
action.
close proximity to Being. In all of the aforementioned instances, we see that

1ar: Permutation Extensions

(--) Extend our Scholsberg & Dryzek evidence: working within
the state and outside the state is the best way to provide
environmental activismsolves for the case while capturing
the benefits of the kritik.
(--) Engagement with the state over environmental issues is
critical to produce effective environmental legislation
empirics prove
Schlosberg and Dryzek 2002, (David Schlosberg is Professor of
Environmental Politics in theDepartment of Government and International
Relations at the University of Sydney, and is known internationally for his
work in environmental politics, environmental movements, and political
theory - in particular the intersection of the three with his work on
environmental justice, John Dryzek is Professor of Social Theory and Political
Theory in University of Canberra's Institute for Governance and Policy
Analysis. He has a B.A. (Honours) in Economics and Politics from the
University of Lancaster (1974), an M.Sc. in Politics from the University of
Strathclyde (1976) and received a Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the
University of Maryland in 1980, Political Strategies of American
Environmentalism: Inclusion and Beyond,
[ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08941920290069353 ], //hssRJ)
Environmental interests clearly matched a state imperative just once in U.S. political
history, and the result was the massive burst of environmental policy
innovation in the 1970s, the likes of which have not been seen anywhere since . On
New Years Day 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) into law on national television, declaring the 1970s the ``decade of the
environment. Three weeks later, in his State of the Union address, Nixon called on the United States to
``make peace with nature. In February he signed an executive order directing all federal facilities to reduce their
own pollution, and delivered an envir- onmental message to Congress that laid out a 37-point program for
environmental protection. In July 1970 he sent a governmental reorganization plan to Congress that proposed
integrating dispersed environmental programs under a new Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. EPA was

NEPA created the Presidents Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ), charged with advising the president on environmental affairs. The
results included a revised Clean Air Act (1970), Water Quality Improvement Act
(1970), Federal Water Pollution Political Strategies of American Environmentalism 789
Control Act (1972), Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act (1972), Coastal Zone Management Act
and a Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974). This was the heyday of environmental legislation in the
United States, pushed by a conservative president beholden to industrial interests .
inaugurated in December of that year.

Nixon may have been personally reluctant, and William Ruckelshaus, first head of the U.S. EPA, had the impression
that Nixon saw the environmental issue as ``faddish (Switzer 1998, 49). But dealing with environmental issues
was much easier than dealing with other controversial political issues and movements of the time. Nixon signed
NEPA in response to polls that showed strong public support for federal protection of environmental health (Dowie
1995, 32). After Earth Day, polls showed the environment as the second most important problem facing the nation,
and the issue remained in the top 10 every year remaining in the Nixon presidency (Switzer 1998, 11). It is crucial

to note that Nixon reached out to a movement with broad appeal, less radical than the other movements of that
era, but still connected to the counterculture.

1ar Tech Good

(--) Extend our tech good evidenceour Hoekstra evidence
says on balance technological innovation is the best way to
solve for the environment because conservation cant keep up
with the damage humans are doing to the environment.
(--) Tech is the best solution:
Hoekstra 2014, (Jon Hoekstra is Chief Scientist at World Wildlife Fund, He
served as Senior Scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Science Director
for TNCs Washington State Chapter, and has worked with the federal
government at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAAs National Marine
Fisheries Service. Jon holds a B.S. and M.S. in biological sciences from
Stanford University and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Washington
where he now maintains a faculty appointment, Networking Nature,
[ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140748/jon-hoekstra/networkingnature ] , //hss-Rj)
The proliferation of more affordable satellite uplinks, microcell towers, and solar
power has the potential to help overcome such limitations. At the end of the day,
however, technology is merely a tool -- one that can help but also do harm. To
maximize its potential benefits, conservationists and technologists will need to
come together to determine how technology should and should not be used. But as
rising populations and surging consumer demand stress the planets ability to
sustain vital resources, humanity needs all the help it can get. Technology may
not be a panacea for the worlds many environmental ills, but it could still
help tip the balance toward a sustainable future.

Apocalyptic Rhetoric K Answers

(--) Perm: do plan and all non-competitive parts of the
alternative.
(--) Alt solves none of the casethey have no specific evidence
to wind power.
(--) Particularitys the best standard
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist
and because it is question driven,

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

(--) Reject the representationnot the teamyou can vote AFF

for the plan and the representations that are good.
(--) Apocalyptic rhetoric good spurs change
Salvador & Norton 11 (Michael Salvador - Michael Salvador is an Associate
Professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State
University and Todd Norton - Todd Norton is an Assistant Professor in the Edward R.
Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University, The Flood Myth in the

Age of Global Climate Change, Environmental Communication Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2011,
pp 45-61 , 2/18/11, nyy)

Apocalyptic narratives and the jeremiad are well established in rhetorical and
environmental studies (Brummett, 1984; Carpenter, I978; Johannesen, I985; Killingsworth 8: Palmer, 1996; Murphy,
l990; Opie & Elliot, 1996; Ritter, 1980; Wolfe, 2008). Apocalyptic rhetoric centers on the idea of a
looming catastrophe that threatens all humankind. In Christian versions, the apocalypse-Armageddon-is
inevitable and welcomed as it precedes the return of God and the millennial era, God's thousand- year reign on Earth (Brummett,

the secular apocalyptic narrative leaves open the possibility for human
intervention to avoid the potential catastrophe. Rather than awaiting the return of God, secular
apocalyptic discourse advances a vision of an approaching disaster that is avoidable
1984). In contrast,

(Killingsworth 8: Palmer, 1996). The jeremiad narrative structure dates back to Puritan sermons of the 1600s and is closely related to
apocalyptic discourse. Once again, early versions were linked to biblical scriptures (Opie 8: Elliot, 1996). According to Johannesen
(1985), the jeremiad includes four key elements: (1) a chosen people has failed to keep covenant with key values or principles, (2)
the people will suffer calamity as a result of this misbehavior, (3) such calamity will be avoided by a return to specified righteous

Importantly,
secular versions of the jeremiad operate on the principle that collective human
intervention can alter the course of events leading to a cataclysmic future, thus
offering "a means by which the audience could insure its continued well-being and
ultimate salvation" (Carpenter, 1978, p. 110). In separate comprehensive reviews of American speakers and writers, both
action, and (4) through proper action the chosen people shall recapture their favored status and avoid ruin.

apocalyptic discourse and jeremiad narratives have been identified as central to the history of environmental advocacy.
Killingsworth and Palmer (I996) examined three decades of writings-from the 1960s through the 1990s-and posited that the
apocalyptic framework was central to contemporary environmentalism. Beginning with Puritan sermons of the 1600s and examining
works up to Al Gore's (1992) book Earth in the Balance, Opie and Elliot (1996) concluded that the jeremiad has served as a recurrent
rhetorical foundation for environmental advocates. Our concern in this essay is not to determine which rhetorical form, the
apocalyptic or the jeremiad, has been most influential in US environmentalism, but rather to note the commonalities between these
two sweeping reviews of environmental rhetoric. Both analyses adopted a dialectical reading of rhetorical form. For Killingsworth and
Palmer (1996), use of apocalyptic rhetoric has shifted in response to the changing relationship between the prevailing paradigm of
human domination over nature-limitless American progress through technology and economic development-and the oppositional
environmental paradigm of humans as subject to nature and in need of ecologically sustainable practices. When this prevailing
paradigm was at its zenith, stronger apocalyptic visions were advanced, as in Rachel Carson's (1962) Silent Spring. As
environmental activism took hold in the public consciousness, less threatening visions of the Earth's future were offered, as in Barry
Commoner's (I971) The Closing Circle. Thus,

apocalyptic rhetoric served as a malleable framework

for discussing environmental problems, allowing those concerned to transform
growing awareness of environmental problems "into acceptance of action toward a
solution by prefacing the solution with a future scenario of what could happen if
action is not taken, if the problem goes untreated" (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1996, p. 22).

(--) This begs the questionthey claim warming isnt an

apocalyptic threatbut it isextend our 1ac evidence that
warming is supported by over 400 scientists from 57 countries.

1ar: Particularity the Best Standard

(--) Extend our Price evidenceyou should prefer particular
evidence to generic claims
(--) None of their evidence is specific to offshore windit is just
generic dualism bad evidence.
Radical environmentalism fail they are still caught in the
existing ideology.
Kidner 2000 (David, Senior Lecturer in Social Theory in the School of Arts and
Humanities at Nottingham Trent University, UK, member of the editorial board of the journal
Environmental Ethics, "Nature and Psyche: Radical Environmentalism and the Politics of
Subjectivity" pg. 1-2) jml
The rise of environmental awareness over the past few decades, and the emergence of an environmental
movement containing various shades of green and transcending the tired polarizations of left- and right-wing, has
been one of the most remarkable features of modern political life. Every politician today, whatever their position
within the political spectrum, needs to be able to demonstrate some degree of environmental awareness, however
superficial and reactive the resulting policies might be. Nevertheless, in spite of some notable successes in heading
off attempts by industry or governments to convert what remains of the natural world into material "wealth ,"

the

green movement, at a deeper, shares modern industrial society's puzzlement as to

ultimate goals, finding its voice most effectively through protest against existing or planned
activities rather than putting forward its own lucid agenda for the future . In a sense, this
puzzlement is more profound within radical variants of greenery, since these openly admit the need for a new vision
of our relation to the rest of the natural world, in contrast to reformist verities that merely try to make existing
political and commercial processes less obviously damaging, and so ultimately still believe in, or try to convince

"Deeper" greens, perceiving the

ultimate unworkability and destructiveness of the technological- economic system, are forced to confront
the need for a radically different approach . Unfortunately, deep ecology,
ecofeminism, and other "radical" approaches , as I will argue below, often incorporate
many of the features of existing ideology, and so are bound within the same
epistemological, moral, and experiential universe as the structures they attempt to
challenge. The result is an environmentalism that is at its most effective when challenging the details of
themselves that they believe in, the basic soundness of these processes.

our affluent lifestyles----ozone-damaging refrigerants, mahogany furniture, a road centered transport policy--- but

an acute sense of impotence and puzzlement over how to alter the

direction of industrialism. This is one of the fundamental predicaments addressed by this book: the
psychological, social, and epistemological foundations of the green movement's
critique of modern industrialism are often the same foundations on which
industrialism itself is built. Building on this recognition, I attempt to show how a reconfigured
that suffered from

social/environmental theory can transcend the deadening grasp of industrialist assumptions, and point toward a
revitalized relation between ourselves and the rest of the natural world that is both realistic and healthy.

1ar: Apocalyptic Rhetoric Good

(--) Extend our Salvador & Norton evidence: Apocalyptic
rhetoric is critical to spur environmentalismit caused a
transformation of a growing awareness of environmental
problems into acceptance of action toward a solution.
(--) Apocalyptic rhetoric is key to taking action
(Bron Taylor professor of religion and nature, environmental ethics, and
environmental studies, at the University of Florida; 19 99; Review
Commentary: Green Apocalypticism: Understanding Disaster in the Radical
Environmental Worldview,; 382)
Two things are striking here. First, disaster is linked to hope (even if not for Human individuals); and
second, humans will probably not be the decisive or even particularly important agents in the coming
transformations, unless negatively, by overshooting their carrying capacity and precipitating a spasm of die-offs
and extinction. These are hardly the usual millennial dreams! The inseparability of pessimism and optimism, the
deep ambivalence about the coming catastrophe (tragic, painful, and evenwron g, but a necessary pathway toward
a harmonized future) is certainly not a recent innovation in radical environmental eschatology. Indeed, from early
on, the movements hope, its ironic and fragile optimism, was forged in despair. As movement elder, the novelist
Edward Abbey once put it in the pages of Earth First!: I predict that the military-industrial state will disappear from
the surface of the Earth within fifty years , That belief is the basis of my inherent optimism , the
source of my hope for the coming restoration of higher civilization: scattered human populations modes in number
that live by fishing, hunting, food-gathering, small-scale farming and ranching, that assemble once a year in the
ruins of abandoned cities for great festivals of moral, spiritual, artistic and intellectual renewal- but their natural and

a prerequisite to undemanding radical

environmental apocalypticism is a clear understanding of its ambivalence toward
catastrophe. Disaster is an imminent, probably unavoidable event. It represents a
desecration of a sacred world, and it is to be resisted with all of ones passion. It is
simultaneously, almost certainly, the only conceivable path back to a paradise
where humans live in harmony within the sacred, natural order, and thus , in the
final moment, it may need to be embraced.
native home. (Abbey 1986, 22; Manes 1990, 241)10 Thus,

Capitalism K Answers
(--) Policy Framework:
A) The resolution is framed as a policy question.
B) Infinite number of frameworks: impossible for the AFF to
predict and be prepared for these.
C) Means we get to weigh the case vs. their K.
(--) Alt doesnt solve any of the casewe read specific
evidence that offshore wind is key to solve.
(--) Particularitys the best standard
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

and because it is question driven, with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

(--) Perm: Do plan and all non-competitive parts of the

alternative.
(--) Alternative will fail: past efforts prove:
Paul Bowles (graduate of the London School of Economics and Teacher at the
University of Canada) CAPITALISM, 2007, 25-26,
The act of market exchange was, for Smith, "natural" in the sense that it was based upon a propensity which was
found in all humans and, more strongly, only in humans. That is, for Smith, market exchange was a central defining
characteristic of our own humanness. The question "what distinguishes humans as humans?" was a well-debated
topic at the end of the eighteenth century. For some, the answer to this lay in the ability of humans to communicate
and to develop language. For Smith, the answer was to be found in humans' ability to enter into exchange. Smith
(1976: 25) refers to this as "the propensity to truck, barter and exchange", in other words to trade. This propensity,
Smith (1976: 25-26) tells us, "is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to
know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have
sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavors
to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but
of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog
make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its
gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that" From this

market exchange, being based on a natural

propensity, is common to all people and all places. The "market" is a universal
institution arising from an innate "propensity" within human beings. Attempts to
limit exchange are regarded as both futile and oppressive. They are futile in that
they attempt to deny human nature and, as such, will ultimately fail. Thus, attempts
to limit the operations of the market in many countries, such as those which
occurred in the countries of the former communist bloc, simply resulted in the rise
of "black" or "grey" market activity; that is, in market exchange which was not officially sanctioned by
the state. Attempts to suppress the market in any significant degree could not work in
the long run, since human nature would always find an avenue to escape the
shackles of any state imposed restrictions. The contemporary relevance of this view is not only that
economic systems which seek to radically limit the operations of the market are
doomed to failure because human ingenuity, propelled by the "propensity to truck, barter, and
exchange", will overcome such limitations . This position also implies that the transition to a market
view, important implications arise. Firstly,

system can be achieved reasonably quickly, since markets will "naturally" and spontaneously develop. For example,
the "transition to capitalism" in the former Soviet bloc could possibly be a short one if a supportive enabling
environment was quickly established. The second implication of Smith's argument is that limits on market exchange
are limits on human freedom. If our humanity is expressed and defined by our ability to enter into exchange
relationships with others, then any attempts to limit these exchanges are therefore attempts to limit our humanity.

(--) The K impact is empirically falseonshore wind should

have triggered the impactsweve had capitalism forever
without the impacts.
(--) Root cause wrong:
Geras 5 (Norman, Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Manchester, "The Reductions of the
Left," Dissent, 52:1, Winter, p. 57-58)
THE SECOND PART of the answer- to which I now turnis a seeming lack of ability, of the imagination, to digest the
meaning of the great moral and political evils of the world and to look at them unflinchingly. This is a
complementary failure. Elsewhere I have argued that Marxism is as familiar as any other intellectual tradition with

the realities of

human violence and oppression and the more negative traits and potentialities in
the makeup of human beings. At the same time, because of its Utopian aspiration-which I do not mean in any
pejorative sensebecause of its progressive and meliorative impulse, there has always been a tendency within this
tradition to minimize, or sometimes just deny, the independent force of such negative characteristics. They

come to be treated, genericallv, as the product of class societies and, today, as the
product of capitalism. The affinity between this overall intellectual tendency within Marxist
and other left thinking, and the practical reductionism I have just describedin which America
is identified as the source of all worldly wrongsshould be transparent.
The effect of the tendency, however, is, to denature what one is looking at when
one looks at the horrors of the world: a massacre of in- nocents; a woman being beaten in a
public place or hanged in a football stadium; a place in which a man can have his ears surgically removed or his
tongue cut out, or be broken and destroyed, to be followed by the next such vic-tim, and the next, in a continuous
sequence ol atrocity; or a place in which a parent can be forced to watch her child tortured and murdered in front
of her; or a place in which a husband can be forced to watch his wife repeat-edly raped; an "ethnic^leansing" or a
genocide in progress, in which entire communities are pulled up by the roots-arid people are shot or hacked or
starved to death by the thousands or the tens of thousands; mass graves opened to yield up their terrible story. The
list, as anyone knows who keeps reading when the overwhelming temptation is to look away, could be much
extended. The items on it are moral and political realities in their own right. They need to be registered and fully

To collapse them too quickly into their putative original

causes, to' refer them immediately, or refer from them, to other things
that have preceded them is not to give them their due as the specific
phenomena they are, the horrors, tor those destroyed by them or enduring them, for those whose lives
recognized as such.

are torn and wrecked and filled with grief by them, are in a double sense reduced by this quick and easy reference
back to something else, putatively their real cause or origin. Furthermore, not all the contributory causes of such
grim events are of the type that the section of the left under discussion here likes to invokethat is, causes arising
else- where, either geographically (in the United States) or societally (in the dynamics of capi- talism). Moral and

evils of this order and I make no apology for calling them that can and generally do have
causes that are more local in a spatial sense; and they are governed or influenced
by political, ideological, and moral specificities every bit as real as the
capitalist economy. Not everything is systemic, in the sense of being an effect of
political

pressures or tendencies of economic provenance, whether from the global economy or from some more

There are independent patterns of coercion and cruelty,

both interpersonal and embedded within political structures ; forms of
authoritarian imposition; types of invasive assault and violence , at the micro-level and at the
macro-level, involving large social forces.
particular region of it.

( ) Capitalism is sustainable
Generation Investment Management, January 2012, Generation
Investment Management is based in London and uses research to help create
funding methods, Sustainable Capitalism,
http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-sustainable-capitalismv1.pdf
Capitalism has great strengths and is fundamentally superior to any other
system for organising economic activity. It is more efficient in allocating
resources and in matching supply and demand. It is demonstrably effective in
wealth creation. It is more congruent with higher levels of freedom and selfgovernance than any other system. It unlocks a higher fraction of the human
potential with ubiquitous, organic incentives that reward hard work, ingenuity, and
innovation. These strengths are why it is at the foundation of every successful
economy. Critically, capitalism has proven itself to be adaptable and flexible enough
to fit the specific needs of particular countries . Capitalism comes in many forms, from that practised in
the US to the very different model that has been adopted within communist China. The causes and consequences of these variations
are, of course, significant but the more important fact remains: the mainstream debate is about how to practise capitalism not
whether we should choose between capitalism and some other system. Yet while the present form of capitalism has proven its
superiority, it is nevertheless abundantly clear that some of the ways in which it is now practised do not incorporate sufficient regard
for its impact on people and the planet and are now posing a number of fundamental challenges that require attention, particularly

in a resource-constrained world of seven billion (soon to be 8-10 billion) people. These include short-termism, over-reliance on GDP
growth as a primary metric of prosperity, diverting wealth into shadow banking and financial engineering and away from addressing
real needs. These challenges also include rising inequality, increasing volatility in the global financial market, and growing
contributions to the climate crisis perpetuated by a resistance to internalise externalities. We and others have argued for long-term
responsible capitalism for some time. We have called this Sustainable Capitalism.4 Sustainable Capitalism is more than corporate
social responsibility or impact investing, which are worthwhile endeavours compatible with the precepts of sustainable investing, but
narrower in focus. DEFINITION Sustainable Capitalism is a framework that seeks to maximise long-term economic value creation by
reforming markets to address real needs while considering all costs and integrating ESG metrics into the decision-making process. It
applies to the entire investment value chain from entrepreneurial ventures to publicly traded large-cap companies, from investors
providing seed capital to those focused on late-stage growth-orientated opportunities, from company employees to CEOs, from

Sustainable Capitalism transcends borders,

industries, forms of ownership, asset classes, and stakeholders. THE ECONOMIC CASE The
economic rationale for Sustainable Capitalism is emerging through the quantitative
and qualitative results of empirical research as well as real-world examples.
activists to policy makers and standard setters.

Mainstreaming Sustainable Capitalism by 2020 will require independent, collaborative and voluntary action by companies, investors,
government and civil society, which we hope to accelerate by advancing the discourse on the economic benefits of sustainability.

1ar: Particularity the Best Standard

(--) Extend our Price evidenceyou should prefer particular
evidence to generic claims
(--) None of their evidence is specific to offshore windit is just
generic cap bad evidence.
(--) You should prefer specific causal explanations over monocausal explanations of the world:
Milja Kurki 2007 (Lecturer, Department of Intl Politics, University of Wales,
Aberystwyth) Critical realism and causal analysis in international relations,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(5), accessed via Sage Journals
Online.
However, as a consequence of its ontological, epistemological and
methodological leanings critical realism tends to prefer certain kinds of
substantive explanations of world political processes over others. Critical
realists tend to criticise mono-causal understandings of world politics: whether
singularly materialist (characteristic of some realist thought) or singularly
normative (characteristic of some constructivist thought). Instead, they prefer
those causal explanations that account for the interactions of sets of social
relations and normative structures in historically situated causal
complexes.

1ar: Alt will Fail

(--) Extend our Bowles evidence: alternatives to capitalism
have historically failedeven in communist societies black
markets arose outside the official state.
(--) Their evidence is jargon-laden utopianism:
David E. McClean, (philosopher, writer and business consultant) 20 01
The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope. Accessed online at
http://www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_ programs/pc2001/Discussion
%20papers/david_mcclean.htm
There is a lot of philosophical prose on the general subject of social justice . Some of this
is quite good, and some of it is quite bad. What distinguishes the good from the bad is not merely the level of
erudition. Displays of high erudition are gratuitously reflected in much of the writing by those, for example, still
clinging to Marxian ontology and is often just a useful smokescreen which shrouds a near total disconnect from
empirical reality. This kind of political writing likes to make a lot of references to other obscure, jargon-laden essays
and tedious books written by other true believers - the crowd that takes the fusion of Marxian and Freudian private
fantasies seriously. Nor is it the lack of scholarship that makes this prose bad. Much of it is well "supported" by

what makes this

prose bad is its utter lack of relevance to extant and critical policy debates, the
passage of actual laws, and the amendment of existing regulations that might
actually do some good for someone else. The writers of this bad prose are too interested in our
footnotes referencing a lode of other works, some of which are actually quite good. Rather,

arrival at some social place wherein we will finally emerge from our "inauthentic" state into something called
"reality." Most of this stuff, of course, comes from those steeped in the Continental tradition (particularly post-Kant).
While that tradition has much to offer and has helped shape my own philosophical sensibilities,

but useful when it comes to truly relevant philosophical analysis,

it is anything

and no self-respecting
Pragmatist can really take seriously the strong poetry of formations like "authenticity looming on the ever remote
horizons of fetishization." What Pragmatists see instead is the hope that we can fix some of the social ills that face
us if we treat policy and reform as more important than Spirit and Utopia.

1ar: Root Causes Wrong

(--) Extend our Geras evidencecapitalism isnt the root cause
of violence and oppressionthats too simple and ignores the
specific causes of problemsyou should prefer our specific
evidence on the case as to causes of problems.
(--) You should prefer specific explanations of world problems:
Milja Kurki 2007 (Lecturer, Department of Intl Politics, University of Wales,
Aberystwyth) Critical realism and causal analysis in international relations,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(5), accessed via Sage Journals
Online.
While in some natural sciences laboratory experiments can be conducted to isolate individual causal forces, this is
not what defines science in natural sciences: this is an unrealistic and unnecessary expectation in the social
sciences, with dynamic ontological objects. It is true that parsimonious accounts can be helpful in some contexts
and that all approaches must engage in some simplification. Yet it does not mean that parsimony should be

oversimplification entails important weaknesses in social explanations.

Simplified analyses of complex social processes do not necessarily provide the most
interesting, nor sufficiently nuanced, causal explanations to facilitate adequate
understanding of social issues. As critics have pointed out it is not insignificant theoretically or
prioritised:

politically that positivist democratic peace theory, for example, has tended to lack appreciation of the complex
historical conditioning of democratic politics within states and actions of democratic states within global economic,
political and cultural relations.41

Exploration K Answers
(--) No link: we develop the ocean, we dont explore the ocean.
( ) Policy Framework first best teaches pragmatic change.
And avoids regress endless items become the nexus question
discourages clash with the other 99% of the Aff. This applies
because their links not from plan.
(--) Particularitys the best standard
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

and because it is question driven, with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

( ) perm do plan and all non-competitive parts of the Alt

(--) The word Exploration doesnt have a fixed meaning.

Kim 2 Sang Ho Kim, Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Oklahoma, 2002
(Embodiment, Technology and Communication: A Phenomenological Exploration of
Communication in the Technological Milieu, Ph.D. Dissertation at the University of
Oklahoma, Available Online at
https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/457/3045835.PDF?sequence=1,
Accessed 07-07-2014, p. 12)
Central to this study is the exploration of how we are to live with and in the
technological society without becoming another component in its machinery.
However, theorizing about communication will never be more than an exploration,
in the sense that exploration does not entail end. The purpose of this paper,
therefore, is not to provide a solution but rather to question the meaning of
communication and its technology in this technological milieu, because, as
Heidegger (1977) suggests, questioning builds a way (p. 4).

(--) Dirty word PICs and Floating Ks Alt are a voter. Robs us of
the whole Aff and focuses the round on the tiniest details.
Were distinct from severing racist or sexist language which
is unrepentant and differs from our honest error.
(--) Perm do the Alt.

Development K Answers
(--) No link: we dont use the word development: Means their
link comes from tags or parts of cards.
( ) Policy Framework first best teaches pragmatic change.
And avoids regress endless items become the nexus question
discourages clash with the other 99% of the Aff. This applies
because their links not from plan.
(--) Particularitys the best standardthey answer none of our
specific AFF
PRICE 98 (RICHARD PRICE is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University.
Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served
three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University,
Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is coauthored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT Monash University European Journal of International Relations
Copyright 1998 via SAGE Publications
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlThe
oryConstructivism.pdf)
One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the
interpretive moment. As George (1994: 24) argues, the world is always an interpreted thing, and it is always
interpreted in conditions of disagreement and conflict, to one degree or another. For this reason, there can be no
common body of observational or tested data that we can turn to for a neutral, objective knowledge of the world.
There can be no ultimate knowledge, for example, that actually corresponds to reality per se. This proposition has
been endorsed wholeheartedly by constructivists, who are at pains to deny the possibility of making Big-T Truth
claims about the world and studiously avoid attributing such status to their findings. This having been said, after
undertaking sustained empirical analyses of aspects of world politics constructivists do make small-t truth claims
about the subjects they have investigated. That is, they claim to have arrived at logical and empirically plausible
interpretations of actions, events or processes, and they appeal to the weight of evidence to sustain such claims.

While admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex
world, Price (1995, 1997) claims that his genealogy provides the best account to date to make sense of anomalies
surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and Reus-Smit (1997) claims that a culturalist perspective offers the best
explanation of institutional differences between historical societies of states. Do such claims contradict the
interpretive ethos of critical international theory? For two reasons, we argue that they do not. First, the interpretive
ethos of critical international theory is driven, in large measure, by a normative rejection of totalizing discourses, of
general theoretical frameworks that privilege certain perspectives over others. One searches constructivist
scholarship in vain, though, for such discourses. With the possible exception of Wendts problematic flirtation with

research is at its best when

with self-consciously contingent claims made specifically in
relation to particular phenomena, at a particular time, based on particular
evidence, and always open to alternative interpretations. Second, the rejection of totalizing discourses
based on big-T Truth claims does not foreclose the possibility, or even the inevitability, of making
small-t truth claims. In fact, we would argue that as soon as one observes and interacts in the world such
general systemic theory and professed commitment to science, constructivist
and because it is question driven,

claims are unavoidable, either as a person engaged in everyday life or as a scholar. As Nietzsche pointed out long
ago, we cannot help putting forth truth claims about the world. The individual who does not cannot act, and the
genuinely unhypocritical relativist who cannot struggles for something to say and write. In short, if constructivists
are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making small-t truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how
the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical
international theory than does critical theory itself.

( ) perm do plan and all non-competitive parts of the Alt

total rejection of development is too extreme:
Sharp and Briggs 2006 Joanne Sharp and John Briggs, Professors in
the Department of Geographical and Earth Sciences at the University of
Glasgow (Scotland), 2006 (Postcolonialism and development: new
dialogues?, The Geographical Journal, Volume 172, Part 1, March, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via ProQuest Research Library)
Pessimistic readers of Spivak's (1988) influential 'Can the subaltern speak?' suggest that there is no possibility of

Anti-development theorists, most notably Escobar, conclude that there is

nothing to be salvaged from development: it is an inherently flawed process and so must be
this.

resisted. For Escobar (1995, 98), for example, the remaking of development lies with 'examining local constructions,

The
problem is, however, what this might mean in a practical sense. How is this kind of
position going to contribute to the improvement of the lives of the global majority?
As no alternative project is presented, it can be assumed that the alternative must
be localism, community and indigenous responses. This is, however, a nave
response. Escobar's (and others') faith in community and the local fails to
acknowledge the power relations that operate even at the smallest of scales , which
ensure that there are different potentials and abilities to speak and to be heard. This
also overlooks the webs of connection that ensure that localities can never be
entirely local. Communities are rarely inclusive and consensual, and if we are to
devolve decision-making to this scale, who is to be included in the local, in the
community? Ironically, the perspective of many anti-development theorists, which
unproblematically celebrates the marginalized, may remove their voices just as
much as conventional development praxis, as it 'essentializes the oppressed as
nonideologically constructed subjects' (Alcoff 1991, 22), and ignores the heterogeneity of
subalternity.Furthermore, there is a real danger of throwing the baby out with
the bathwater. Problematic as 'development' undoubtedly is, it , like other big concepts of
modernity, emancipation, progress, self-determination, justice, contains within it an excitement and
optimism lacking in any alternatives. As Simon (this issue) has put it: 'while the overwhelming
to the extent that they are the life and history of the people, that is, the conditions for and of change'.

dominance of global capitalism and the enmeshing of virtually all social economies within it - is undeniable, this
should not be seen as necessarily disabling of all progressive efforts short of systemic overthrow'. Importantly
Spivak does not herself see her critique as disabling. Indeed, she argues for the importance of a historicization of
the relationships that have facilitated positions of power between individuals and institutions and encourages a
critical curiosity into processes which have allowed some to be heard. Here McFarlane articulates how this can be
an important approach: development needs a more expansive notion of agency and power, while postcolonialism
needs a better understanding of 'the structuring role of resources and institutions in the creation and maintenance
of networks'. In this issue, there is a sense of ongoing commitment to a notion of 'development', but also the
recognition of the importance of learning from postcolonialism. McKinnon discusses the potential of participatory
projects which endeavour to create situations of knowledge transfer within which the subaltern are rendered
powerful vis--vis the development 'experts'. While there has been much criticism of such approaches for tokenism
(Cooke and Kothari 2001 ; see Briggs and Sharp 2004 for a discussion of the same issues in terms of 'indigenous
knowledge'), McKinnon argues, with Mohan (2001), for the need for a 'deep empowerment'. Yeboah (this issue)
argues for the importance of providing space for the subaltern in understanding water privatization in Ghana,
recognizing that while their voices may not be heard in a conventional manner, it is necessary to let their actions
'speak' as evidence of their agency.

(--) Their links are to development generally and not ocean

developmentthey have no internal link to their impact.
Language not first policy consequences outweigh.
Churchill 96 Ward Churchill, Professor of American Indian Studies at the
University of Colorado, 1996 (Semantic Masturbation on the Left: A Barrier to Unity
and Action, From A Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985-1995,
Published by South End Press, ISBN 0896085538, p. 460)
matters of linguistic appropriateness and precision are of
serious and legitimate concern. By the same token, however, it must be conceded that such
preoccupations arrive at a point of diminishing return. After that, they degenerate
rapidly into liabilities rather than benefits to comprehension. By now, it should be evident
that much of what is mentioned in this article falls under the latter category; it is, by and large, inept,
esoteric, and semantically silly, bearing no more relevance in the real world than
the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ultimately, it is a
means to stultify and divide people rather than stimulate and unite them.
There can be little doubt that

Nonetheless, such issues of word choice have come to dominate dialogue in a significant and apparently growing
segment of the Left. Speakers, writers, and organizers of all persuasions are drawn, with increasing vociferousness
and persistence, into heated confrontations, not about what theyve said, but about how theyve said it. Decisions
on whether to enter into alliances, or even to work with other parties, seem more and more contingent not upon the
prospect of a common agenda, but upon mutual adherence to certain elements of a prescribed vernacular.
Mounting quantities of progressive time, energy, and attention are squandered in perversions of Maos principle of
criticism/self-criticism now variously called process, line sharpening, or even struggle in which there
occurs a virtually endless stream of talk about how to talk about the issues. All of this happens at the direct
expense of actually understanding the issues themselves, much less doing something about them. It is impossible
to escape the conclusion that the dynamic at hand adds up to a pronounced avoidance syndrome, a masturbatory
ritual through which an opposition nearly paralyzed by its own deeply felt sense of impotence pretends to be
engaged in something meaningful. In the end, it reduces to a tragic delusion at best, cynical game playing or

its high time to get off this

nonsense, and on with the real work of effecting positive social change.
intentional disruption at worst. With this said, it is only fair to observe that

(--) Dirty word PICs and Floating Ks Alt are a voter. Robs us of
the whole Aff and focuses the round on the tiniest details.
Were distinct from severing racist or sexist language which
is unrepentant and differs from our honest error.
(--) Perm do the Alt.

1ar: Particularity the Best Standard

(--) Extend our Price evidenceyou should prefer particular
evidence to generic claims
(--) None of their evidence is specific to offshore windit is just
generic cap bad evidence.
(--) Their kritik is too generalizingyou should focus on
specifics of development in a given instance:
Pieterse 2000 Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Professor of Sociology at the
lnstitute of Social Studies at the Hague (Netherlands), 2000 (After postdevelopment, Third World Quarterly, Volume 21, Issue 2, April, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Academic Search Premier, p. 183)
Post-development thinking is fundamentally uneven. For all the concern with
discourse analysis, the actual use of language is sloppy and indulgent. Escobar
plays games of rhetoric: in referring to development as 'Development' and thus
suggesting its homogeneity and consistency, he essentialises 'development'. The
same applies to Sachs and his call to do away with development: 'in the very call for
banishment, Sachs implicitly suggests that it is possible to arrive at an unequivocal
definition' (Crush, 1996: 3). Apparently this kind of essentialising of 'development' is
necessary in order to arrive at the radical repudiation of development , and without this antidevelopment pathos, the post-development perspective loses its foundation. At times one has the impression that postdevelopment turns on a language game rather than an analysis. Attending a conference entitled 'Towards a post-development age',
Anisur Rahman reacted as follows: 'I was struck by the intensity with which the very notion of "development" was attacked ... I
submitted that I found the word "development" to be a very powerful means of expressing the conception of societal progress as the
flowering of people's creativity. Must we abandon valuable words because they are abused? What to do then with words like
democracy, cooperation, socialism, all of which are abused?' (1993: 213-214) There are several problems with this line of thinking.
First, some of the claims of post-development are simply misleading and misrepresent the history of development. Thus, Esteva and
several others in the Development Dictionary (1992) refer to Truman in the 1940s as beginning the development era. But this is only
one of the beginnings of the application of development to the South, which started with colonial economics; besides development
has an older historywith the latecomers to industrialisation in Central and Eastern Europe, and in Soviet economic planning.
Second, dichotomic thinking, pro and anti-development, underrates the dialectics and the complexity of motives and motions in
modernity and development. Even though at given points particular constellations of thinking and policy seem to present a solid
whole and faade, there are inconsistencies underneath and the actual course of development theory and policy shows constant
changes of direction and numerous improvisations. Thus, some speak of 'the chaotic history of development theory' (Trainer, 1989:
177) or 'the fashion-conscious institutional language of development' (Porter, 1995). Third, post-development's attitude towards

The instances cited in post-development literature mainly

concern Africa, Latin America and India; or reflections are general and no cases are
discussed (as with Nandy). The experience of NICS in East Asia is typically not discussed: 'the assertion that
"development does not work" ignores the rise of East Asia and the near doubling of
life expectancy in much of the Third World' (Kiely, 1999: 17).
real, existing development is narrow.

1ar Extensions: Permutation

(--) Extend our Sharp & Briggs evidencethey throw out the
baby with the bathwaterthey lack an alternative and ignore
power relations that happen at local levels.
(--) Development is vital to meet urgent material needs
radical critique fails, perm best.
Peet and Hartwick 99 Richard Peet, Professor in the Graduate
School of Geography at Clark University, and Elaine Hartwick, Ph.D. from the
Graduate School of Geography at Clark University, 1999 (Theories of
Development, Published by The Guilford Press, ISBN 1572304898, p. 202203)
Ethics are principles of right and wrong, good and bad, that human beings following their best intentions try to
exercise in their relations with others and with the natural world. Humans differ from animals in the fundamental
sense of being conscious of existing, but also in having conscience about our actions. That is, we make moral and
ethical judgments about intentions and behaviors in which our actions are related to broader contexts, something
greater than the particular, something long lasting, perhaps even eternal. This relationship to wider meanings
occurs at the level of beliefthat is, principles of existence held at the emotional level so that ideas are felt in a
bodily way. For religious people, this greater thing is God, the originator of life and guardian of its purposes. Ethical
principles by which to live were set down once and for all by the prophets who established a direct connection
between themselves and the heavens. But religion can also be seen as a cultural form for legitimating ethical
principles actually derived from contemplation of the lessons of life's experience. And ethics can be discussed far
more directly in historical terms of human experience, for example, the conditions under which people are happiest,
or the forms of life that are environmentally sustainablealthough there remains a dimension seemingly beyond
direct analysis, for example, What constitutes "happiness"? or Is sustainability the only natural basis for ethical
principles? In other words, when we ask the questions, How should we live? and Why should societies develop in
certain ways?, the only sure guide is what we have done, and what we can learn from history, practice, and

In the case of development, however, the ethical problems

of what and how much to produce are made less intractable by the obvious needs
of the world's two billion poverty stricken people. There is a disturbing tendency
for poststructural discussions to see poverty in terms of the [end page 202] social
construction of a deficient term, rather than in terms of the material reality of
massive and absolute deprivation. This tendency is accompanied by the ethical advocacy of
experience through eternal discussion.

"convivial poverty" and the spiritual ideal of simplicity and frugality (Rahnema 1997). Support comes from proverbs
like: "You are poor because you look at what you do not have. See what you possess, see what you are, and you will

If poverty is considered purely as a social

construct, or something that has entirely different meanings depending on the
cultural context, then simplicity, dignity, and the discovery of inner richness may
have some validity as responses. But if poverty is considered materially as the
absolute lack of inputs vital to continued existence, such as not enough food (of any
kind) to keep people alive, as a far too universal reality, then postmodern ethical
advocacy is a cruel hoax: it amounts to telling those who are about to expire that
they are (astonishingly!) rich, that they should die with "dignity" rather than
struggle for life. Here "dignity" is the postmodern equivalent of the myth of
heaven, "put up and shut up." But poor people are not quietly dignified, they are
actively so. The poor have spoken, and they want what they need: food,
shelter, services. These are authentic needs that satisfy any ethical principle,
whether of happiness or resource scarcity. The ethical question is not whether but
how to provide these basic needs. And the means of providing for needs is called
discover that you are astonishingly rich" (Rist 1997: 294).

development. This principle of the ethical satisfaction of urgent needs lies at the core of most social
movements. While universal in its essence, it emerges in quite different forms depending on circumstance.

Carpentry Kritik Answers

(--) The Kritik has absolutely no link: we are a policy AFFnot
a critical AFF.
(--) We prescribe a specific solutionyou should use offshore
wind power.
(--) Permute: do the plan and the alternativecombines the
best solvency.
(--) Debate should be oriented toward problem-solving, not
radical critique.
Boggs 97 Carl Boggs, 1997 (The great retreat: Decline of the public
sphere in late twentieth-century America, Theory & Society, Volume 26,
Issue 6, December, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via
SpingerLink, p. 773-775)
The decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America
poses a series of great dilemmas and challenges. Many ideological currents scrutinized here
Political malaise and global challenge

localism, metaphysics, spontaneism, post- modernism, Deep Ecology intersect with and reinforce each other.
While these currents have deep origins in popular movements of the 1960s and 1970s, they remain very much alive

share one thing in common: a

depoliticized expression of struggles to combat and overcome alienation. [end page 773]
The false sense of empowerment that comes with such mesmerizing impulses is
accompanied by a loss of public engagement, an erosion of citizenship and a
depleted capacity of individuals in large groups to work for social change. As
this ideological quagmire worsens, urgent problems that are destroying the fabric
of American society will go unsolved perhaps even unrecognized only to fester more
ominously into the future. And such problems (ecological crisis, poverty, urban decay, spread of infectious
in the 1990s. Despite their different outlooks and trajectories, they all

diseases, technological displacement of workers) cannot be understood outside the larger social and global context
of internationalized markets, finance, and communications. Paradoxically, the widespread retreat from politics, often
inspired by localist sentiment, comes at a time when agendas that ignore or side-step these global realities will,
more than ever, be reduced to impotence. In his commentary on the state of citizenship today, Wolin refers to the
increasing sublimation and dilution of politics, as larger numbers of people turn away from public concerns toward
private ones. By diluting the life of common involvements, we negate the very idea of politics as a source of public
ideals and visions.74 In the meantime, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. The unyielding truth is that, even
as the ethos of anti-politics becomes more compelling and even fashionable in the United States, it is the vagaries
of political power that will continue to decide the fate of human societies. This last point demands further
elaboration. The shrinkage of politics hardly means that corporate colonization will be less of a reality, that social
hierarchies will somehow disappear, or that gigantic state and military structures will lose their hold over people's
lives. Far from it: the space abdicated by a broad citizenry, well-informed and ready to participate at many levels,
can in fact be filled by authoritarian and reactionary elites an already familiar dynamic in many lesser- developed
countries. The fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian world, not very far removed from the rampant
individualism, social Darwinism, and civic violence that have been so much a part of the American landscape, could
be the prelude to a powerful Leviathan designed to impose order in the face of disunity and atomized retreat. In this
way the eclipse of politics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more virulent guise or it might help
further rationalize the existing power structure. In either case, the state would likely become what Hobbes
anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that had vanished from civil society.75 [end
page 774] The historic goal of recovering politics in the Aristotelian sense, therefore, suggests nothing less than a
revitalized citizenry prepared to occupy that immense expanse of public space. Extension of democratic control into
every area of social life requires insurgency against the charade of normal politics, since the persistence of normal
politics is just another manifestation of anti-politics. If authentic citizenship is to be forged, then information, skills,
and attitudes vital to political efficacy need to flourish and be widely distributed throughout the population, without
this, consciousness transformation is impossible, or at least politically meaningless. A debilitating problem with

the culture of anti-politics, however, is that it precisely devalues those very types of information, skills, and
attitudes.