Datasets:

Hellisotherpeople

/

DebateSum

like 14

Russia has entered the top five of the world’s biggest economies, with its $3.4 trillion GDP leaving fellow European nations behind, according to the World Bank. The US, China, India and Japan occupy the first four positions, while Germany drops one place into sixth. Russia has gained ground thanks to its favourable oil prices. The country was previously the sixth largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP) – the theory used to determine the relative value of currencies – but has experienced constant growth since the beginning of the 21st century. This is mainly down to its plentiful natural resources, especially coal, oil and natural gas reserves in remote areas, which account for a large share of its exports. Despite being defined by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a “developing economy”, Russia has overcome most other European nations in terms of economic growth. The country’s abundance of fossil fuels and minerals have played a crucial role in the global energy market, making it become the world’s largest exporters of natural gas. Russia is also the largest oil producer among non-OPEC countries, and is globally second after Saudi Arabia. The country will enter the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2015 and according to the IMF, its economy is set to grow steadily, more than the US and Germany. However, because of its strong reliance on fossil fuels, it has often been criticised by environmental campaign groups.

Bertini 8/1 [August 1, 2013. Ilaria Bertini joined is completing a master's in science and environmental journalism; she covers a energy and environmental issues and sustainable investment and green living. “Russia overtakes Germany to become world’s fifth largest economy” http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2013/08/01/russia-overtakes-germany-to-become-worlds-fifth-largest-economy/]

Russia has entered the top five of the world’s biggest economies Russia has gained ground thanks to its favourable oil prices constant growth is mainly down to its plentiful natural resources, especially natural gas which account for a large share of its exports. Russia has overcome most other European nations in terms of economic growth The country’s abundance of fossil fuels have played a crucial role in the global energy market, making it become the world’s largest exporters of natural gas because of its strong reliance on fossil fuels, it has often been criticised

Exports of natural gas have allowed the Russian economy to become the 5th largest in the world

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

According to BP (2010), more than 50 percent of the global gas reserves of 6600 Tcf lie in three countries: Russia, Iran, and Qatar. Russia has about 1570 Tcf of natural gas in proved reserves, which are the largest in the world. If gas production remains at the current levels, Russia has gas for more than 80 years. Figure 1 shows a distribution of reserves aggregated by large regions, where the former Soviet Union has 2074 Tcf of natural gas in reserves, second to the Middle East reserves of 2690 Tcf. Asia Pacific and Africa have about 500-600 Tcf each, while North America and South America have about 300 Tcf each. Europe (including Norway) has about 150 Tcf, which is about 15–20 years of production at the current levels. Gas resources, a more uncertain category as it includes not only gas that can be recovered under existing economic and operating conditions but also reserves growth and undiscovered gas, are much bigger than the proven reserves. The MIT Future of Natural Gas study (MIT, 2011) has estimated the resources aggregated by the EPPA model regions, which are provided in Figure 2, where the four biggest regions in terms of gas resources are the Middle East with about 4,700 Tcf, Russia with about 3,400 Tcf, USA with around 2,000 Tcf with a substantial contribution of shale gas, and Africa with around 1,000 Tcf. MIT (2011) does not assess shale gas resources and their costs outside North America, considering them highly uncertain at this time, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2011) released a report that provides an Figure 1 Proved Reserves of Natural Gas by Region, Tcf Data source: BP, 2010; Regional map: EPPA

Paltsev ’11 [July 2011. Sergey Paltsev is the Assistant Director and Principal Research Scientist for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “Supplementary Paper SP 3.1: Russia’s Natural Gas Export Potential up to 2050” http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Sup_Paper3.1.pdf]

. Russia has about 1570 Tcf of natural gas in proved reserves which are the largest in the world. If gas production remains at the current levels, Russia has gas for more than 80 years the former Soviet Union has 2074 Tcf of natural gas in reserves while North America have about 300 Tcf Gas resources are much bigger than the proven reserves.

Russia has a ton of natural gas

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

In the scenarios considered here, we found that over the next 20-40 years natural gas can still play a substantial role in Russian exports and there are substantial reserves to support a development of the gas-oriented energy system both in Russia and in its current and potential gas importers. In the Reference scenario, exports of natural gas grow from Russia’s current 7 Tcf to 10–12 Tcf in 2030 and 15–19 Tcf in 2050. Alternative scenarios provide a wider range of projections, with many potential paths after 2020 considering the fate of nuclear and coal regulation in Europe and a level of support of natural gas in Asia. Projections of shale gas development in China (and in Europe) are still highly uncertain. Depending on the costs of these resources and environmental regulations in place, they may displace higher cost imports to these regions. At the same time, larger gas reserves in China would facilitate a shift from coal to gas and further induce gas use in different sectors of the economy, opening a door for additional lower cost imports. By 2030, about a third of Russian natural gas exports might be destined to Asia, and by 2050 this share can reach more than 50 percent. Patterns of international gas trade show increased flows to the Asian region from the Middle East, Central Asia, Australia, and Russia. Europe’s reliance on LNG imports increases, while it still maintains sizable imports from Russia.

Paltsev ’11 [July 2011. Sergey Paltsev is the Assistant Director and Principal Research Scientist for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “Supplementary Paper SP 3.1: Russia’s Natural Gas Export Potential up to 2050” http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Sup_Paper3.1.pdf]

over the next 20-40 years natural gas can still play a substantial role in Russian exports there are substantial reserves to support a development of the gas-oriented energy system in Russia exports of natural gas grow By 2030, about a third of Russian natural gas exports might be destined to Asia Patterns of international gas trade show increased flows to the Asian region from the Middle East, Central Asia, Australia, and Russia. Europe’s reliance on LNG imports increases, while it still maintains sizable imports from Russia.

Russian natural gas exports will continue to increase

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

A new report by the investigative arm of Congress describes the "growing influence" of Islamic radical groups as a threat to the Caribbean's maritime security along with more traditional concerns such as organized gangs, illegal migration and drug trafficking. "The terrorism threat is low in comparison with what's happening every day" in the rest of the world, Stephen Caldwell, the main author of the Government Accountability Office report, said Thursday. "But the Islamic radical threat needs a little more focus down there." *** The report, based on information from U.S. agencies and Caribbean government officials, warns of a radical Muslim group that launched a bloody coup attempt in 1990 and says militant organizations including Hezbollah have a presence in such countries as Venezuela and Colombia. It said Caribbean ports would be vulnerable to attacks because of corruption, lax security and limited resources to maintain equipment. U.S. State Department officials, it noted, have witnessed open, unattended gates and other security gaps at ports where cruise ships dock. "The threats are not known, but the vulnerabilities are pretty well known and of concern," Caldwell said. Islands vigorously defend their handling of security at ports that are the point of entry for many tourists. "The whole country's economy depends on this so we have prioritized," said Anthony Belmar of Grenada's Port Authority, which recently installed close-circuit television cameras among other security upgrades. "It's not something we're sleeping on." More on the report here: Referred to as our "third border," the Caribbean Basin has significant maritime links with the United States. Given these links and the region's proximity, the United States is particularly interested in ensuring that the ports in the Caribbean Basin--through which goods bound for this country's ports and cruise ships carrying its citizens must travel--are secure. And the report is available in pdf format here. Excerpts: While intelligence sources report that no specific, credible terrorist threats to maritime security exist in the Caribbean Basin, the officials we spoke to indicated that there are a number of security concerns that could affect port security in the region. Caribbean ports contain a variety of facilities such as cargo facilities, cruise ship terminals, and facilities that handle petroleum products and liquefied natural gas. Additionally, several Caribbean ports are among the top cruise ship destinations in the world. Given the volume and value of this maritime trade, the facilities and infrastructure of the maritime transportation system may be attractive targets for a terrorist attack. Our prior work on maritime security issues has revealed that the three most likely modes of attack in the port environment are a suicide attack using an explosive-laden vehicle or vessel, a standoff attack using small arms or rockets, and the traditional armed assault. Beyond the types of facilities and modes of attack to be considered, officials we spoke to identified a number of overarching security concerns that relate to the Caribbean Basin as a whole. Among these concerns are (1) the level of corruption that exists in some Caribbean nations to undermine the rule of law in these countries, (2) organized gang activity occurring in proximity to or within port facilities, and (3) the geographic proximity of many Caribbean countries, which has made them transit countries for cocaine and heroin destined for U.S. markets. Other security concerns in the Caribbean Basin mentioned by U.S. agency officials include stowaways, illegal migration, and the growing influence of Islamic radical groups and other foreign terrorist organizations.

Mark Tempest, 7-06-2007, retired attorney, retired Navy Reserve Captain (Surface Warfare), writer of the blog EagleSpeak, “Caribbean basin terrorism concerns?” http://www.eaglespeak.us/2007/07/caribbean-basin-terrorism-concerns.html

A new report describes growing influence of radical groups as a threat to the Caribbean's maritime security along with organized gangs, illegal migration and drug trafficking. The terrorism threat is low But Caribbean ports would be vulnerable to attacks because of corruption, lax security and limited resources to maintain equipment. officials have witnessed security gaps vulnerabilities are of concern Islands defend their handling of security at ports The whole country's economy depends on this so we have prioritized Port Authority recently installed close-circuit television cameras among other security upgrades. "It's not something we're sleeping on." there are a number of security concerns that could affect port security in the region. Caribbean ports contain facilities that handle petroleum products and liquefied natural gas. Given the volume and value facilities and infrastructure may be attractive targets for a terrorist attack. Among concerns are corruption in some Caribbean nations to undermine the rule of law organized gang activity occurring in proximity to or within port facilities, and geographic proximity which has made them transit countries

LNG facilities will be targeted – current security measures solve but growing corruption makes breaches more likely.

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is considered by transportation officials to be a "hazardous and noxious substance". The Port of Astoria, and the community has been told by Calpine representatives that their proposed Skipanon LNG import terminal would be safe, and that any LNG spills would just fizz and evaporate "like 7-UP". But a just-released Sandia research lab study (SAND2004-6258) joins the voices of long-term government funded researchers to strongly disagree. Although the operational safety of the LNG industry has been good overall, the hazards of our post 9/11 world are not operational safety but intentional acts of destruction. And LNG terminals and tankers are prime terrorist targets. LNG tankers are huge – as long as the World Trade Center buildings were tall – and contain 35,000,000 gallons or more of LNG. That represents the energy equivalent of 60 to 80 Hiroshima bombs. Not one, but sixty to eighty Hiroshima bombs! An accident affecting even a tiny part of that energy can be catastrophic. LNG is less likely to be as "explosive" as a nuclear weapon, but the far greater amount of energy, and drifting fireballs of burning gas could be even more destructive than Hiroshima. "Terrorist attacks on tankers carrying liquefied natural gas into a U.S. port could trigger a fire that could burn the skin of people a mile away and cause major injuries and significant structural damage within about a third of a mile," says the Washington Post (Dec 22, '04). The Sandia report, prepared by that Energy Department laboratory, stated that, "terrorists could use rocket-propelled grenades, missiles, planes or boats to break open the tankers." The Post also quotes James A. Fay, a professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied LNG safety for 35 years, "If there were a successful attack, then the consequences can be very severe. I think this report has done a lot to get the science of this consequence analysis out on the table where everyone can see it." An LNG spill can create major hazards that extend over considerable area. It can cause asphyxiation, cryogenic burns, structural damage and failure, 3000oF fireballs several thousand feet across and hundreds of feet high, fuel-air (vapor cloud) detonations or explosions that can cover very large distances, and rapid phase transitions (explosive boiling of the cold liquid). There remains considerable uncertainty about extent of potential hazard depending on rate of LNG release, possible ignition sources, wind direction and speed, etc. But the fine print isn't important with fire hazards of that scale. And with abutting property owner, Weyerhaeuser, having filed for a permit to expand the size of their open-flame boilers, is Warrenton a good location for an LNG terminal? A burning vapor cloud from an LNG tanker at the Skipinon site could extend beyond Astoria. Even this new report may significantly underestimate potential damage. It assumes that only three of the five or more holds of a tanker might be affected, and that the hole through which LNG would be released would not be larger than 5 meters2 – although a hole twenty times as large (100 meter2) had already been blown by terrorists in the double-hulled Limberg oil tanker, (below). And the amounts of LNG involved are 100 to 1000 times as large as any real tests which have ever been performed. The firestorms from bombing Dresden and Tokyo in WWII were not predicted from the effects of dropping a few single bombs. This 30' (100 meter2) hole blasted by terrorists through the double hull of the French oil tanker Limburg indicates that LNG can be spilled far more rapidly than by the 5 meter2 opening used in government safety studies. The Sandia report also largely ignores airborne attacks on tankers (where tanks are unprotected by the ship's double hull), and the potential use of fuel-air bombs to disperse the LNG more explosively into the air. The tops of LNG tanker holds are far more vulnerable to terrorist actions than the lower parts, which are protected by double hulls and greater amounts of insulation. Fuel-air bombs are shockwave bombs that could cause dispersal and detonation of a tanker of LNG like atomic bombs are used to detonate larger hydrogen bombs. (A GOOGLE on "fuel-air bombs" will give you immediately two New Scientist articles – "First Test for US Monster Bomb" saying it "creates a mushroom cloud and a shockwave similar to that of a small nuclear explosion" and a second, "Experts Fear Terrorists Are Seeking Fuel-Air Bombs" telling where terrorists can obtain either large or shoulder rocket launched versions. Reading these reports do not dispel fears of LNG terminal hazards. The "superbomb" fuel-air explosives get their destructive power by dispersing their "fuel" into the air before detonation. Use of their shock blast to disperse LNG tanker cargo into the air before detonation has the potential for the same action on vastly larger scale.

Tom Bender, 1-15-2005, architect, author, economist, one of the founders of the “green architecture” and “sustainability” movements, his “Factor 10” economic principles have been endorsed by the European Union, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Environmental Program, cites a research study from the Sandia National Laboratories, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center and a part of the DOE, “LNG Imports: Neither Safe nor Wise,” http://www.tombender.org/societyworthlivingforarticles/lng.pdf

LNG is considered a "hazardous and noxious substance". a just-released Sandia research lab study joins the voices of long-term government funded researchers to strongly disagree. LNG terminals and tankers are prime terrorist targets. tankers contain the energy equivalent of 60 to 80 Hiroshima bombs. An accident can be catastrophic. LNG is likely as "explosive" as a nuclear weapon, but far greater amount of energy could be more destructive Terrorist attacks on tankers could trigger a fire that could burn the skin of people a mile away and cause major injuries and significant structural damage within about a third of a mile a successful attack the consequences can be very severe. An LNG spill can create major hazards that extend over considerable area. asphyxiation, cryogenic burns, structural damage and failure, fireballs several thousand feet across and hundreds of feet high, fuel-air detonations or explosions that can cover very large distances, and explosive boiling this new report may significantly underestimate potential damage. It assumes that the hole through which LNG would be released would not be larger than 5 meters2 – although a hole twenty times as large had already been blown by terrorists in oil tanker amounts of LNG involved are 1000 times as large LNG can be spilled far more rapidly The report ignores airborne attacks on tankers shockwave bombs could cause dispersal and detonation of a tanker of LNG like atomic bombs to detonate hydrogen bombs. it "creates a mushroom cloud and a shockwave similar to that of a nuclear explosion Use of the shock blast to disperse LNG tanker cargo into the air before detonation has the potential for the same action on vastly larger scale.

LNG explosions outweigh nuclear war.

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

However, under the terms of their recent agreement Mexico and the United States can explore and produce in the offshore area either independently or collaboratively. This could give Pemex crucial hands-on experience under the guidance of more advanced companies. But there are major obstacles. Offshore exploration and production is expensive and not guaranteed to yield results. Because of the high financial risks, major oil companies with advanced drilling technology demand an ownership stake in the oil they are attempting to exploit. But the Mexican Constitution strictly forbids foreign ownership of mineral resources. Under the current legal framework, any company investing in exploration and production in Mexico must do so under the auspices of a fee-based contract, meaning the company has no actual ownership of the oil. This reduces the potential assets available to exploring companies and lowers the incentive to take risks on technologically challenging deposits. To date, this stipulation has hampered Mexican efforts to explore the Gulf of Mexico. Not even a bilateral agreement with the United States can fully preclude legal disputes about the unclear nature of oil ownership in deposits that straddle the maritime border. There are more than just legal challenges to partnering with Pemex. In the first place, any company partnering with Pemex for deep-sea exploration and production would have to bring the majority of the technological expertise. Furthermore, Pemex is plagued by persistent corruption and a lack of financial and operational transparency.

Stratfor ’12 [February 24, 2012. Stratfor. “In Mexico, Obstacles To Developing Offshore Oil Fields” http://www.opeal.net/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=10288:in-mexico-obstacles-to-developing-offshore-oil-fields]

Offshore exploration and production is expensive and not guaranteed to yield results Because of the high financial risks, major oil companies with advanced drilling technology demand an ownership the Mexican Constitution strictly forbids foreign ownership of mineral resources any company investing in exploration and production in Mexico must do so under the auspices of a fee-based contract, meaning the company has no actual ownership This lowers the incentive to take risks on technologically challenging deposits Not even a bilateral agreement with the United States can fully preclude legal disputes about the unclear nature of oil ownership in deposits that straddle the maritime border. any company partnering with Pemex uld have to bring the majority of the technological expertise plagued by persistent corruption and a lack of financial and operational transparency.

Drilling is expensive and unlikely to result in anything – legal disputes preclude effective production

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that Rule 13q-1 requires American companies to disclose. This would lead to a situation where companies regulated by the SEC have, at very least, uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, who are not regulated by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate in the United States are regulated by the SEC. Because much of the transboundary area is deepwater, it would require multi-billion dollar investments to produce the hydrocarbon resources. Any legal uncertainty brought about by disclosure law could easily dissuade American companies from undertaking what is already an expensive decision, in turn reducing opportunities for new jobs for Americans. Rule 13q-1 also creates a different type of competitive disadvantage for American companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico Transboundary area. The rule would allow foreign state-owned oil companies with a competitive advantage to consider business-sensitive information about American companies’ operations. If Mexico were to allow foreign-owned companies to extract oil along the deepwater transboundary area, there could very well be competition between U.S. private companies and foreign-state owned companies. Even though the deepwater technology was developed in the U.S. deepwater, the U.S. companies would be at a disadvantage. This is like playing poker but being required to show your cards to your fellow card-players.

Simmonds ’13 [April 30, 2013. Daniel Simmonds is a writer for MasterResource“U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement: A Rare Victory for Oil and Gas in the Obama Era” http://www.masterresource.org/2013/04/u-s-mexico-transboundary-hydrocarbons-agreement/#sthash.t0GLylLf.dpuf]

uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate in the United States Because much of the transboundary area is deepwater, it would require multi-billion dollar investments to produce the hydrocarbon resources. Any legal uncertainty could easily dissuade American companies from undertaking what is already an expensive decision, T If Mexico were to allow foreign-owned companies to extract oil along the deepwater transboundary area, there could very well be competition between U.S. private companies and foreign-state owned companies. Even though the deepwater technology was developed in the U.S the U.S. companies would be at a disadvantage This is like playing poker but being required to show your cards to your fellow card-players.

Plan is extremely expensive – legal uncertainty deters investment

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

China has started importing natural gas from Myanmar, a milestone as the world’s largest energy consumer expands its strategic access to energy resources across the Indian Ocean. The gas pipeline that connects China, Myanmar and the Indian Ocean has formally begun operations, CNPC, the Chinese state-owned company that operates the pipeline, announced on Monday. A parallel crude oil pipeline is expected to start next year. The completion of the gas portion of the pipeline opens a new energy corridor for China, which will now be able to access gas supplies from Myanmar’s offshore gasfields, and will soon be able to access oil shipments through a giant port on the coast. The pipeline will also deliver a windfall to the Myanmar government thanks to increased natural gas revenues. Wang Dongjin, the new president of CNPC’s Hong Kong-listed subsidiary PetroChina, emphasised the pipeline’s contribution to China’s energy security in an interview with state media: “In future China’s crude oil imports will not have to go through the Strait of Malacca,” said Mr Wang. “This has great strategic significance for China’s energy diversification and energy security. The supply of natural gas is equally important.”

Hook 7/29 [July 29, 2013. Leslie Hook is the Beijing Correspondent covering Chinese energy and commodities for the Financial Times. “China starts importing natural gas from Myanmar” Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/870f632c-f83e-11e2-92f0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aSj94Rax]

China has started importing natural gas from Myanmar, a milestone as the world’s largest energy consumer expands its strategic access to energy resources across the Indian Ocean. The pipeline has formally begun operations A parallel crude oil pipeline is expected to start next year The completion of the gas portion of the pipeline opens a new energy corridor for China, which will now be able to access gas supplies from Myanmar’s offshore gasfields, and will soon be able to access oil shipments through a giant port on the coast. T Dongjin, the new president of PetroChina, emphasised the pipeline’s contribution to China’s energy security China’s crude oil imports will not have to go through the Strait of Malacca This has great strategic significance for China’s energy diversification and energy security. The supply of natural gas is equally important.”

China has energy security now – Mynamar pipeline

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Cheap natural gas will surely revive America’s industrial sector, creating new jobs and investment opportunities. In fact, some global manufacturers have already announced their plans to set up plants in the U.S. to take advantage of its cheap energy. But this should not be viewed as a threat to China. A more prosperous America means more buying power and a bigger market for Chinese goods. Furthermore, since the U.S. is unable to utilize all of its domestic energy it can now export more of it to Asia. As the U.S. electricity sector is shifting from coal to natural gas more coal is available for export. In the past ten years U.S. coal exports more than tripled, and much more of this surplus of high grade coal could be used in China. The U.S. is in the process of building LNG export terminals with the goal of exporting some of its gas to Asia, bringing down the price of natural gas for Asian countries, China included. Similarly, increased U.S. oil production means fewer barrels will have to migrate to the U.S. increasing the availability of African and Middle Eastern oil to the Chinese market and reducing the risk of tension over access to energy.

Luft 7/25 [July 25, 2013. Gal Luft is co-director of the Washington DC based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and Senior Adviser to the United States Energy Security Council (USESC). “What does America's shale gas revolution mean for China?” Journal of Energy Security. http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:what-does-americas-shale-gas-revolution-mean-for-china&catid=137:issue-content&Itemid=422]

since the U.S. is unable to utilize all of its domestic energy it can now export more of it to Asia As the U.S. electricity sector is shifting to natural gas more coal is available for export. U.S. coal exports tripled, and much more of this surplus of high grade coal could be used in China. The U.S. is in the process of building LNG export terminals with the goal of exporting some of its gas to Asia, bringing down the price of natural gas for China increased U.S. oil production means fewer barrels will have to migrate to the U.S. increasing the availability of African and Middle Eastern oil to the Chinese reducing the risk of tension

Status quo solves – shale gas boom, coal exports, alleviated tension in the Middle East

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The American oil and gas boom will benefit China in other ways. Energy exports are likely to boost the U.S. dollar and hence put downward pressure on oil prices while making China’s exports of manufactured goods more competitive. China should also recognize that it could benefit from the fracking technology more than any other country. China has the world’s largest reserves of gas shale. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that China has total reserves of 1,275 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, almost 50 percent more than the 862 trillion cubic feet in the U.S. And while there are many question marks about the economics and environmental attributes of shale gas this resource has the potential to transform China’s energy landscape. The U.S. would welcome that. China and the U.S. already launched in 2009 the U.S.-China Shale Gas Resource Initiative - a joint effort to enhance investment and technical cooperation aimed at accelerating shale gas development in China - and major U.S. energy companies like Chevron and Conoco Phillips have signed joint ventures with Chinese energy companies. The 21st century is dubbed by many as the natural gas century. But China's natural gas sector has a lot of catching up to do. The world’s average for natural gas’ share of a country’s total energy portfolio is 24 percent. In China it is only 5 percent. Along with nuclear power and renewables, natural gas is critical to strengthening China’s energy security and reducing its dangerous air pollution. Natural gas can also alleviate China’s growing dependence on imported oil. It can be used directly as automotive fuel in the form of compressed natural gas; it can be used to generate electricity, which can power electric vehicles and it can be converted to methanol, a liquid fuel that is already widely used in some provinces in China. All of these opportunities are now possible thanks to shale gas. American innovation has unlocked the gate for China’s energy future. It is now up to China to embrace this development, take full advantage of it and view shale gas for what it really is: an opportunity, not a threat.

Luft 7/25 [July 25, 2013. Gal Luft is co-director of the Washington DC based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and Senior Adviser to the United States Energy Security Council (USESC). “What does America's shale gas revolution mean for China?” Journal of Energy Security. http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:what-does-americas-shale-gas-revolution-mean-for-china&catid=137:issue-content&Itemid=422]

China could benefit from the fracking technology China has total reserves of 1,275 trillion cubic feet of shale gas 50 percent more than the U.S. shale gas has the potential to transform China’s energy landscape The U.S. would welcome that. major U.S. energy companies signed joint ventures with Chinese energy companies. natural gas is critical to strengthening China’s energy security . Natural gas can also alleviate China’s growing dependence on imported oil All of these opportunities are now possible thanks to shale gas. American innovation has unlocked the gate for China’s energy future

Chinese energy security now – shale gas potential

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

China has turned on a 1,100-kilometer gas pipeline that ships natural gas to southern China from Myanmar. The pipeline, built largely by the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., gives China a vital overland supply route without passing through the South China Sea. The 793-km Myanmar section of the pipeline, constructed jointly by six parties from four countries, including South Korea and India, was commissioned into service on Sunday with a ceremony held at the CNPC office located near Mandalay in central Myanmar. According to Chinese media reports, the pipeline is capable of transporting 12 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China annually, about 25 percent of China's total natural gas imports. CNPC, China's largest energy company, is also building a parallel oil pipeline through Myanmar that can ship 22 million tons of crude to China annually. Construction work is expected to be completed in September. The $2 billion twin pipeline project is China's most strategically important investment in Myanmar, an alternative energy route that would reduce Beijing's reliance on shipping through the narrow Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Singapore, where 80 percent of its oil imports have to go through. Myanmar will receive $6.9 million a year as the right of way fees for each of the pipelines and $1 for every ton of crude oil in transit fees, according to earlier local media reports quoting official figures. Under a contract concluded during the previous Myanmar military government, Myanmar has given CNPC exclusive rights to buy natural gas extracted from the offshore Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. As the Myanmar economy and the nascent industrial sector have been hit by chronic power shortages, the gas pipeline project has raised public objections in Myanmar since only 20 percent of the Shwe gas would be freed for domestic consumption, with the rest bound for the southern Chinese province of Yunnan. The Chinese government is also planning to build a branch gas pipeline that would link the Yunnan provincial capital of Kunming and the Guangxi provincial capital of Nanning. The twin gas and oil pipelines will help China save shipping costs and cut transport times compared with the maritime route through the Malacca Strait. The overland pipeline route through Myanmar is also strategically symbolic as China has been entangled in territorial disputes in the South China Sea with Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries.

Kyodo News 7/29 [July 29, 2013. Kyodo News International. “China-built gas pipeline through Myanmar in operation” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130729/china-built-gas-pipeline-through-myanmar-operation]

China has turned on a 1,100-kilometer gas pipeline that ships natural gas to southern China from Myanmar without passing through the South China Sea the pipeline is capable of transporting 25 percent of China's total natural gas imports CNPC is also building a parallel oil pipeline through Myanmar Construction work is expected to be completed in September The pipeline is strategically important that would reduce Beijing's reliance on shipping through the narrow Malacca Strait Myanmar has given CNPC exclusive rights to buy natural gas extracted from the offshore Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal The Chinese government is also planning to build a pipeline that would link the Yunnan and Nanning. The pipelines will help China save shipping costs and cut transport times The overland pipeline route through Myanmar is also strategically symbolic

Pipelines from Mynamar solve Chinese energy security

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

On June 13, a Shell China said that Royal Dutch Shell signed a letter of intent with Guanghui Energy Co. Ltd., a private firm, to “explore the possibility of developing a liquefied natural gas import terminal” in eastern China’s Jiangsu province. Chinese media and international media ran the story the same day. Reuters, quoting a company statement from early June, said that Guanghui plans to build LNG facilities in Qidong, Jiangsu province, starting with a 600,000 ton per year storage and transit plant. Then, the company plans to build a 1.5 million ton per year LNG import facility under a second phase and a 3.5 million ton per year import terminal in a third stage, pending regulatory approvals. The Shell-Guanghui terminal would be part of at least seven other LNG terminals under construction or planned. Currently, China has five existing LNG terminals with a total regasification capacity of almost 1,000 Bcf/y (2.7 Bcf/d) as of mid-2012. Once the new terminals are brought online, China’s total LNG regasification capacity will increase by at least another 2 Bcf/d, according to US Energy Information Agency (EIA) data. All of China’s LNG terminals are on the east coast, stretching north at Dalian, near the North Korean border, to south on Hainan Island, just northeast of Vietnam across the South China Sea. China’s accelerated LNG plans are one key element in its approach to ensure natural gas security. Other elements include promoting domestic production from conventional and unconventional resources, expanding current reserves, constructing gas storage facilities and speeding up construction of interregional gas pipelines. According to a June 20 International Energy Agency (IEA) report, China will account for 30% of the growth of global gas demand. Despite the country’s impressive progress on domestic production, says the IEA, this still puts China on a path of increasing import dependency. “In the next five years, China absorbs the entire production increase from Central Asia as well as one-third of the global increase in LNG supply.” China’s need for more natural gas already intersects North American supplies. The country has already invested heavily in both Canada and the US to help those efforts, including CNOOC’s recent $15.1 billion acquisition of Calgary-based Nexen, and in the US Sinopec’s $1 billion joint venture with Chesapeake Energy (which is the second largest natural gas producer in the country) and also Sinopec’s $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy in January 2012. One unknown variable at this point in China’s gas equation is American LNG.

Daiss 7/9 [July 9, 2013. Tim Daiss is an Asia-Pacific geopolitical & energy correspondent for US and UK news agencies. “China Raises Natural Gas Prices, Still Searching for More Supply” Energy Tribune. http://www.energytribune.com/78049/china-raises-natural-gas-prices-still-searching-for-more-supply#sthash.hS0ZEEXe.dpuf]

Shell signed a letter to “explore the possibility of developing a liquefied natural gas import terminal” in China Guanghui plans to build LNG facilities in Qidong, starting with a 600,000 ton per year storage and transit plant Then, the company plans to build a 1.5 million ton per year LNG import facility and a 3.5 million ton per year import terminal The Shell-Guanghui terminal would be part of at least seven other LNG terminals under construction or planned China has five existing LNG terminals nce the new terminals are brought online, China’s total LNG regasification capacity will increase China’s accelerated LNG plans are one key element in its approach to ensure natural gas security. Other elements include promoting domestic production from conventional and unconventional resources, expanding current reserves, constructing gas storage facilities and speeding up construction of interregional gas pipelines. China’s need for more natural gas already intersects North American supplies The country has already invested heavily in US to help those efforts

Chinese LNG terminals solve energy security

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Existing price differentials should make natural gas exports a reality, but existing trade rules are not so simple. Unlike ordinary exports, energy exports are subject to a permitting system under the Natural Gas Act that differentiates between free-trade area (“FTA”) and non-FTA destinations. These rules simplify export licensing to 18 of the 20 countries with which the United States has the closest trade ties. Licensing exports to other countries is more difficult. In the past two years, the Energy Department has approved 23 of 25 applications for LNG exports to FTA countries while approving only one non-FTA export request. It took Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass Liquefaction’s non-FTA application 29 months to win approval. Operators of LNG export terminals undergo other complex administrative hurdles to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements, whether they are proposing to build or modify existing facilities.

Colares 7/9 [July 9, 2013. Juscelino Colares is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. He is a specialist in the intersystemic aspects of the law on international trade, climate change and civil procedure. “The U.S. Must Lead on Natural Gas Production and Exports” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56427]

price differentials should make natural gas exports a reality but existing trade rules are not so simple. energy exports are subject to a permitting system under the Natural Gas Act that differentiates between FTA” and non-FTA destinations. Licensing exports to other countries is difficult. the Energy Department has approved only one non-FTA export request It took Cheniere Energy’ 29 months to win approval

Can’t solve Chinese energy security – laws preventing exports to non-FTA countries

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

In order to export natural gas from the United States, companies must obtain approval from both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. The Natural Gas Act of 1938 grants FERC the authorization to site both import and export facilities in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and existing statutes to satisfy environmental requirements including the Clean Water Act (Sections 401 and 404), the Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 307(c)), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act (Section 502). States have the authority to veto any approval decision by FERC by denying the facility's environmental permits.[20] The applicant must also satisfy requirements under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 as well as the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety requirements. FERC will approve the project if the agency believes the facility is in the public's interest.[21] Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act also gives the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy (FE) a say in the decision to export natural gas.[22] After a company files an application with the DOE, the agency must determine whether the project is in the public's interest. The DOE can arbitrarily deny a permit if the agency believes the total volume of natural gas exported is not in the public's interest. A facility is automatically authorized if the country the U.S. is exporting to is a recipient nation that has a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S.[23] If the importing country does not have an FTA, the Energy Department must then publish the notice in the Federal Register for a comment period, and ultimately determine if the facility is in the public's interest. Houston-based Cheniere Energy filed an application with the DOE in September of 2010 to export LNG to non-FTA countries, and the EPA conditionally approved the permit in May 2011. Cheniere submitted its review process to FERC in December 2011 and FERC approved the project in April of 2012.[24] However, after FERC completed its review in 2012, the Sierra Club asked the DOE to reconsider the permit, arguing that the environmental review was incomplete. The DOE then delayed a decision to stay the permit but ultimately dismissed the Sierra Club's request.[25] Even without the Sierra Club's obstruction, the DOE review process needlessly added a year to the review process.

Loris ’13 [February 11, 2013. Nicolas Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation. “U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Lift Restrictions and Empower the States” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-natural-gas-exports-lift-restrictions-and-empower-the-states]

In order to export natural gas companies must obtain approval from FERC and the D o E FERC will approve the project if the agency believes the facility is in the public's interest After a company files an application with the DOE, the agency must determine whether the project is in the public's interest. The DOE can arbitrarily deny a permit if the agency believes the total volume of natural gas exported is not in the public's interest. A facility is automatically authorized if the country the U.S. is exporting to is a recipient nation that has a FTA with the U.S If the importing country does not have an FTA the Energy Department must determine if the facility is in the public's interest the DOE review process needlessly added a year to the review process.

Exporting LNG to another country requires a long and costly authorization process – uncertainty deters investment

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Thus far, the DOE has only granted one permit out of the 17 applications the EPA received to export domestic LNG. All applications have FTA-approval but are under DOE review for approval to export to non-FTA countries.[26] A number of countries around the world already have LNG export terminals, and are expanding their export capacity. In fact, 46 LNG export terminals exist worldwide, with Qatar being the world's largest exporter, and Algeria, Australia, Indonesia, and Malaysia all substantial exporters as well.[27] Of the 13 LNG export projects currently under construction, eight of them are in Australia.[28] Excluding the terminals proposed in the United States, there are more than 20 planned in other countries.[29] As the Department of Energy wavers on approving LNG terminals, other countries are pursuing this valuable opportunity. Of course, natural gas exports are not a zero-sum game. Companies in other countries expanding their LNG exporting capacity do not necessarily negate opportunities for companies in the U.S. to do the same. If, however, a slow permitting process needlessly delays export terminals, the economics could change as exports from other countries lower prices in regions the U.S. wishes to engage. If exporting LNG from U.S. ports is no longer economically viable as a result of international competition, companies will not seek to build more terminals. But they should not be forced out of opportunities by an unnecessarily slow DOE.

Loris ’13 [February 11, 2013. Nicolas Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation. “U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Lift Restrictions and Empower the States” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-natural-gas-exports-lift-restrictions-and-empower-the-states]

the DOE has only granted one permit out of the 17 applications the EPA received to export domestic LNG. A number of countries around the world already have LNG export terminals, and are expanding their export capacity 46 LNG export terminals exist worldwide, As the Department of Energy wavers on approving LNG terminals, other countries are pursuing this valuable opportunity. a slow permitting process needlessly delays export terminals, the economics could change as exports from other countries lower prices in regions the U.S. wishes to engage. they should not be forced out of opportunities by an unnecessarily slow DOE.

Export permitting process takes forever and means other countries gain opportunities

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

But all things considered, the benefits of shale gas appear to far outweigh any costs. Many utilities are finding that burning natural gas to generate electricity is cheaper (and cleaner) than coal. Cheaper supplies of fuel and feedstocks benefit U.S. industry, especially manufacturers and chemicals makers which after years of looking for cheap gas abroad have been reinvesting in the U.S. Homeowners benefit from cheaper heating and cooling and electricity. Drilling for gas has created hundreds of thousands of jobs during this economic malaise and it’s generated billions of dollars of lease payments and royalties to landowners. A group of Yale economics graduates, many of them energy industry executives, led by Yale Professor Emeritus Paul W. MacAvoy, were curious about whether they could quantify the economic benefit that shale gas has on America. So they recently set out to do a cost-benefit analysis, valuing and balancing the pros against the cons. They’ve released their findings in a paper called “The Arithmetic of Shale Gas.” I’ve parsed all the complicated academic equations so you don’t have to. Their conclusion: the benefits of continued shale gas development are enormous and dramatically outweigh even worst-case scenario costs of pollution and clean-up. Some specifics. Consider that back in 2008, before the shale boom really took off, the nominal price of natural gas (that is, the price at the Henry Hub in Louisiana) averaged $7.97 per mcf. In 2011, the price averaged $3.95 per mcf. Multiply that price drop of $4.02 per mcf by the 25.6 trillion cubic feet the country consumed in 2008 and you find that thanks to the shale boom, America is paying $103 billion a year less for natural gas. (With gas prices falling even further since 2011, in 2012 the benefit will be even greater.) Had drillers not cracked the code on shale gas, the United States would instead have been forced to do what the experts expected five years ago: import massive quantities of gas, in the form of LNG from countries like Qatar, Australia, even Russia. Import-dependent nations like Japan and Korea pay upwards of $14 per mcf for LNG — more than triple U.S. prices. If the U.S. had to supplement domestic supplies with imports, the extra costs could have easily added $50 billion a year to the national natgas bill. As the report’s authors write: “It is startling to acknowledge that consumer benefits from the technology of shale gas drilling and new gas production can be expected to exceed $100 billion per year, year in and year out, as long as present production rates are maintained.”

Helman ’12 [June 22, 2012. Christopher Helman is a staffer for Forbes who covers the energy industry. “The Arithmetic Of Shale Gas” Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/22/the-arithmetic-of-shale-gas/]

the benefits of shale gas to far outweigh any costs burning natural gas is cheaper the benefits of continued shale gas development are enormous and dramatically outweigh even worst-case scenario costs before the shale boom took off, the price of natural gas averaged $7.97 In 2011, the price averaged $3.95 Multiply that price drop and you find that thanks to the shale boom America is paying $103 billion a year less for natural gas Had drillers not cracked the code on shale gas, he United States would instead have been forced to import massive quantities of LNG consumer benefits from the technology of shale gas drilling can be expected to exceed $100 billion per year, year in and year out

Shale drilling is extremely cheap and profitable

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Technological advancements in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to an abundance of natural gas production in the United States that is fundamentally changing the energy landscape. The result has been more jobs, economic growth, and consistently low domestic natural gas prices in what has been known to be a historically volatile market. In fact, the current price of natural gas may be too low to sustain the current rate of development, as producers are flaring gas and in some cases not even drilling for new dry gas wells. Many producers are seeking to expand to foreign markets where prices are also much higher. Unfortunately, the current regulatory regime surrounding natural gas has not adjusted to this huge influx of supply, particularly in the area of export regulations. The Department of Energy (DOE) is delaying decisions to approve applications due to concerns raised by some policymakers and energy-intensive companies that domestic prices will increase and adversely affect American energy consumers. In reality, the concerns regarding American natural gas exports are unsubstantiated and exaggerated and do not outweigh the broad economic benefits for America. Congress should remove the DOE's authority for authorizing natural gas export permits, and introduce reform that allows the states to control the environmental review and permitting process for natural gas export facilities.

Loris ’13 [February 11, 2013. Nicolas Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation. “U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Lift Restrictions and Empower the States” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-natural-gas-exports-lift-restrictions-and-empower-the-states]

Technological advancements have led to an abundance of natural gas production he result has been more jobs, economic growth, and consistently low domestic natural gas prices Many producers are seeking to expand to foreign markets where prices are higher. the current regulatory regime surrounding natural gas has not adjusted to this huge influx of supply in the area of export regulations The DOE) is delaying decisions to approve applications the concerns regarding American natural gas exports are unsubstantiated and exaggerated and do not outweigh the broad economic Congress should remove the DOE's authority for authorizing natural gas export permits, and introduce reform that allows the states to control the environmental review and permitting process for natural gas export facilities.

Text: The United States federal government should permit the export of liquefied natural gas to nations with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The fact is, America today is awash in natural gas. Through technological advances in tapping into shale rock formations, the amount of recoverable natural gas reserves has grown by nearly 800 percent over the past seven years, with estimates that the United States has more than a century’s worth of supplies on hand. The result has been a sharp and sustained decrease in the price of gas and, with that drop in energy prices, the prospect of a revitalized American manufacturing base and the jobs that will come with it. Indeed, America’s natural gas reserves are so great that one study after the other has concluded that the U.S. can export natural gas with only marginal increases in prices here at home. Not only would exporting gas abroad help reduce the country’s trade deficit and create additional jobs, but it would also have the strategic benefit of reducing the energy dependence of friends and allies on Putin’s Russia and states in the unstable Middle East—and, in turn, creating new and deeper ties to those same friends and allies. When it comes the export of natural gas, U.S. policy is at odds with what’s economically sound for the country. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and India are lining up to become long-term buyers of American natural gas if only the U.S. government would clear the path for American companies to build the necessary infrastructure to liquefy the gas and make it exportable globally. But here’s the rub. Under U.S. law, the decision to license natural gas exports rests with the Department of Energy and, for a license to be issued, the department must determine that those exports are in the “public interest.”​ The only exception being that, for countries with which the U.S. has a free-trade agreement, it’s assumed that gas exports meet that standard. Allies who have not signed an FTA with the U.S. (such as Japan, the United Kingdom or Lithuania), or strategic partners (like India and Taiwan) must face a higher hurdle before a license can be granted. Over the past two years, the Energy Department has granted just two separate authorizations to export domestic-sourced natural gas to non-FTA countries, and other approvals have been slow in coming. The export application line is growing longer by the day, with 20 new license requests having been filed and still under review as of May of this year. The problem with this slow pace of approvals and the more restrictive guidelines for non-FTA countries is that, when it comes to natural gas, “you snooze, you lose.” Importing states have potential alternatives, such as acquiring gas from Australia, Canada, Nigeria and Russia. And once companies make the billions in investments necessary to bring that gas online and transport it, they have even less incentive to make similar investments here in the United States. In short, the apparent slow-rolling of approvals by the Obama energy team has significant opportunity costs both economically and strategically. Moreover, there are real questions about whether the U.S. laws governing the export of natural gas run afoul of our commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), whose governing body is the World Trade Organization. Under Article XI (“General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions”) of GATT, the United States and other signatories have pledged not to adopt measures that would curtail the export of any good, with the key exception being the “conservation” of some good or commodity demonstrably in critical shortage. However, given the glut of domestic gas reserves—a glut that will continue as far as the eye can see—it’s hardly plausible that the administration could use this GATT exception to justify the current law or policies. Finally, if the U.S. were to claim this exception, under WTO rules, it would have to impose regulations to curtail domestic production and consumption of gas as a sign that the government is serious about conserving natural gas. Yet no such regulations or proposed laws have been put forward. Quite the opposite, domestic manufacturers, electric power companies and chemical firms are pushing for as rapid a development of shale gas fields as possible. Defending the current export regime for natural gas also requires Washington to ignore its own record of challenging other countries that have violated GATT’s free-trade provisions. In 2009 the U.S. and several other governments argued that Chinese restrictions on the export of various raw materials (magnesium, coke, bauxite, zinc, etc.) were contrary to GATT’s Article XI, and the WTO agreed. Then, in July 2012, the U.S., along with Canada, the European Union and Japan, once again challenged Chinese export restrictions—in this case, Chinese restrictions on “rare earth” minerals that are used in the production of cutting-edge products such as smart phones, high-end engines and aerospace systems. The expectation is that, once the WTO appeals process is over, China will again be found to be in violation of GATT rules. So, today, when it comes the export of natural gas, U.S. policy is at odds with what’s economically sound for the country, contrary to America’s longstanding free-trade commitments, and runs against its larger strategic interests. Quite a trifecta—but a losing bet for sure.

Schmitt and Kennedy 7/25[July 25, 2013. Gary Schmitt co-directs the Marilyn War Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Adam Kennedy is an economics and national security researcher living in Washington, D.C. “Our government's foolish view of US energy revolution” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/25/our-government-foolish-view-us-energy-revolution/]

America is awash in natural gas Through shale rock the amount of recoverable natural gas reserves has grown by nearly 800 percent the United States has more than a century’s worth of supplies on hand America’s natural gas reserves are so great that the U.S. can export natural gas with only marginal increases in prices here at home Not only would exporting gas abroad help reduce the country’s trade deficit and create additional jobs but it would also have the benefit of creating new and deeper ties to those same friends and allies. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and India are lining up to become long-term buyers of American natural gas if only the U.S. government would clear the path for American companies to build the necessary infrastructure to liquefy the gas and make it exportable globally Under U.S. law, the decision to license natural gas exports rests with the Department of Energy Allies who have not signed an FTA with the U.S. such as Japan, the United Kingdom Lithuania India and Taiwan must face a higher hurdle before a license can be granted the Energy Department has granted just two separate authorizations other approvals have been slow in coming. The export application line is growing longer The problem with this slow pace of approvals and the more restrictive guidelines for non-FTA countries is that, when it comes to natural gas, “you snooze, you lose.” Importing states have potential alternatives, such as acquiring gas from Australia, Canada, Nigeria and Russia once companies make the billions in investments necessary to bring gas online and transport it they have less incentive to make similar investments here in the United States the apparent slow-rolling of approvals by the Obama energy team has significant opportunity costs both economically and strategically domestic manufacturers are pushing for as rapid a development of shale gas fields as possible when it comes the export of natural gas, U.S. policy is at odds with what’s economically sound for the country, contrary to America’s longstanding free-trade commitments, and runs against its larger strategic interests.

Solves the advantage – allies are looking to us for energy security but barriers prevent exports of natural gas

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

There are good legal reasons to permit such exports too. To put it bluntly, the U.S. government cannot go on limiting natural gas exports (formally or otherwise) while domestic production and consumption increase. As a member of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”), the United States has committed to a number of obligations, including the GATT Article XI prohibition against adopting quantitative restrictions on exports. This makes it difficult to justify restrictions on exports. Unlike domestic gas producers who must resort to lobbying (and political contributions), the sovereign members of the WTO can challenge the current operation of the U.S. FTA/non-FTA system as a de facto export limitation. Furthermore, in light of current and projected increases in domestic gas production and consumption, the United States will not be able to rely on the traditional exceptions to Article XI, such as adopting export limitations in tandem with measures designed to conserve exhaustible natural resources or measures necessary to protect human health (Article XX). Worse, limiting exports would be profoundly inconsistent with the United States’ overall stance on free trade, and, especially, with the litigation positions it has often taken before the WTO. Take, for instance, the recent United States successful challenge to China’s export restraints on raw materials and its pending case against similar Chinese restraints on rare earths. In both cases, the United States specifically targeted the Chinese government’s formal and informal export restricting measures, including protracted export licensing procedures, that seemed designed to curtail foreign consumption while increasing domestic supplies and consumption. Natural gas exports put the United States in an important crossroads, where it can show leadership when it matters. It must consider the overlapping, though not always consistent, goals of upholding its free trade diplomacy by allowing a greater flow of gas exports and addressing a new set of national and global environmental concerns, especially climate change. Washington knows its trade partners are watching. It is time to reconcile sound economic policy with pro-environment and WTO-compliant trade positions.

Colares 7/9 [July 9, 2013. Juscelino Colares is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. He is a specialist in the intersystemic aspects of the law on international trade, climate change and civil procedure. “The U.S. Must Lead on Natural Gas Production and Exports” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56427]

the U.S. government cannot go on limiting natural gas exports while domestic production and consumption increase. ”), the United States has committed to obligations, against adopting quantitative restrictions on exports imiting exports would be profoundly inconsistent with the United States’ overall stance on free trade Natural gas exports put the United States in an important crossroads, where it can show leadership when it matters. It must consider upholding its free trade diplomacy by allowing a greater flow of gas exports and addressing a new set of national and global environmental concerns, especially climate change. Washington knows its trade partners are watching. It is time to reconcile sound economic policy with pro-environment and WTO-compliant trade positions.

Absent the CP LNG can’t be exported to countries – plan fails to show leadership

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Delays in approval of more natural gas export projects are costing U.S. companies millions of dollars a day and giving a leg up to rival countries also looking to boost exports, the chief of Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) said on Thursday. The comments by Exxon's Rex Tillerson came hours after new U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told lawmakers he hopes to "expeditiously" begin evaluating the more than a dozen applications awaiting approval to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). "It's a very competitive marketplace. It's not like people are just going to stand at our door like panting dogs just waiting for us to give this (LNG) to them," Tillerson said while answering questions after an event at the Asia Society focused on Asian energy security. Tillerson said he left a meeting with Moniz on Wednesday with no clear idea of when the company's Golden Pass LNG project - a $10 billion joint venture with Qatar Petroleum - would be approved. "I don't want to start on this process if you tell me it's going to take five years for you to get around to my application," Tillerson said. U.S. companies need authorization from the Department of Energy to export gas to all but a handful of countries with free trade agreements. Japan and India are among the countries keen to gain access to U.S. supplies. The Energy Department ended a two-year freeze in reviewing liquefied natural gas (LNG) export applications in May, when it approved gas exports to all countries from Freeport LNG's terminal in Texas. Shortly after that move Moniz, who was sworn in on May 21, said he would undertake a thorough review of the gas export review process, promising to ensure that current data was being used to make these decisions. At his first appearance at a Congressional panel since his swearing-in, Moniz told lawmakers at a House Energy and Commerce committee hearing on Thursday the review should wrap up soon. "We're getting ready to begin evaluating the dockets on a case-by-case basis," Moniz said. There would "absolutely" be additional decisions this year, he added, without giving a more specific time frame. Companies have lined up to export excess gas produced from the nation's shale boom. The gas can fetch higher prices abroad. Other backers of proposed export projects include Dominion Resources Inc (D.N), Sempra Energy (SRE.N), BG Group Plc (BG.L) and Veresen Inc (VSN.TO).

Rascoe and Volcovici 6/13 [June 13, 2013. Ayesha Rascoe is an energy reporter for Reuters and Valerie Volcovici is a Washington, DC-based correspondent covering climate/clean energy policy and carbon/environmental commodity markets in the Americas. “Exxon CEO says delays in gas export permits hurt U.S.” Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-lng-exports-idUSBRE95C1GO20130613]

Delays in approval of more natural gas export projects are costing U.S. companies millions of dollars a day and giving a leg up to rival countries also looking to boost exports chief of Exxon said It's a very competitive marketplace It's not like people are just going to stand at our door like panting dogs just waiting for us to give this (LNG) to them," Tillerson said I don't want to start on this process if you tell me it's going to take five years for you to get around to my application U.S. companies need authorization from the Department of Energy to export gas to all but countries with free trade agreements Japan and India are among the countries keen to gain access to U.S. supplies Companies have lined up to export excess gas produced from the nation's shale boom. The gas can fetch higher prices abroad.

Now is key – markets are impacted by each day

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

“The development of U.S. natural gas resources is having a transformative impact on the U.S. energy landscape, helping to improve our energy security while spurring economic development and job creation around the country,” the department said in its news release. Bill Gibbons, a department spokesman, said President Barack Obama’s administration was addressing the issue “in a responsible way” and would weigh applications on a case-by-case basis. After a preliminary review, it seems “the order provides us everything that we requested in terms of the authorization and we commend the Department of Energy on the thoroughness of their review and consideration of exports and getting to the right result,” John Tobola, general counsel of Freeport, said in a telephone interview yesterday. If all 20 projects were to win approval, they could ship the equivalent of 41 percent of the total U.S. production this year, according to Energy Department data. The Freeport LNG project must still win approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The big hurdle was thought to be the Energy Department, which must decide if the projects are in the national interest. The department concluded that exports from the Freeport facility are “likely to yield net economic benefits” to the U.S. Freeport would be able to export as much as 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day for 20 years. In May 2011, the department conditionally approved Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Louisiana for a rate of as much as 2.2 billion cubic feet a day. The Energy Department’s action yesterday is “an indication that other projects, including our own Cameron LNG, will receive this authorization soon,” Mark Snell, president of Sempra Energy, said in a statement. The power company is awaiting federal approval for exports from a $6 billion to $7 billion expansion of its Cameron LNG project in Hackberry, Louisiana. ‘Narrow Window’ “There is a narrow window opportunity for U.S. companies to participate in the global LNG market,” Snell said. In its release, the Energy Department cited an Energy Information Administration forecast projecting production to reach a record 69.3 billion cubic feet a day in 2013. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the Energy Department’s decision to review applications individually was consistent with his view that a “measured approach on exports will provide the greatest advantage for the U.S. economy.”

Synder and Klump 5/17 [May 17, 2013. Jim Synder is an Energy reporter for Bloomberg News. Edward Klump is a reporter for Bloomberg news. “Gas Export Approval Not Seen Signaling U.S. Permit Flood” Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-17/u-s-approves-gas-export-terminal-partly-owned-by-conocophillips.html]

The development of U.S. natural gas resources is having a transformative impact on the U.S. energy landscape, helping to improve our energy security while spurring economic development and job creation around the country If all 20 projects were to win approval, they could ship the equivalent of 41 percent of the total U.S. production this year exports are “likely to yield net economic benefits There is a narrow window opportunity for U.S. companies to participate in the global LNG market,” measured approach on exports will provide the greatest advantage for the U.S. economy.”

CP spurs energy security and the window for the perfect time is closing

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The current system is too onerous to allow American LNG exports to reach the market in a timely manner. The DOE's role in permit authorization is completely unnecessary and U.S. producers should be allowed to export LNG to any country they see fit. Further, Congress should return jurisdiction to the state governors by allocating authority to state regulators to conduct the environmental review and provide the permit to construct an LNG facility. Given the large volume of LNG export applications, not only could this take some of the burden off FERC, it could also spawn an efficient review process that allows these projects to come online more efficiently. In that vein, Congress should: Lift restrictions on LNG-recipient countries. The distinction that exports to FTA countries are in the "public interest" while others are not is on the whole an arbitrary one. There are numerous non-FTA nations with which the U.S. trades regularly. Natural gas should be no different and should be treated as any other good traded around the world.

Loris ’13 [February 11, 2013. Nicolas Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation. “U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Lift Restrictions and Empower the States” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-natural-gas-exports-lift-restrictions-and-empower-the-states]

The current system is too onerous to allow American LNG exports to reach the market .S. producers should be allowed to export LNG to any country they see fit Congress should: Lift restrictions on LNG-recipient countries. The distinction that exports to FTA countries are in the "public interest" while others are not is on the whole an arbitrary one. There are numerous non-FTA nations with which the U.S. trades regularly. Natural gas should be no different and should be treated as any other good traded around the world.

Restrictions on LNG exports prevent products from reaching the market

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The process of production, from recent rapid spread of decades old shale fracturing technology, is not different in kind from natural gas production methods developed over the last century for extracting gas from non-shale formations. Wells are drilled some distance underground and the vertical hole encased by pipe and sealed with cement to produce gas under great temperature and pressure. The technology for shale formations uses pipes stretched horizontally from the base of the vertical pipe to inject at high pressure liquids (water plus proppants and surfactants specific to the well) to fracture the shale formation that allows the movement of additional methane (and any concomitant natural gas liquids and oil) to the base of the vertical pipe. Production costs incurred are very likely to be in the range of one dollar per thousand cubic feet (mcf) of gas produced plus or minus 50-cents depending upon specific drilling and pressure conditions. Table One shows these costs for five shale gas production companies for which there is information publicly available. In some instances production cost outlays are less than amortization expenses or interest expenses on capital outlays. Our estimate of marginal costs of $1.00 per mcf however is similar to those from company to company based on the operations of thousands of wells in various shale basins. In 2010 the natural gas average sales price per company including all gains/losses on financial gas derivatives ($ per mcf) at the wellhead, regional pipeline market and delivery point was between $4.64 and $5.57 per mcf. Because of substantial differences in the locations of basins across the country of shale, and new wellhead production points, sales prices differed because of varied delivery costs into pipeline hubs. Prices also varied because of differences between short and long-term contracts and spot sales. Even so one can make a judgment that in that year all natural gas together (conventional vertical well gas and shale gas) sold at a hypothetical central market for $5.00 per mcf. This is because natural gas from various sources all sold in a competitive market both at the wellhead and in commodity exchanges after incurring marginal costs of production of $1.00 per mcf.2

Ames et. al. ’12 [June 15, 2012. Robert M. Ames is the Vice President of Fuel Commercialization Solazyme, Inc. Anthony Corridore is Senior Management at Lafarge Corp. Joel Nathan Ephross is a Partner at Duane Morris LLP. Edward Hirs is the Managing Director of Hillhouse Resources, LLC. Paul W. MacAvoy is the Williams Brothers Professor Emeritus at the Yale School of Management. Richard Tavelli is a private energy consultant. “The Arithmetic of Shale Gas” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2085027_code347008.pdf?abstractid=2085027&mirid=1]

roduction costs incurred are very likely to be in the range of one dollar per thousand cubic feet of gas produced plus or minus 50-cents production cost outlays are less than amortization expenses or interest expenses on capital outlays the natural gas average sales price per company as between $4.64 and $5.57 per mcf sold at a hypothetical central market for $5.00 per mcf This is because natural gas from various sources all sold in a competitive market both at the wellhead and in commodity exchanges after incurring marginal costs of production of $1.00 per mcf

Shale drilling is extremely cheap

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

There is some indication of very large gains for the economy from shale gas from comparing year to year total consumption. Within the triangle of consumer surplus there is a rectangle of the difference in prices in successive years times the quantity of earlier year’s sales. This is a conservative estimate of consumer surplus since it takes no account of the increased consumption that occurs in response to the reduction in price. But since the elasticity of demand is quite low, that increase is small. The nominal price (that is, the Henry Hub spot price) in 2008 was $7.97 per mcf and in 2011 was $3.95 per mcf (US Energy Information Administration,)3 so that the difference in price over three successive years was $4.02 per mcf. Gas production in 2008 was 25.6 tcf so that the surplus to consumers by the price reduction from shale gas equaled $102.9 billion. This very large amount of consumer gain—over $100 billion—from the new technology induced price reduction in gas is the elephant in the room. It comprised a substantial majority of total expenditures on this fuel nationwide. In past years those expenditures were limited by the higher costs of production of gas produced from vertical wells. These were in part producer surplus but most were the costs of sustaining well operations in the old technology. Even so it is startling to acknowledge that consumer benefits from the technology of shale gas drilling and new gas production can be expected to exceed $100 billion per year, year in and year out as long as present production rates are maintained.

Ames et. al. ‘12 [June 15, 2012. Robert M. Ames is the Vice President of Fuel Commercialization Solazyme, Inc. Anthony Corridore is Senior Management at Lafarge Corp. Joel Nathan Ephross is a Partner at Duane Morris LLP. Edward Hirs is the Managing Director of Hillhouse Resources, LLC. Paul W. MacAvoy is the Williams Brothers Professor Emeritus at the Yale School of Management. Richard Tavelli is a private energy consultant. “The Arithmetic of Shale Gas” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2085027_code347008.pdf?abstractid=2085027&mirid=1]

There is some indication of very large gains for the economy from shale gas there is a rectangle of the difference in prices . The nominal price in 2008 was $7.97 and in 2011 was $3.95 so that the difference in price over three successive years was $4.02 the surplus to consumers by the price reduction from shale gas equaled $102.9 billion. This very large amount of consumer gain from the new technology induced price reduction in gas is the elephant in the room. It comprised a substantial majority of total expenditures on this fuel nationwide expenditures were limited by the higher costs of production of gas produced from vertical wells consumer benefits from the technology of shale gas drilling and new gas production can be expected to exceed $100 billion per year, year in and year out

Gains from natural gas are the elephant in the room – it’s extremely profitable

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

In keeping with the national debate on the future of natural gas as a replacement for crude oil, we consider the consumer surplus of replacing one barrel of oil with its BTU equivalent of 6 mcf of shale gas. We assume that the current price of oil is $100 per bbl. If we use the gas wellhead price of $5/mcf and multiple it by 6 to get a per bbl of oil equivalent (“boe”) of $30 of cost, the savings is $100/bbl - $30/boe. Therefore, the gain to consumers of replacing one barrel of oil with a natural gas fuel equivalent is approximately $70/bbl. Current US consumption of crude oil is approximately 15.0 million bbls per day. Replacing 1.0 million bbls per day of crude oil with the 6 billion cubic feet (bcf”) equivalent of natural gas, would generate approximately $25.6 billion ($70/bbl*1 million bbls*365 days) of consumer surplus for the US economy over one year.

Ames et. al. ’12 [June 15, 2012. Robert M. Ames is the Vice President of Fuel Commercialization Solazyme, Inc. Anthony Corridore is Senior Management at Lafarge Corp. Joel Nathan Ephross is a Partner at Duane Morris LLP. Edward Hirs is the Managing Director of Hillhouse Resources, LLC. Paul W. MacAvoy is the Williams Brothers Professor Emeritus at the Yale School of Management. Richard Tavelli is a private energy consultant. “The Arithmetic of Shale Gas” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2085027_code347008.pdf?abstractid=2085027&mirid=1]

we consider the consumer surplus of replacing one barrel of oil with shale gas. the current price of oil is $100 per bbl If we use the gas price of $5/mcf the savings is $100/bbl the gain to consumers of replacing one barrel of oil with a natural gas fuel equivalent is approximately $70/bbl Replacing 1.0 million bbls per day of crude oil with natural gas, would generate approximately $25.6 billion of consumer surplus for the US economy over one year.

Cheap shale gas production transfers into consumer surplus

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

LNG exports will raise domestic prices only minimally, and producers will respond by increasing extraction and development. Exporting natural gas could increase domestic prices but only marginally: The consulting firm Deloitte found that exports would raise domestic prices only 1.7 percent over 20 years.[6] The Energy Information Administration projected that, depending on the growth of exports, end-use consumers in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors combined would pay, on average, an increase of 3 percent to 9 percent from 2015 to 2035 for natural gas bills compared to a scenario with no exports. Electricity bills by end users would increase on average from 1 percent to 3 percent over the same time period.[7] While LNG exports would raise domestic prices, those higher prices would act as incentives for more exploration and production, offsetting some of the price increase, or even keeping prices as low as they are now, since the gas is still profitable to produce at a low price in some regions of the country. Providing other countries with cheaper energy would not only lower the prices of products that the U.S. imports (because businesses could make the products more cheaply), it would also promote economic development in those countries so that they import more American goods. Simply put, the gains from free trade far outweigh any losses incurred. With respect to natural gas, the NERA study confirms this by concluding, "Across the scenarios, U.S. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of natural gas exports increased. This includes scenarios in which there are unlimited exports."[8] Higher natural gas prices also open up opportunities for producers of other electricity sources, such as coal, nuclear energy, wind, or solar power. If natural gas prices rise to a point where other power sources are competitive, the result will be more competition and innovation within the energy sector.

Loris ’13 [February 11, 2013. Nicolas Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation. “U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Lift Restrictions and Empower the States” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/us-natural-gas-exports-lift-restrictions-and-empower-the-states]

Exporting natural gas could increase prices only marginally consumers would pay an increase of 3 percent to 9 percent compared to a scenario with no exports higher prices would act as incentives for more exploration and production, offsetting some of the price increase gas is still profitable to produce at a low price in some regions of the country Providing other countries with cheaper energy would lower the prices of products that the U.S. imports it would promote economic development in those countries so that they import more American goods. , the gains from free trade far outweigh any losses incurred. U.S. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of natural gas exports increased Higher natural gas prices also open up opportunities for wind, or solar power the result will be more competition and innovation within the energy sector.

Price increases are marginal – leads to competition which outweighs any negative effects

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

It is unclear who in the Senate objected to the agreement’s passage, but sources say it was likely out of concern for the process by which it was being passed rather than the substance of the agreement. That may stem in part from lingering uncertainty over whether the agreement is a treaty, which would require a two-thirds majority for Senate ratification, or an executive agreement, which would require implementing legislation to be passed by a majority in both chambers. Regardless, its failure was a surprise to staff on the ENR Committee who had crafted a news release in preparation for its passage but had to delete it after the agreement was blocked. According to the report by Foreign Relations Republicans, the Obama administration has yet to say whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement but appears to prefer the latter. Mexico’s Senate ratified the agreement, suggesting it was interpreted as a treaty. If it is a treaty, a formal communication would need to be sent from the president to the Foreign Relations Committee, which would trigger hearings on the matter and allow Congress to interpret any ambiguous language in the agreement. That is important, because several provisions in the treaty “invite scrutiny and clarification,” according to the committee report. “The treaty doesn’t have every detail worked out,” said Neil Brown, a former adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) who was ranking member of the committee until his retirement earlier this month. For example, one section of the agreement calls for “common standards,” but it is unclear whether that requires companies to adopt U.S. safety and environmental standards or Mexico’s, which are considered less developed. Another area of the agreement creates a dispute resolution process without saying whether the arbitration is binding, the report said. The agreement would allow joint inspections by Interior’s BSEE and the Mexican government to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Some on the Foreign Relations Committee said they were miffed that the administration did not consult with them before pushing the agreement through in the lame duck.

Taylor, 2013 (Phi,l E&E Reporter, 1/9/13, “E&E: U.S.-Mexico transboundary agreement mired in Congress,” http://www.bromwichgroup.com/2013/01/ee-offshore-drilling-u-s-mexico-transboundary-agreement-mired-in-congress/)

It is unclear who in the Senate objected to the agreement’s passage, but it was out of concern for the process by which it was being passed rather than the substance That may stem from lingering uncertainty over whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement Obama has yet to say whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement If it is a treaty a formal communication would need to be sent from the president which would trigger hearings That is important, because several provisions invite scrutiny and clarification,” according to the committee report The treaty doesn’t have every detail worked out the Foreign Relations Committee were miffed that the administration did not consult with them before pushing the agreement through in the lame duck

The plan sparks backlash over the process of ratification, and requires Presidential involvement

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The TBA contains numerous provisions in anticipation of disputes on allocation of resources under a unitization agreement and implementation of those agreements. Legal analysis of these provisions is beyond the scope of this report. However, it is apparent that lack of clarity on the legal status of the dispute resolution mechanisms should be of concern to the U.S. Congress. The Obama administration contends that the agreement’s arbitration mechanism is not intended to produce binding decisions, however, that is not specifically provided for in the text of the agreement and would be different from arbitration mechanisms in many other international agreements.

Brown & Meacham, 2012 (Neil and Carl, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senior Staff Members, “Oil, Mexico, and the Transboundary Agreement,” 12/21/12, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/publications/download/oil-mexico-and-the-transboundary-agreement)

The TBA contains numerous provisions in anticipation of disputes on allocation of resources it is apparent that lack of clarity on the legal status of the dispute resolution mechanisms should be of concern to the U.S. Congress Obama contends the agreement’s arbitration mechanism is not intended to produce binding decisions however, that is not specifically provided for in the text

Uncertainty over the mechanism causes Congressional fights that draw in Obama

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Countries have long fought over access to water resources. Water’s unique attributes as a quasi public and private good distinguish it from other economic goods and services.1 While national and international competition over water resources is not new, many of the advances in industrial organization and applied microeconomics have not yet been integrated into the literature on transboundary governance and sustainability. In particular, there is sparse literature that applies market design elements of incentive compatibility among heterogeneous actors in the context of transboundary water governance. Recent events have accentuated the importance of developing mutually beneficial policy rules for resolving water resources. First, environmental externalities associated with water use are increasing. For example, climate change is expected to make water resources much more scarce, relative to their current scarcity (Backus et al, 2010). Likewise, the recent 2010 Gulf Oil spill resulted in significant economic and environmental damages both for many years to come (i.e. temporally) and throughout the entire Gulf region (i.e. spatially) (National Commission, 2011). Second, conflict over water resources seems to be increasing. For example, recent disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have captivated the international community’s attention with the prospects of con- flict. Sparked by competition over the SCS water resource, in part because of its large hydrocarbon reserves, China has contested the property rights of neighboring countries, including: Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan (Makridis, 2013). That transboundary governance of water resources is inherently political and contentious underscores the importance of designing effective markets and institutions capable of promoting efficient and equitable outcomes for involved parties.

Makridis, 2013 (Christos, Research Fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University and a Ph.D. student at Stanford University's Department of Management Science and Engineering, “A Tale of Two Countries: Markets and Transboundary Water Governance between the United States and Mexico”, 2/4/2013, https://people.stanford.edu/cmakridi/sites/default/files/Makridis%20-%20Markets%20and%20Transboundary%20Water.pdf)

Water’s unique attributes as a quasi public and private good distinguish it from other economic goods and services many of the advances in industrial organization and applied microeconomics have not yet been integrated into the literature on transboundary governance and sustainability the recent 2010 Gulf Oil spill resulted in significant economic and environmental damages both for many years to come region That transboundary governance of water resources is inherently political and contentious underscores the importance of designing effective markets and institutions capable of promoting efficient and equitable outcomes for involved parties.

Transboundary agreements are inherently politically contentious

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Okay. With that, I would reclaim my time. I could ask to have the record read back, but I won't because it would delay things. But you said this is what Mexico wanted. You did say that just before as you spoke. Now you're saying that you believe that this is reflecting the spirit of the agreement. Now I will accept that. You believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that. Maxine Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going to get out of the Senate. They have a bipartisan bill over there that doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We could be done with this. But no, we're not going to do that; we're going to play games. So here's what the President said. He's got something to say about this in the end, he really does: The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill. Most significantly, the administration strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's natural resource extraction disclosure rule. As a practical matter, this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors. So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto the bill, and we'll be back again. And how many months that'll take, I don't know. But to assert that somehow Mexico wanted this, or the administration wanted it, and they just kind of forgot to put it in the agreement, and now we're helping them out, even though the administration says they don't want it, and I don't know what the government of Mexico says--and then there was another issue raised about confidentiality provisions.

DeFazio, 6/27/2013 (Peter, speech in Congress by Representative Peter Defazio concerning the “OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZATION ACT”, https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2013-06-27-pt1-PgH4096-6.chunk32/rep-peter-defazio-outer-continental-shelf-transboundary-hydrocarbon-agreements-authorization-act)

You believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going to get out of the Senate They have a bill over there that doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We could be done with this The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill. Most significantly, the administration strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors. So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto the bill, and we'll be back again

*(This concedes that the aff is inherent but is a reason why their inherency means they link to politics/ don’t get a link turn). This could also be used for the Article 20 PIC

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Mr. DeFAZIO. That was very impassioned, and we can agree with the necessity of moving forward with the agreement. The problem is that the gentleman ignored the fact that the United States Senate will not pass this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that. So you're slowing things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street reforms. With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who is an expert on this provision of law. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the conference committee that passed the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1613. I oppose the bill because of the exemption it includes for companies from the transparency requirements under section 1504 of Dodd-Frank Act.

US Senate, 6/27/2013 (United States Senate, “OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZATION ACT”, http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/06/27/senate-section/article/H4096-6)

The problem is that the United States Senate will not pass this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that you're slowing things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street reforms as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the conference committee that passed the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1613. I oppose the bill because of the exemption it includes for companies from the transparency requirements under section 1504 of Dodd-Frank Act

The plan won’t pass the senate-waiving Dodd-Frank is extremely unpopular

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is blaming Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House, for failing to act on critical energy issues and creating a divide between what he called "the real energy world" and "the imagined, fairy tale world." In sharply worded remarks last week, Salazar said political rhetoric was blocking progress on legislation that would reorganize his department's oversight of offshore and onshore energy development, approve a transboundary energy agreement with Mexico and boost the development of renewable energy. The former Demoratic senator from Colorado directed his scorn at the House, without mentioning the Republicans by name. He criticized those who he said call for a "drill, drill, drill" policy and oppose President Barack Obama's proposal to end tax deductions for the oil and natural gas industry. "The good news is that the imagined energy world is actually very small," Salazar said at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington. "I think you can find its edge, the end of it, when you walk out of the House of Representatives." Salazar's remarks come as the House considers a number of energy bills as part of a strategy to make rising gasoline prices an issue in the November elections. The bills, none of which stand much chance in the Democrat-controlled Senate, include one aimed at forcing the approval of an oil pipeline between Canada and the US and others that would open new areas, including the Atlantic coast, to energy exploration. A spokesman for Representative Doc Hastings, Republican-Washington, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, declined to comment on Salazar's remarks. Salazar challenged Congress to act in three areas he called "low-hanging fruit." He said that Congress has failed to codify in law the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. "It's inexcusable that Congress has yet to enact one piece of legislation to make drilling safer," Salazar said. Second, Salazar scolded Congress for failing to ratify a transboundary agreement with Mexico that resolves disputes that could occur along the maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico. Salazar noted that Mexico's legislature has already ratified the agreement, but that Congress has not.

Gentile, 2012 (Gary, Inside Energy, “Salazar accuses House of living a 'fairy tale'; urges votes on 3 issues,”, 4/30/12, p. lexis)

Salazar is blaming Congress especially the Republican-controlled House, for failing to act on energy and creating a divide between the real energy world" and "the fairy tale world political rhetoric was blocking progress on legislation that would approve a transboundary energy agreement with Mexico the House considers a number of energy bills none of which stand much chance in the Democrat-controlled Senate include one that would open new areas to energy exploration Salazar scolded Congress for failing to ratify a transboundary agreement with Mexico

Senate Democrats will not pass the plan without a fight-forces Obama to use political capital on the plan

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The grim fact is that Mexico must help solve America’s immigration dilemma by becoming a better country for its people. But the United States has two big cards to play to encourage Mexico to reform: its legal power to resolve the status of 7 million Mexicans living here in limbo, and its more pervasive economic power as Mexico’s dominant trading partner and source of foreign investment. Polls by the magazine Este País show that the Mexican people would be willing to abandon one of their most cherished convictions and open PEMEX to private investors in exchange for measures that benefit their relatives in the U.S. Privatizing the oil company would require amending Mexico’s constitution. But energy-sector productivity would improve dramatically even if the Mexican Congress simply passed laws to eliminate restrictions on the import, export, and domestic sale of crude, gasoline, basic petrochemicals, electricity, gas, and oil derivatives. If opening the energy sector to foreign competition proved too controversial, lawmakers could begin with other industries that the OECD identifies as sheltered and inefficient, such as telecommunications and the media. In return, the U.S. could offer Mexican immigrants various benefits—higher quotas for work visas or green cards, for example. Like Mexico, it could avoid the more controversial concessions at first, such as guest-worker programs. Beyond the virtues of any one deal, establishing the principle of linkage—immigration liberalization in the U.S., conditioned on economic liberalization in Mexico—would change the political conversations in both countries. Mexicans in the U.S. have influence back home, and surveys show that they are more likely than the vested interests there to support policies that lead to growth. Americans likewise might be more willing to accept as truly “comprehensive” an immigration reform that took into account the key variable affecting migrant flows into the U.S.: Mexico’s own behavior. More broadly, the best way to strengthen Mexico and ease the pressure of illegal immigration is to stimulate free trade and investment to promote the continent’s competitiveness. The goal should be to create regional mechanisms like NAFTA that are accountable to each country’s people but that strengthen Mexico’s institutions in a range of areas, including economic regulation, competition, and monetary policy.

Barbash, 2009 (Shepard, former bureau chief in Mexico City for the Houston Chronicle and author of three books about Mexico, Autumn 2009, “Helping Mexico Help Itself,” City Journal, online: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_helping-mexico.html/)

Mexico must help solve America’s immigration dilemma by becoming a better country for its people. But the United States has two big cards to play to encourage Mexico to reform: its legal power to resolve the status of 7 million Mexicans living here in limbo, and its more pervasive economic power as Mexico’s dominant trading partner Mexican people would be willing to open PEMEX to private investors in exchange for measures that benefit their relatives in the U.S energy-sector productivity would improve dramatically even if the Mexican Congress simply passed laws to eliminate restrictions . In return, the U.S. could offer Mexican immigrants various benefits—higher quotas for work visas or green cards, for example. Like Mexico, it could avoid the more controversial concessions at first, such as guest-worker programs establishing the principle of linkage—immigration liberalization in the U.S., conditioned on economic liberalization in Mexico—would change the political conversations in both countries Mexicans in the U.S. have influence back home and are more likely than the vested interests there to support policies that lead to growth the best way to strengthen Mexico and ease the pressure of illegal immigration is to stimulate free trade

CIR turns PEMEX reform-gives the U.S. leverage

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Mexico’s drug traffickers are already in the United States, making drug deals, looking for locations to grow marijuana, establishing new distribution channels. And the violence has followed, although thus far, it appears to be mostly confined to those involved in the traffic. What we have not witnessed here—some would add “yet”—is the same kind of violent challenge to police that we see in Mexico—threats, abductions, assassinations. Nor have we seen a proliferation of ransom kidnappings on this side of the border. Either development would trigger a reaction the traffickers would be wise to avoid. The United States could, of course, take two bold steps: It could dramatically reduce the Mexican traffickers’ profits—and therefore their power to corrupt, hire killers, and buy weapons—by investing more in reducing domestic demand for drugs and partially decriminalizing their use, as some studies and several Latin American presidents have recommended. As long as U.S. demand remains high, criminals will draw huge profits. (Others favor vigorous aerial crop destruction.) The United States could also move to legalize and fully integrate the millions of illegal immigrants in the country, and adopt a system of work visas that reduces the need for running the border, thereby taking the profit out of human smuggling. However, neither of these approaches seems likely to implemented.

Jenkins, 2009 (Brian Michael, Senior Advisor to the President of the RAND Corporation, “Mexico: Failing State?”, 3/23/2009, http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/mexico-failing-state.php)

Mexico’s drug traffickers are already in the United States, making drug deals establishing new distribution channels Either development would trigger a reaction the traffickers would be wise to avoid. The United States could, of course, take two bold steps: It could dramatically reduce the Mexican traffickers’ profits by investing more in reducing domestic demand for drugs and partially decriminalizing their use As long as U.S. demand remains high, criminals will draw huge profits The United States could also move to legalize and fully integrate the millions of illegal immigrants in the country, and adopt a system of work visas that reduces the need for running the border, thereby taking the profit out of human smuggling

CIR turns drug violence

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

April 20 is the counter-culture “holiday” on which lots and lots of people come together to advocate marijuana legalization (or just get high). Should drugs—especially marijuana—be legal? The answer is “yes.” Immediately. Without hesitation. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 seized in a civil asset forfeiture. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. It’s high time to end prohibition. Even if you aren’t willing to go whole-hog and legalize all drugs, at the very least we should legalize marijuana. For the sake of the argument, let’s go ahead and assume that everything you’ve heard about the dangers of drugs is completely true. That probably means that using drugs is a terrible idea. It doesn’t mean, however, that the drug war is a good idea. Prohibition is a textbook example of a policy with negative unintended consequences. Literally: it’s an example in the textbook I use in my introductory economics classes (Cowen and Tabarrok, Modern Principles of Economics if you’re curious) and in the most popular introductory economics textbook in the world (by N. Gregory Mankiw).The demand curve for drugs is extremely inelastic, meaning that people don’t change their drug consumption very much in response to changes in prices. Therefore, vigorous enforcement means higher prices and higher revenues for drug dealers. In fact, I’ll defer to Cowen and Tabarrok—page 60 of the first edition, if you’re still curious—for a discussion of the basic economic logic: he more effective prohibition is at raising costs, the greater are drug industry revenues. So, more effective prohibition means that drug sellers have more money to buy guns, pay bribes, fund the dealers, and even research and develop new technologies in drug delivery (like crack cocaine). It’s hard to beat an enemy that gets stronger the more you strike against him or her. People associate the drug trade with crime and violence; indeed, the newspapers occasionally feature stories about drug kingpins doing horrifying things to underlings and competitors. These aren’t caused by the drugs themselves but from the fact that they are illegal (which means the market is underground) and addictive (which means demanders aren’t very price sensitive).

Carden, 2012 (Art, Assistant Professor of Economics at Samford University and a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute, a Senior Fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee, “Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War”, Forbes, 4/19/2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/)

Should drugs—especially marijuana—be legal? The answer is “yes.” Immediately. Without hesitation. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 seized in a civil asset forfeiture. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. It’s high time to end prohibition at the very least we should legalize marijuana using drugs is a terrible idea. It doesn’t mean, however, that the drug war is a good idea. Prohibition is a textbook example of a policy with negative unintended consequences The demand curve for drugs is extremely inelastic, meaning that people don’t change their drug consumption very much in response to changes in prices. Therefore, vigorous enforcement means higher prices and higher revenues for drug dealers. more effective prohibition is at raising costs, the greater are drug industry revenues more effective prohibition means that drug sellers have more money to buy guns, pay bribes, fund the dealers, and even research and develop new technologies It’s hard to beat an enemy that gets stronger the more you strike against him or her These aren’t caused by the drugs themselves but from the fact that they are illegal

Legalizing marijuana solves their drug violence internal link-a continued strategy of prohibition inevitably fails

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The top advisor to incoming Mexican president Peña Nieto said the world's first full legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington “changes the rules of the game” in the war on drugs, The Washington Post reports. Mexican officials have called for a review of joint U.S.-Mexico drug policies because, as Mexican Congressman Manlio Fabio Beltrones pointed out, "the largest consumer in the world has liberalized its laws.” Over the last six years Mexico has spent billions of dollars per year to combat drug trafficking only to see cartels become stronger and more than 100,000 Mexicans be killed. We reported that U.S. voters may have won the Drug War on Tuesday because one or more states growing weed could meet most of domestic demand and sink cartel revenues, but Codirector of RAND Drug Policy Research Center Beau Kilmer reminded us that the U.S. government will have something to say about that. "The scenario where a state or two ends up dominating all of the U.S. market, that requires some really big assumptions," Kilmer told BI. "I have a hard time imagining that the federal government and other states would let that happen." Imminent resistance aside, the U.S. government may no longer be in the position to force its drug crusade on other countries. “What happened on Tuesday was a game changer," drug analyst Alejandro Hope from the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness told Time. “Now it would be very hard for the U.S. to tell people not to legalize marijuana.” Even prior to Tuesday, prominent voices including America's closest South American allies, President Obama's drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, Former President of Mexico Vincente Fox, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, The Global Commission on Drug Policy and the Council on Hemispheric Affairs have stated that the U.S.-led drug policy of criminalizing drug use and employing military tactics to fight traffickers has been a failure. So the U.S. government faces a dilemma: does it double down on a decades-long losing war or accept failure and rethink it's position on drugs, especially its extreme stance on marijuana?

Kelley, 2012 (Michael, writer for Business Insider, “Weed Legalization Could Set Off A Radical Chain Of Events In Latin America”, Business Insider, 11/9/2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/weed-legalization-mexico-drug-war-2012-11)

The top advisor to incoming Mexican president Peña Nieto said the world's first full legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington “changes the rules of the game” in the war on drugs Mexican officials have called for a review of joint U.S.-Mexico drug policies because the largest consumer in the world has liberalized its laws Over the last six years Mexico has spent billions of dollars per year to combat drug trafficking only to see cartels become stronger one or more states growing weed could meet most of domestic demand and sink cartel revenues the U.S. government may no longer be in the position to force its drug crusade on other countries. “What happened on Tuesday was a game changer," drug analyst prominent voices including America's closest South American allies Affairs have stated that the U.S.-led drug policy of criminalizing drug use and employing military tactics to fight traffickers has been a failure. So the U.S. government faces a dilemma: does it double down on a decades-long losing war or accept failure and rethink it's position on drugs, especially its extreme stance on marijuana

Current criminalization policies have failed-only legalization can solve the drug war

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Under its legislation, Uruguay will allow its residents, 18 and over, to buy up to 40 grams of cannabis a month at licensed drug stores, or grow up to six plants at home. Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA and the co-author of Legalizing Marijuana: What Everyone Needs to Know, believes the initial outcome will be mostly positive. "The immediate consequences are likely to be decreased crime, decreased arrests, decreased illicit activity, increased state revenue -- and increased drug abuse," he says. Kleiman says the crucial factor will be the market price for cannabis. If it's too low, he says, it might compel more people to use, and if it's too high, it may create a black market. The Uruguayan government will need to decide "whether the sales process is designed to maximize sales or protect public health," says Kleiman. Once the Uruguayan legislation is implemented, anyone who wants to grow, sell or merely purchase marijuana will have to be included in a national registry, "which I think creates certain privacy concerns," says Hidalgo. "I can see people being skeptical [about] registering as a drug user in a government registry," he adds. Hidalgo hails the Uruguayan vote as a "positive step," but says broader liberalization across the Americas requires greater buy-in from the U.S. "So far, Washington is trying to pretend this is not taking place," he says. "But sooner rather than later, they're going to have to engage in the debate."

Mayer, 8/2/13 (Andre, CBC news, “Uruguay's pot legalization could be 'tipping point' in war on drugs”, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/01/f-pot-legalization-uruguay.html)

Uruguay will allow its residents, 18 and over, to buy up to 40 grams of cannabis a month at licensed drug stores Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA believes the initial outcome will be mostly positive The immediate consequences are likely to be decreased crime, decreased arrests, decreased illicit activity, increased state revenue The Uruguayan government will need to decide "whether the sales process is designed to maximize sales or protect public health Hidalgo hails the Uruguayan vote as a "positive step," but says broader liberalization across the Americas requires greater buy-in from the U.S sooner rather than later, they're going to have to engage in the debate

US legalization is key to a broader spillover in the region that solves crime

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The Mexican government scored a public relations coup when it bloodlessly captured Zeta leader Miguel Angel Trevino Morales on Monday. But the long-term effects of the capture of the 40-year old man who was arguably the country's most brutal drug lord will likely lead to more, not less, violence. The arrest sent out two messages that have ominous implications here. First, the blow to the head of the Zeta cartel signals internal and external rivals that the cartel is dazed and vulnerable to attack. This leads to surges in homicides, as the battle to control trafficking routes and illegal trade affects not only cartel members but local citizens and security forces as well. How organised crime responds to a blow like this has nothing to do with the government narrative of good guys against bad guys. It causes a shake up and resettling that can reduce violence in some places where another cartel achieves undisputed control, and produce violence in places where turf wars flare up. It causes corrupt government forces to realign and often participate actively in the turf wars. It does not, however, lead to the elimination of drug trafficking or organised crime. Everything we know from seven years of drug war points to the likelihood of more violence due to this trigger effect. The Mexican and US governments both acknowledge that what is known as "the kingpin strategy"- taking out drug lords -provokes violence. They also know it doesn't work. Although in some cases a specific cartel could be fragmented or even knocked out of the game, with some $38bn in tax-free income at stake as it is in the sale of prohibited drugs to the US, people will find a way to keep up the business. In the case of Trevino Morales, the Mexican press reports that he ran the Zetas with his brother, Omar, who remains at large and will presumably continue. Mexican authorities did not respond to questions about Omar taking on leadership, saying it is an investigation in progress. But even the director of the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Dallas, Texas noted after the arrest, "What it means is there are going to be plenty of people who take his place". Even weakening the command center of a criminal group, presented as a major victory in the arrest of Trevino, often has negative effects on public safety. Central control within the Zetas has never been as consolidated as in other cartels. This meant a lack of any code of ethics, which sounds like an oxymoron in reference to criminal groups but functioned for years to restrain Mexican cartels from having much involvement in high profile, anti-social activities beyond the drug trade. Now with less central control in the Zetas, we can expect not only more infighting, but increased incursions into illegal activities beside drug trafficking - kidnapping, extortion, preying on migrants, sex trafficking and others that do immeasurable harm to their victims, to families and to communities.

Carlsen 7/18 [July 18, 2013. Laura Carlsen is a policy analyst and director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy. “Kingpin arrest will mean more violence in Mexico” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201371812446923277.html]

The Mexican captured Zeta leader Trevino Morales the long-term effects of the capture who was the country's most brutal drug lord will likely lead to more violence the blow to the head of the Zeta cartel signals internal and external rivals that the cartel is dazed and vulnerable to attack. This leads to surges in homicides, as the battle to control trafficking routes and illegal trade affects not only cartel members but local citizens and security forces as well. It causes a shake up and resettling that can produce violence in places where turf wars flare up It causes corrupt government forces to realign and often participate actively in the turf wars. It does not lead to the elimination of drug trafficking or organised crime Everything we know points to the likelihood of more violence due to this trigger effect. taking out drug lords -provokes violence weakening the command center of a criminal group often has negative effects on public safety. with less central control in the Zetas we can expect not only more infighting, but increased incursions into illegal activities beside drug trafficking - kidnapping, extortion, preying on migrants, sex trafficking and others that do immeasurable harm to their victims, to families and to communities.

Capture of Trevino Morales means a sharp increase in violence and illegal activities

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

In short, there is great uncertainty surrounding what impact Trevino’s arrest will have on violence in Mexico. Internal feuding within the Zetas over leadership and drug routes could lead to greater violence. Attempts by the Sinaloa cartel to take over routes currently dominated by the Zetas could also lead to an increase in violence. The particular brutality that marked Zetas’ killings might be reduced without Trevino leading the charge, but very few people think that overall levels of violence will decrease. What is nearly certain is that his arrest will have no effect on the amount of illegal drugs making its way to the US and that someone else in the organised crime hierarchy will replace him as one of the “new” most ruthless and most feared drug traffickers. While Trevino’s arrest should be celebrated, it should not derail the growing conviction in Latin America and the US that there needs to be significant reforms to international drug policies, including a major reorientation toward treating drug dependency as a public health issue and, perhaps, the decriminalisation of certain illegal drugs.

Allison 7/17 [July 17, 2013. Mike Allison is associate professor in the Political Science department at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania. “Ending the “ruthless leadership” of the Zetas?” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201371711446595954.html]

there is great uncertainty surrounding what impact Trevino’s arrest will have on violence in Mexico. Internal feuding within the Zetas over leadership and drug routes could lead to greater violence Attempts by the Sinaloa cartel to take over routes currently dominated by the Zetas could also lead to an increase in violence. very few people think that overall levels of violence will decrease his arrest will have no effect on the amount of illegal drugs making its way to the US someone else in the organised crime hierarchy will replace him as one of the “new” most ruthless and most feared drug traffickers Trevino’s arrest should ot derail the growing conviction in Latin America and the US that there needs to be significant reforms to international drug policies, including a major reorientation toward treating drug dependency as a public health issue and, perhaps, the decriminalisation of certain illegal drugs.

Drug violence will increase as cartels seek to take over the place of the Zetas

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

A large increase in U.S. LNG exports would have ¶ the potential to increase U.S. foreign policy interests in both the Atlantic and Pacific basins. ¶ Unlike oil, natural gas has traditionally been an ¶ infrastructure-constrained business, giving geographical proximity and political relations between producers and consumers a high level of ¶ importance. Issues of “pipeline politics” have ¶ been most directly visible in Europe, which relies on Russia for around a third of its gas. Previous disputes between Moscow and Ukraine over ¶ pricing have led to major gas shortages in several ¶ E.U. countries in the winters (when demand is ¶ highest) of both 2006 and 2009. Further disagreements between Moscow and Kiev over the terms ¶ of the existing bilateral gas deal have the potential ¶ to escalate again, with negative consequences for ¶ E.U. consumers. The risk of high reliance on Russian gas has been ¶ a principal driver of European energy policy in ¶ recent decades. Among central and eastern European states, particularly those formerly aligned ¶ with the Soviet Union such as Poland, Hungary, ¶ and the Czech Republic, the issue of reliance on ¶ imports of Russian gas is a primary energy security concern and has inspired energy policies ¶ aimed at diversification of fuel sources for power ¶ generation. From the U.S. perspective such Russian influence in the affairs of these democratic ¶ nations is an impediment to efforts at political ¶ and economic reform. The market power of Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned gas monopoly, is evident in these countries. Although they are closer ¶ to Russia than other consumers of Russian gas in ¶ Western Europe, many countries in Eastern and ¶ Central Europe pay higher contract prices for ¶ their imports, as they are more reliant on Russian ¶ gas as a proportion of their energy mixes. ¶ In the larger economies of Western Europe, which ¶ consume most of Russia’s exports, there are efforts ¶ to diversify their supply of natural gas. The E.U. has ¶ formally acknowledged the need to put in place ¶ mechanisms to increase supply diversity. These ¶ include market liberalization approaches such ¶ as rules mandating third-party access to pipeline ¶ infrastructure (from which Gazprom is demanding exemption), and commitments to complete a ¶ single market for electricity and gas by 2014, and ¶ to ensure that no member country is isolated from ¶ electricity and gas grids by 2015.¶ 112¶ Despite these formal efforts, there are several factors retarding the E.U.’s push for a unified effort ¶ to reduce dependence on Russian gas. National interest has been given a higher priority than ¶ collective, coordinated E.U. energy policy: the gas ¶ cutoffs in 2006 and 2009 probably contributed to ¶ the acceptance of the Nord Stream project, which carries gas from Russia into Germany. Germany’s ¶ decision to phase out its fleet of nuclear reactors by 2022 will result in far higher reliance on ¶ natural gas for the E.U.’s biggest economy. The ¶ environmental imperative to reduce carbon emissions—codified in the E.U.’s goal of essentially ¶ decarbonizing its power sector by the middle of ¶ century—mean that natural gas is being viewed ¶ by many as the short-to medium fuel of choice ¶ in power generation. Finally, the prospects for ¶ European countries to replicate the unconventional gas “revolution” that has resulted in a glut ¶ of natural gas in the United States look uncertain. ¶ Several countries, including France and the U.K., ¶ have encountered stiff public opposition to the ¶ techniques used in unconventional gas production, while those countries, such as Poland and ¶ Hungary, that have moved ahead with unconventional-gas exploration have generally seen disappointing early results. Collectively, these factors ¶ suggest that the prospects for reduced European ¶ reliance on Russian gas appear dim. ¶ The one factor that has been working to the advantage of advocates of greater European gas diversity has been the increased liquidity of the global LNG market, discussed above. Russia’s dominant position in the European gas market is being eroded by the increased availability of LNG. ¶ Qatar’s massive expansion in LNG production in ¶ 2008, coupled with the rise in unconventional gas ¶ production in the United States as well as a drop ¶ in global energy demand due to the global recession, produced a global LNG glut that saw many ¶ cargoes intended for the U.S. market diverted into ¶ Europe. As mentioned previously, with an abundant source of alternative supply, some European ¶ consumers, mainly Gazprom’s closest partners, ¶ were able to renegotiate their oil-linked, takeor-pay contracts with Gazprom. As figure 10 illustrates, however, in the wake of the Fukushima natural disaster and nuclear accident in Japan and ¶ a return to growth in most industrialized economies, the LNG market is projected to tighten considerably in the short-term, potentially returning ¶ market power to Russia. ¶ However, there is a second, structural change to ¶ the global gas market that may have more lasting ¶ effects to Russia’s market power in the European ¶ gas market. LNG is one of the fastest growing ¶ segments of the energy sector. The growth of the ¶ LNG market, both through long-term contract ¶ and spot-market sales, is likely to put increasing ¶ pressure on incumbent pipeline gas suppliers. A ¶ significant addition of U.S. LNG exports will accelerate this trend. In addition to adding to the ¶ size of the market, U.S. LNG contracts are likely ¶ to be determined on a “floating” basis, with sales ¶ terms tied to the price of a U.S. benchmark such ¶ as Henry Hub, eroding the power of providers of ¶ long-term oil linked contract suppliers such as ¶ Russia. While U.S. LNG will not be a direct tool of ¶ U.S. foreign policy—the destination of U.S. LNG ¶ will be determined according to the terms of individual contracts, the spot-price-determined ¶ demand, and the LNG traders that purchase such ¶ contracts—the addition of a large, market-based ¶ producer will indirectly serve to increase gas supply diversity in Europe, thereby providing European consumers with increased flexibility and ¶ market power.

Ebinger et al ’12 [May 2012. Charles Ebinger is a senior fellow and director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings, Kevin Massy is Assistant Director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings where he manages research into international energy relations and domestic energy policy, Govinda Avasarala is a Senior Research Assistant in the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings, “Liquid Markets: Assessing the Case for U.S. Exports of Liquefied Natural Gas” Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/5/02%20lng%20exports%20ebinger/0502_lng_exports_ebinger.pdf=]

large increase in U.S. LNG exports would have ¶ the potential to increase U.S. foreign policy interests in both the Atlantic and Pacific basins Unlike oil, natural gas has been giving geographical proximity and political relations between producers and consumers a high level of ¶ importance pipeline politics” have ¶ been most directly visible in Europe, which relies on Russia Previous disputes between Moscow and Ukraine have led to major gas shortages when demand is ¶ highest Further disagreements have the potential ¶ to escalate again, with negative consequences for ¶ E.U. consumers Russian gas has been ¶ a principal driver of European energy policy issue of reliance on ¶ imports of Russian gas is a primary energy security concern and has inspired energy policies aimed at diversification of fuel sources for power ¶ generation market power of Gazprom is evident in these countries many countries in Eastern and ¶ Central Europe pay higher contract prices for ¶ their imports In the larger economies which ¶ consume most of Russia’s exports, there are efforts ¶ to diversify their supply of natural gas E.U. has ¶ formally acknowledged market liberalization and commitments to complete a ¶ single market for electricity and gas Despite these formal efforts, there are several factors retarding the E.U.’s push for a unified effort Russian National interest has been given a higher priority than ¶ collective, coordinated E.U. energy policy: the gas ¶ cutoffs in 2006 and 09 contributed to ¶ the acceptance of the Nord Stream project Germany’s ¶ decision to phase out its fleet of nuclear reactors by 2022 will result in far higher reliance on ¶ natural gas for the E.U.’s biggest economy. environmental imperative to reduce carbon emissions mean that natural gas is being viewed ¶ by many as the short-to medium fuel of choice ¶ in power generation. Collectively factors suggest that prospects for reduced European ¶ reliance on Russian gas appear dim working to the advantage of greater European gas diversity has been the increased liquidity of the global LNG market, Russia’s dominant position is being eroded by the increased availability of LNG Qatar’s massive expansion coupled with the U S produced a global LNG glut that saw many ¶ cargoes intended for the U.S. market diverted into ¶ Europe a second, structural change LNG is one of the fastest growing ¶ segments of the energy sector growth of the ¶ LNG market, both through long-term contract ¶ and spot-market sales, is likely to put increasing ¶ pressure on incumbent pipeline gas suppliers significant addition of U.S. LNG exports will accelerate this trend. U.S. LNG contracts are likely ¶ to be determined on a “floating” basis eroding the power of providers of ¶ long-term oil linked contract suppliers such as ¶ Russia addition of a large, market-based ¶ producer will indirectly serve to increase gas supply diversity in Europe, thereby providing European consumers with increased flexibility and ¶ market power.

EU is overly reliant on Russian natural gas, leading to conflict escalation. U.S LNG is key to liquefy the market.

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Russia has demanded that Ukraine pay billions of dollars for failing to import an agreed amount of gas.¶ The move came just as Kiev has taken a significant step to break free from its reliance on costly Russian gas imports. The bill was presented as Ukraine signed a deal with Royal Dutch Shell to exploit “unconventional” gas reserves in shale and sandstone that could ultimately involve $10bn-plus in investment, according to a senior official in Kiev.¶ The Russian demand threatens to cause a third high-profile energy dispute between the former Soviet states after Russia twice cut off gas supplies to Ukraine since 2006 amid squabbles over prices.¶ It comes at a time when both Russia and the EU are trying to persuade Ukraine to form a closer partnership with them.¶ The bill also threatens to worsen Ukraine’s precarious financial situation, with the potential to hurt its credit rating and ability to borrow on international markets.¶ Russian gas monopoly Gazprom alleges that Ukraine imported less gas last year than it was obliged to under a minimum “take or pay” clause in a 2009 supply contract.¶ The Ukrainian official told the Financial Times that Gazprom sent a $7bn demand to Ukraine’s Naftogaz state gas company on Wednesday as Viktor Yanukovich, the president, was preparing to leave for Davos, where he attended Thursday’s deal signing with Shell.¶ [The president] decided, nonetheless, to travel to Davos and go forward with Thursday’s signing . . . The geopolitical battle has started,” the official said.¶ Naftogaz was unlikely to pay the bill, the official added, challenging Gazprom instead to take the issue to international arbitration.¶ Gazprom’s refusal to reduce prices to its neighbour – though it has done for some west European clients since 2010 – has forced Ukraine to cut imports, seek alternative supply sources, and boost energy efficiency.¶ Ukraine imported 33 billion cubic metres of gas from Russia last year – down a quarter from 2011 – of which Naftogaz’s share was 24.9bcm.¶ Naftogaz confirmed that it had a received a “bill for gas which Ukraine did not import” but declined to reveal the value or volume of the alleged shortfall.¶ We feel that we met all obligations, paying all bills for gas imported from Gazprom in 2012, in full and in a timely fashion¶ - Naftogaz¶ “We feel that we met all obligations, paying all bills for gas imported from Gazprom in 2012, in full and in a timely fashion,” the company added. It said the company had notified Gazprom in advance that it would not need all its contracted gas, as permitted by its agreement.

Financial Times ‘13 [January 25, 2013. Roman Olearchyk in Kiev and Neil Buckley in London, “Russia hands Ukraine $7bn Gas Bill” http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6c1111ae-6718-11e2-8b67-00144feab49a.html#axzz2J7cIWw3E=]

Russia has demanded that Ukraine pay billions of dollars for failing to import an agreed amount of gas The move came just as Kiev has taken a significant step to break free from its reliance on costly Russian gas imports The Russian demand threatens to cause a third high-profile energy dispute between the former Soviet states after Russia twice cut off gas supplies to Ukraine since 2006 amid squabbles over prices It comes at a time when both Russia and the EU are trying to persuade Ukraine to form a closer partnership with them The bill also threatens to worsen Ukraine’s precarious financial situation, with the potential to hurt its credit rating and ability to borrow on international markets Russian gas monopoly Gazprom alleges that Ukraine imported less gas last year than it was obliged to under a minimum “take or pay” clause in a 2009 supply contract The Ukrainian official told the Financial Times that Gazprom sent a $7bn demand to Ukraine’s Naftogaz state gas company on Wednesday as Viktor Yanukovich, the president, was preparing to leave for Davos The geopolitical battle has started,” Naftogaz was unlikely to pay the bill Gazprom’s refusal to reduce prices to its neighbour – though it has done for some west European clients since 2010 – has forced Ukraine to cut imports seek alternative supply sources, and boost energy efficiency Ukraine imported 33 billion cubic metres of gas from Russia last year – down a quarter from 2011 – of which Naftogaz’s share was 24.9bcm. We feel that we met all obligations, paying all bills for gas imported from Gazprom in 2012, in full and in a timely fashion

Russia is expanding its monopoly, leading to Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Russia: Russia seeks to influence the weakened Ukraine, inflaming ethnic-Russian separatism; Crimea declares ¶ independence; Ukraine resists, perhaps seeing an external war as a distraction from internal strife; Russia comes to the ¶ aid of Crimea/ethnic-Russians resulting in open warfare between Russia and Ukraine. ¶ The West: The West also suffers from the global recession, but (perhaps following a period of inward looking ¶ protectionism) realizes that it cannot allow Russian success in Ukraine; open hostilities erupt between Russian and NATO ¶ forces triggering World War III and the strong possibility of nuclear war, or at least the drawing in of many other countries.

Kingston et al 09 [2009. Brian Kingston, Peter Loveridge, Joe Sterritt, The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs – CIFP “UKRAINE: A RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT” http://www4.carleton.ca/cifp/app/serve.php/1214.pdf=]

Russia seeks to influence the weakened Ukraine, inflaming ethnic-Russian separatism Ukraine resists, perhaps seeing an external war as a distraction from internal strife Russia comes to the aid of Crimea/ethnic-Russians resulting in open warfare between Russia and Ukraine The West also suffers from the global recession, but realizes that it cannot allow Russian success in Ukraine open hostilities erupt between Russian and NATO forces triggering World War III and the strong possibility of nuclear war or at least the drawing in of many other countries

Conflict spills over and goes nuclear.

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The United States should help our European allies to diversify their energy sources, specifically natural gas, easing their dependence on unfriendly or unstable regions and regimes, from Russia to North Africa and the Middle East. Increasing Europe’s energy security will strengthen U.S. security partnerships, bolster our national security, help our economy and create job opportunities here at home. That’s why our public policies should encourage two developments that are increasing Europe’s energy security. First, the Southern Gas Corridor will bring natural gas to Europe from the Caspian Sea region in central Asia. Second, American natural gas production is booming, creating opportunities to increase exports and create jobs. Make no mistake: Unstable energy supplies in Europe threaten America’s economic security and national security. Europe relies on Russia’s monopoly, Gazprom, for about one-third of its natural gas needs. However, Russia has demonstrated it will use its resource exports to influence other countries, and in recent years, it has cutoff natural gas supplies to parts of Europe. Relying on North Africa and the Middle East can be even riskier. Turkey depends on Iran for 20 percent of its natural gas imports, and early this year, Islamist militants attacked a natural gas facility in Algeria, which is the third-largest exporter of natural gas to Europe. Imagine what it will mean when, during an international crisis sometime in the future, the nations of Europe will have less reason to fear for their energy supplies if they defy the rulers of Russia, Iran or other hostile or shaky foreign governments. Fortunately, Europe’s energy security is being boosted by recent developments in the central Asian country of Azerbaijan and here in America. In Azerbaijan, the developers of a major Caspian gas field have decided upon a route for the western section of the pipeline to Europe, selecting the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, which will run through Turkey, Greece and Albania to Italy. When the pipeline is completed, natural gas from the Shah Deniz field, one of the world’s largest, located only 40 miles off the coast of Azerbaijan, will become available to European consumers. This is good news because Azerbaijan is a reliable trading partner and ally for Europe and the U.S. Azerbaijan was the first country in the region to open energy resources in the Caspian Sea to American companies and is the home to 7 billion barrels of oil reserves and 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. Because Azerbaijan is an important partner on energy, economics and national security, I have authored a bipartisan Congressional resolution declaring that it is in America’s national interest to work with the governments of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia and their associates to bring additional oil and gas supplies to European markets.

Turner ’13 [July 17, 2013. Michael R. Turner is a Republican Representative for Ohio. “More natural gas for Europe is good for US alliances and jobs” http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/311827-more-natural-gas-for-europe-is-good-for-us-alliances-and-jobs]

The United States should help our European allies to diversify natural gas, easing their dependence on unfriendly or unstable regions and regimes, from Russia Increasing Europe’s energy security will strengthen U.S. security partnerships, bolster our national security, help our economy and create job opportunities here at home. public policies should encourage two developments that are increasing Europe’s energy security American natural gas production is booming, creating opportunities to increase exports and create jobs Europe relies on Gazprom, for about one-third of its natural gas needs , Russia has demonstrated it will use its resource exports to influence other countrie Imagine what it will mean when, during an international crisis Europe will have less reason to fear for their energy supplies if they defy the rulers of Russia Europe’s energy security is being boosted by recent developments in America Azerbaijan, will become available to European consumers Azerbaijan is a reliable trading partner and ally for Europe and the U.S.

LNG exports to Europe good – stability against Russia

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Meanwhile, U.S. production of natural gas, particularly shale gas, has increased dramatically. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, with almost a 100-year supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. As a result of increased production, prices have fallen, making U.S. natural gas competitive in the global marketplace and creating new opportunities to export gas and create American jobs. A recent report commissioned by the Energy Department found that increasing natural gas exports would not only reduce our trade deficit and create jobs for American workers but also help our allies diversify their energy resources. The surplus of U.S. natural gas has already had an impact on global markets. Supplies previously destined for the U.S., but no longer needed as a result of increased production, were diverted to other markets. This increase in global supply has helped several European countries successfully renegotiate their long-term contracts with Gazprom. Under current law, companies seeking to export U.S. natural gas to non-Free Trade Agreement countries are subject to a lengthy regulatory process. Over the last several years, only two such applications have been approved, and there are still 20 pending before the Department of Energy. We need to tear down these regulatory barriers that make it more difficult for American companies to sell natural gas overseas. That is why I have authored bipartisan and bicameral legislation, the Expedited LNG [Liquefied Natural Gas] for American Allies Act, to expedite the natural gas export license process for NATO countries and Japan. The measure also allows natural gas exports to other countries if the secretary of State, in consultation with the secretary of Defense, determines that it would be in our national security interests. The Southern Gas Corridor and increased exports of U.S. natural gas can help our allies diversify their energy resources and bolster our strategic partnerships. It’s time to strengthen these ties for the sake of America’s national security, America’s allies and America’s workers.

Turner ’13 [July 17, 2013. Michael R. Turner has represented Ohio’s 10th congressional district in the House of Representatives since 2003. He sits on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chairs the Armed Services subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, and is chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. “More natural gas for Europe is good for US alliances and jobs” http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/311827-more-natural-gas-for-europe-is-good-for-us-alliances-and-jobs]

U.S. production of natural gas, particularly shale gas, has increased dramatically. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, with almost a 100-year supply, As a result of increased production, prices have fallen, making U.S. natural gas competitive in the global marketplace and creating new opportunities to export gas and create American jobs increasing natural gas exports would reduce our trade deficit and create jobs for American workers also help our allies diversify their energy resources The surplus of U.S. natural gas has already had an impact on global markets. This increase in global supply has helped several European countries successfully renegotiate their long-term contracts with Gazprom. increased exports of U.S. natural gas can help our allies diversify their energy resources and bolster our strategic partnerships. It’s time to strengthen these ties for the sake of America’s national security, America’s allies and America’s workers.

Link non-unique, shale gas exports have already impacted the market – any more exports caused by the plan are good

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

RT: Igor Sechin, chief executive of state oil company RosNeft and one of President Putin’s closest advisors says Gazprom was too late to realize the threat posed by the US shale gas, and Russia is now risks losing the race for the gas markets if it fails to act – do you feel like you’ve slept through the shale revolution? ALEXANDR MEDVEDEV (AM): We always are monitoring all the modern tendencies in the gas and oil market, and other energy markets connected with gas and oil. It’s very strange to hear that we have missed the shale gas revolution. We’ve always been involved in accommodating our activities to the market realities, but I believe that it may be a nice word – “revolution” – which these tendencies influence the situation on the American gas market, and also, indirectly, have a certain influence European markets, but we are not sleeping, we have done what we believed necessary to be done to stay competitive. RT: So you feel like Russia is not missing out on anything, as far as shale gas is concerned? AM: First of all, I would not exaggerate the influence of the shale gas on our activity. Obviously, we should change the approach to the American market, because the target market for our Shtokman project was the North American market. Now, the US looks to be targeting to be self-sufficient, or even considering to export energy, but we are well prepared to stay competitive and the events of the current year are just confirming how we are restoring our competitiveness, which actually was not even damaged. RT: But like you said, US shale gas production is booming, while European countries prohibit it one by one. Why such extreme points of view? Why such a difference? AM: In my opinion it was booming and now we are seeing a slowdown, not only in production but also in the speed of drilling, and many companies are forced to sell their assets in shale gas production. Actually, with the current level of price in the US, it’s not possible to have a profitable production in the majority of shale gas fields. I would like to quote the president of France, who said that as long as he’s president, he will not allow the production of shale gas in France, and there are quite a number of reasons behind this opinion. I’m rather sure that the French president was supplied with all the available information about shale gas potential and problems, and number one is that the cost of production of shale gas in Europe is incomparably higher than in the US and also the situation with the environment is different, because in the US its main production is in unpopulated areas, which are quite available in the US, but in Europe we can’t find such big unpopulated areas with reach to the water. We shouldn’t also close eyes on the environmental risks involved, and there are quite a number of disturbing facts associated with production of shale gas. It’s not surprising that in Poland all the majors actually stepped out of the shale gas exploration. RT: So you feel like the environmental issues are of secondary importance for the US? AM: In Europe, where the problem of drinking water is very important to put it at risk, the water horizons is the number one priority, and as I said, there is the environment plus the cost factor, because production of traditional gas in Europe, and I mean first of all Russia, is incomparably more competitive than production of shale gas – if it will ever happen. RT: But for us – for Russia – we’re not interested because of environment or because we just have enough gas as it is, we don’t need to extract it, or is it also costly in the technological drag? What’s the reason? AM: Russia is very rich with shale gas resources, and probably in the next century the time will come when shale gas production will be considered in Russia, but currently, for the current century, we have enough reserves of traditional resources, and new areas of offshore fields – not to forget the Arctic, and I’m rather sure that cost effectiveness for these reserves will be unbeatable, and that’s why we are rather sure that we were, are, and will stay competitive on the oil and gas market. RT: Meanwhile, as you said, not only America has become self-sufficient in natural gas, but is also about to challenge Middle East and Russia in exporting gas to Europe. Did you expect that the US would turn into a national gas exporter so quickly? AM: There is a certain investment cycle before any project can be realized, if you are thinking about the potential of exporting of Azeri gas, it is targeted to start in 2019, and the volume is marginal compared to our current annual export. This year we are planning to export more than 152 BCM, so that’s why, especially in view of declining production in Western Europe, which is happening quicker than expected, we are not afraid of appearance of gas – if it will appear – from any other sources. RT: We still get a sense that with the arrival of the American gas, plus the Mideast share Europe is ready to manipulate the energy prices – some have already started, like Bulgaria has negotiated 20% discount. AM: It was normal price negotiation procedure which is included in our contracts; both buyer and seller have a right to call for price revisions in the certain periods of time, subject that it is justified by development of the market conditions. And that’s why it is absolutely normal to see price revision negotiations on both sides. In our practice we have reached agreements on the prices, when the price was low and when price was high, and during negotiations in order for us to be in position to keep our market share, and also that the market will continue to develop to correct the price. I don’t see any problem in making a correction of the price, depending on from which level this correction is done. RT: You just mentioned Azerbaidzhan, recently a consortium was chosen to path gas from Azerbaijan to Western Europe, further reducing dependence on Russian supplies – are you not concerned at all, because people are getting the sense the world is sort of trying to push Russia out of the competition. AM: I’m rather sure that the share of Russian gas in gas consumption in Europe can only grow and we believe that from the current level of 26% of our share in gas consumption in Europe would grow up to 30 or maybe even a higher percentage. It again is a reflection of the fact that we have a portfolio of our long-term contracts which on the level of take-or-pay – not on an annual contractual volume, but on a take-or-pay level – it is exceeding 4 trln cubic meters of gas, and with the validity beyond 2030-2035. So the share of import will inevitably grow in the European gas consumption and among suppliers Russia has the best ability to deliver additional volume of gas, subject that our buyers will claim this additional volume. RT: What if the European economy goes down? AM: We are calculating these forecasts based on the conservative scenario, and we see that Europe is experiencing serious economic problems after 2008, and, actually, we don’t see a lot of factors for potential recovery, some people even speak about the potential “Sunset of Europe” in the sense of industrial production, due to the lack of competitiveness. And energy is one of the major factors of the competitiveness, and if Europe would like to keep economic growth, they should seriously consider increasing the share of natural gas in the energy balance not to throw billions and billions of euros to subsidize alternative renewable sources of energy. And we already see the negative result of these subsidies on the budgetary situation of many European countries, not only small but also big.

Medvedev 8/2 [August 2, 2013. Aleksandr Medvedev is the Gazprom Chief Executive. Answering questions from RT “Gazprom CEO: Shale gas not Russia's concern this century” http://rt.com/business/medvedev-gazprom-shale-russia-947/]

We always are monitoring tendencies in the gas and oil market We’ve always been involved in accommodating our activities to the market we have done what we believed necessary to be done to stay competitive I would not exaggerate the influence of the shale gas on our activity. we are well prepared to stay competitive and the events of the current year are just confirming how we are restoring our competitiveness, which actually was not even damaged Russia, is incomparably more competitive than production of shale gas – if it will ever happen Russia is very rich with shale gas resources but currently we have enough reserves of traditional resources, and new areas of offshore fields cost effectiveness for these reserves will be unbeatable and that’s why we will stay competitive on the oil and gas market we are not afraid of appearance of gas – if it will appear – from any other sources. the share of Russian gas in gas consumption in Europe can only grow and we believe that from the current level of 26% of our share in gas consumption in Europe would grow up to 30 or maybe even a higher percentage. the share of import will inevitably grow in the European gas consumption and among suppliers Russia has the best ability to deliver additional volume of gas,

Russia is indifferent to US gas production and exports

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to Edward Snowden opened a fresh wound in Moscow’s battered relations with the United States, even as it ended the bizarre two-month odyssey that began when the former National Security Agency contractor leaked details of top-secret U.S. surveillance operations. Snowden slipped away in a taxi on Thursday from the Moscow airport that had been his home since June 23, bearing a Russian refugee certificate granting him permission to stay in the country for one year. It was a forceful rebuff to a series of private and public appeals by U.S. officials to have Snowden returned to the United States, where he faces espionage charges. Obama administration officials denounced the decision to protect Snowden and hinted of repercussions, perhaps including the cancellation of a planned summit between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reaction from Congress was far harsher, with key lawmakers from both sides calling for a fundamental rethinking of relations with Moscow. “Russia has stabbed us in the back,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). “Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife.” For Snowden, 30, the asylum decision was a reprieve from extradition and the prospect of a trial in the United States. But his refu­gee status opens the possibility of direct meetings between him and U.S. officials to discuss the treatment he could face if he returned home voluntarily. The former technical contractor and admitted leaker of NSA documents has signaled that he intends to stay. One of his attorneys said Snowden has discussed taking language classes and perhaps finding work in Russia, a country that has a history of harshly repressing its government critics as well as a record of mistreating other U.S. citizens who have sought asylum there.

Gorst and Warrick 8/1 [August 1, 2013. Isabel Gorst is a Caspian and Central Asia Correspondent at Financial Times. Joby Warrick writes about the Middle East, diplomacy and national security for The Post’s National desk. “Snowden granted asylum in Russia, leaves Moscow airport” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/snowden-leaves-moscow-airport-to-live-in-russia/2013/08/01/2f2d1aba-faa9-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html]

Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to Snowden opened a fresh wound in Moscow’s battered relations with the United States It was a forceful rebuff to a series of private and public appeals by U.S. officials to have Snowden returned to the United States, where he faces espionage charges. bama administration officials denounced the decision to protect Snowden and hinted of repercussions, perhaps including the cancellation of a planned summit between Obama and Putin Reaction from Congress was far harsher, with key lawmakers from both sides calling for a fundamental rethinking of relations with Moscow Russia has stabbed us in the back,” said Schumer Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife.”

US-Russian relations doomed – Snowden

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

In Washington, the reaction from the White House was severe. In a news briefing dominated by questions about Snowden, press secretary Jay Carney said the administration is “extremely disappointed that the Russian government would take this step” despite “ample legal justification” for returning Snowden to the United States. “This move by the Russian government undermines a long-standing record of law enforcement cooperation” that had “recently been on the upswing” since the Boston Marathon bombings in April, he said. Carney insisted that Snowden “is not a dissident,” or a whistleblower, but a suspect in a criminal case with serious national-security implications. He noted that Snowden “has been . . . in possession of classified information in China and in Russia,” which is “both a huge risk and a violation” of U.S. law. Asked whether Obama would attend the September summit in Moscow, Carney said, “Obviously this is not a positive development . . . and we are evaluating the utility of the summit.” Across town, there was a blistering response on Capitol Hill and calls for retaliatory measures certain to infuriate the Kremlin. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), long one of the Senate’s leading critics of Moscow, blasted the asylum decision as “a slap in the face of all Americans” and called on the administration to turn up the pressure on Moscow on a variety of fronts, including a renewed push for NATO expansion and new missile-defense programs in Europe. “Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin’s Russia,” McCain said in a statement released by his office. “We need to deal with the Russia that is, not the Russia we might wish for. We cannot allow today’s action by Putin to stand without serious repercussions.”

Gorst and Warrick 8/1 [August 1, 2013. Isabel Gorst is a Caspian and Central Asia Correspondent at Financial Times. Joby Warrick writes about the Middle East, diplomacy and national security for The Post’s National desk. “Snowden granted asylum in Russia, leaves Moscow airport” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/snowden-leaves-moscow-airport-to-live-in-russia/2013/08/01/2f2d1aba-faa9-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html]

reaction from the White House was severe press secretary Carney said the administration is “extremely disappointed that the Russian government would take this step” This move by the Russian government undermines a long-standing record of law enforcement cooperation that had “recently been on the upswing Asked whether Obama would attend the September summit in Moscow, Carney said, “Obviously this is not a positive development there was a blistering response on Capitol Hill and calls for retaliatory measures certain to infuriate the Kremlin. McCain blasted the asylum decision as “a slap in the face of all Americans” and called on the administration to turn up the pressure on Moscow on a variety of fronts, including a renewed push for NATO expansion and new missile-defense programs in Europe. Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Russia,” McCain said We cannot allow today’s action by Putin to stand without serious repercussions.”

Russian relations have already collapsed – Snowden

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

U.S.-Russia relations can't catch a break. No sooner is one set of difficulties navigated than another wave of troubles appears on the horizon. Earlier this year, differences over Syria appeared to be the rock upon which the bilateral relationship would founder, as America's insistence on supporting the opposition seeking the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad—and Moscow's absolute refusal to abandon the regime in Damascus—seemed to put both countries on a collision course. Then the flight of NSA contractor Edward Snowden from the long hand of U.S. justice to a limbo in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport threatened relations, as the Russian government steadfastly refused repeated U.S. requests to detain the renegade and return him to the United States. Both disputes ginned up the respective anti-Russian/anti-American apparatuses in both countries into their familiar roles: strident denunciations in the U.S. of Russian perfidy and hostility, and resolute calls from the Russian side for President Vladimir Putin to stand firm against American bullying and arrogance. The first of these irritants appears to have peaked. Changes on the battlefield in Syria, and the fracturing of the opposition, have made Washington less willing to push for regime change. As for Snowden, the damage he would cause appeared to have waned, until Moscow granted him temporary asylum yesterday. It seemed that the latest spats between Moscow and Washington had exhausted themselves. Like clockwork, however, the next set of troubles have come rolling in.

Gvosdev 8/2 [August 2, 2013. Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. “The Realist Prism: U.S.-Russia Ties at the Breaking Point” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13135/the-realist-prism-u-s-russia-ties-at-the-breaking-point]

U.S.-Russia relations can't catch a break. differences over Syria appeared to be the rock upon which the bilateral relationship would founder, as America's insistence on supporting the opposition and Moscow's refusal to abandon the regime eemed to put both countries on a collision course. Then the flight of Snowden from the long hand of U.S. justice to a limbo in Sheremetyevo threatened relations, as the Russian government steadfastly refused repeated U.S. requests to detain the renegade and return him to the United States. Both disputes ginned up the respective anti-Russian/anti-American apparatuses As for Snowden, the damage he would cause appeared to have waned, until Moscow granted him temporary asylum yesterday It seemed that the latest spats had exhausted themselves however, the next set of troubles have come rolling in.

Russian relations are continually rocky – Snowden is the last straw

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Over the past year, the Putin government has shifted the power base of the Russian regime by mobilizing broadly conservative and traditionalist forces to counter the anti-government opposition movement that sprung up in the aftermath of the disputed December 2011 legislative elections. The latest manifestation of this trend was the recent passage of legislation banning "propaganda" for so-called nontraditional relationships, which can be broadly interpreted as criminalizing everything from gay pride parades to public displays of affection. The law also prohibits gays or single parents living in countries where same-sex marriage is recognized from adopting Russian children, and provides for the temporary detention of foreigners engaged in flouting these restrictions. While some U.S. social conservatives have praised the Russian government for taking these steps, the response from American civil society has generally been overwhelmingly negative. There are now calls for a boycott of the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held in Sochi next year as a way to protest the Russian legislation. Moreover, there are also calls for the authors of some of the anti-gay legislation to be added to the so-called Magnitsky List, which would ban them from entry into the United States and impact any assets they might hold there. Russia has already warned that efforts to expand the list will result in countermeasures; after all, when the list was first created last year, Russia assembled its own list of U.S. officials barred from entering Russia and ended the adoption of Russian orphans by U.S. citizens, creating a temporary chill in relations. Sergei Magnitsky, the Russian lawyer who died in detention and for whom the U.S. legislation is named, is also back in the news, given his recent posthumous conviction for tax evasion; his client, Bill Browder, head of Hermitage Capital, was also convicted and sentenced to nine years.* Other controversial judicial procedures include the acquittal of prison officials charged with negligence in Magnitsky's death, and the recent conviction on embezzlement charges of the opposition activist and anti-corruption blogger Aleksei Navalny in what appeared to be a highly politicized case. These high-profile cases will certainly lead to another round of U.S. criticism of the Russian legal system and its commitment to the rule of law. But those criticisms will in all likelihood now be drowned out by declarations of outrage over the Snowden asylum. In its defense, Russia will raise the issue of why Western governments do not honor its own requests for extradition. Moscow has already complained that Interpol has not acted on its request to put Browder, of Hermitage Capital, on a watch list, although Browder resides in the United Kingdom, which has no extradition treaty with Russia. Still, Moscow’s resentment over what it sees as the West’s inconsistency on the extradition issue makes it even more unlikely that Russia will be responsive to U.S. requests for Snowden’s return, whether now or a year from now, when his temporary asylum expires.

Gvosdev 8/2 [August 2, 2013. Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. “The Realist Prism: U.S.-Russia Ties at the Breaking Point” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13135/the-realist-prism-u-s-russia-ties-at-the-breaking-point]

the Putin government has shifted the power base of the Russian regime by mobilizing broadly conservative and traditionalist forces to counter the anti-government opposition The latest manifestation was the recent passage of legislation banning "propaganda" for so-called nontraditional relationships the response from American civil society has generally been overwhelmingly negative There are now calls for a boycott of the Winter Olympics as a way to protest the Russian legislation there are also calls for the authors of some of the anti-gay legislation to be added to the Magnitsky List, which would ban them from entry into the United States , Russia assembled its own list of U.S. officials barred from entering Russia creating a temporary chill in relations. controversial judicial procedures include the acquittal of prison officials charged with negligence in Magnitsky's death, and conviction on embezzlement charges of the opposition activist and anti-corruption blogger Navalny . These high-profile cases will certainly lead to another round of U.S. criticism of the Russian legal system and its commitment to the rule of law. criticisms will in all likelihood now be drowned out by declarations of outrage over the Snowden asylum Moscow’s resentment over what it sees as the West’s inconsistency on the extradition issue makes it even more unlikely that Russia will be responsive to U.S. requests for Snowden’s return

Relations have slowed – new legislation, and Magnitsky decisions

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

There is also trouble looming on the geopolitical horizon. One of the unheralded reasons that the "reset" in U.S.-Russia relations occurred in the first place was that Ukraine had been taken off the chessboard after the effective end to the pro-Western Orange Revolution when Viktor Yanukovych was elected president in 2010. For the past several years, Ukraine has balanced precariously between Russia and the West. But Putin's recent visit to Ukraine was meant to showcase his lobbying efforts to get Ukraine to join the Russian-led Eurasian customs union, the linchpin of Putin's proposed Eurasian Union. Renewed pressure on Kiev to "look east" and to "come home" to Moscow's fraternal embrace has the potential to reignite the competition between Russia and the West for influence in Ukraine. It will also put pressure on the Obama administration to decide whether the statements of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposing Putin's Eurasian plans and pledging U.S. support to fight a Moscow-led integration process reflects actual U.S. policy, and if so, what Washington is prepared to do about it. As the criticisms of Russian policy have mounted, Washington began to send signals that it might cancel the separate bilateral summit meeting between Putin and President Barack Obama scheduled in conjunction with the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg this fall. The Obama administration may have hoped that its willingness to simply consider this option would be enough to mollify domestic critics of the U.S.-Russia relationship. But in the aftermath of the Snowden decision, it now has the potential to trap the president, for if Obama goes through with the meeting, he runs the risk of looking weak. Putin, unlike his predecessor, Dmitry Medvedev, has shown little interest in taking even symbolic steps that might give Obama political cover for his engagement with Russia. As a result, whatever fragile gains the initial reset achieved are now more than ever in jeopardy.

Gvosdev 8/2 [August 2, 2013. Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. “The Realist Prism: U.S.-Russia Ties at the Breaking Point” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13135/the-realist-prism-u-s-russia-ties-at-the-breaking-point]

There is trouble looming on the geopolitical horizon One of the unheralded reasons that the "reset" in U.S.-Russia relations occurred was that Ukraine had been taken off the chessboard after the effective end to the pro-Western Orange Revolution when Yanukovych was elected president Putin's recent visit to Ukraine was meant to showcase his lobbying efforts to get Ukraine to join the Russian-led Eurasian customs union, the linchpin of Putin's proposed Eurasian Union. pressure on Kiev to "look east" and to "come home" to Moscow's fraternal embrace has the potential to reignite the competition between Russia and the West for influence in Ukraine. It will put pressure on the Obama what Washington is prepared to do about it As the criticisms of Russian policy mounted, Washington began to send signals that it might cancel the separate bilateral summit meeting between Putin and Obama scheduled in conjunction with the G-20 summit The Obama administration may have hoped that its willingness to simply consider this option would be enough to mollify domestic critics of the U.S.-Russia relationship in the aftermath of the Snowden decision, it now has the potential to trap the president if Obama goes through with the meeting, he runs the risk of looking weak Putin, has shown little interest in taking even symbolic steps that might give Obama political cover for his engagement with Russia whatever fragile gains the initial reset achieved are now more than ever in jeopardy.

Eurasian Union and Ukraine competition have destroyed relations

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Gazprom increased gas exports to Europe, its main source of revenues, by almost a third in July, even as consumers in Europe struggle to loosen dependence on Russia’s top gas producer. Gazprom said on Thursday its gas exports to “far abroad” – which under the company categorisation means the European Union and Turkey – increased by 29 percent to 14.04 billion cubic metres (bcm) from the same period a year ago. State-controlled Gazprom is facing increasing competition on the European market, while President Vladimir Putin has announced that it would only be able to increase domestic prices in line with inflation for five years from 2014. The company said its daily exports stood at 470 million cubic metres in July, which was a five-year high, in Europe, which accounts for over a half of Gazprom’s total revenues. The company is aiming to restore its gas sales to Europe, where it covers a quarter of gas consumption, to 152 bcm this year from 139 bcm in 2012. Gazprom had said it increased gas exports to Europe by 10 percent in the first half of the year. European clients have been trying to reduce purchases of gas from Gazprom which sells via pipelines mostly under long-term contracts pegged to the rising price of oil. Some European companies, including German utility RWE , have successfully challenged Gazprom in courts, winning better supply terms and price cuts. They have also increasingly been turning to alternative sources of energy, such as coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG). But Moscow will likely remain Europe’s primary energy supplier for many years and possibly decades as the EU has so far failed to substantially replace Russian gas and oil exports. Reuters’ own research indicates that in 2023 Russia will likely remain the dominant supplier, as it boosts exports while output in the EU and Norway falls. Gazprom declined to comment on Thursday on total gas exports in January-July and on the reasons behind the recent surge, saying only that “consumers usually receive such volumes during the peak of autumn and winter season”.

Soldatkin 8/1 [August 1, 2013. Vladimir Soldatkin is a writer for Reuters. “UPDATE 1-Russia's gas exports to Europe surge in July” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/gazprom-europe-exports-idUSL6N0G22E620130801]

Gazprom increased gas exports to Europe, its main source of revenues Gazprom said its gas exports to Europea and Turkey – increased by 29 percent Gazprom daily exports stood at a five-year high, in Europe which accounts for over a half of Gazprom’s total revenues But Moscow will likely remain Europe’s primary energy supplier for many years and possibly decades as the EU has so far failed to substantially replace Russian gas and oil exports that in 2023 Russia will likely remain the dominant supplier, as it boosts exports

Russia will remain the dominant supplier to Europe no matter what

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The European Union aims to diversify away from Russian natural gas supplies, yet Reuters research indicates the EU's biggest provider a decade from now could easily still be Russia. Billions are to be spent on piping gas from Azerbaijan while new finds in Africa and eastern Mediterranean also promise new supply for the EU, which currently buys mostly from Russia and Norway. Europe also gets liquefied natural gas (LNG), mostly from Qatar, and the U.S. shale boom could free up LNG exports from there in coming years, too. But growth in Europe's demand for gas will eat up much of the new potential supply, and the Russians show little willingness to fade away as they gear up to defend their position through massive projects, such as the $35 billion South Stream pipeline to Italy. "Russia will continue to remain Europe's primary energy supplier, including natural gas supplies, for many years and possibly decades," a U.S. congressional research paper on Europe's energy security said in March. Reuters' own research indicates that in 2023 Russia will likely remain the dominant supplier, as it boosts exports while EU and Norwegian output declines. Of the EU's current annual demand for 485 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas, Russia supplies some 150 bcm. Demand could rise to 585 bcm by 2023 with the Russians supplying as much as 175 bcm, according to Reuters calculations based on data from governments and energy companies, as well as input from research firms and consultancies. This means that the amount of gas from Russia is not only set to rise, but Russia's share of Europe's gas market will remain stable around 30 percent. "Gazprom won't face problems in increasing gas supplies as its reserve base is big," said Valery Nesterov, an analyst with state-owned Sberbank CIB. Some states, such as Slovakia, the Czech Republic or Bulgaria, rely even more heavily on Russian gas, and have suffered several winter heating disruptions since 2006 due to disputes between Russian gas monopoly Gazprom and transit country Ukraine. "A major test for Europe could be how ... to alleviate at least some of that dependence (in) states that are more dependent on Russian energy and are concerned by the political leverage Russia could exert," the U.S. congressional paper said. "Some of Europe's larger natural gas companies have huge financial interests in maintaining Russian supplies and do not see a problem in depending so much on one country," the paper noted.

Gloystein 7/18 [July 18, 2013. Henning Gloystein is Community Editor for European power, gas and coal in London. “ANALYSIS-Little chance of Europe breaking Russia's gas dominance” http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/energy-gas-europe-idINL6N0FN2RA20130718]

The European Union aims to diversify away from Russian natural gas supplies, yet the EU's biggest provider a decade from now could easily still be Russia Billions are to be spent on piping gas from Azerbaijan in Africa and Mediterranean the U.S. shale boom could free up LNG exports from there in coming years, too But growth in Europe's demand for gas will eat up much of the new potential supply, and the Russians show little willingness to fade away as they gear up to defend their position through massive projects Russia will continue to remain Europe's primary energy supplier, including natural gas supplies, for many years and possibly decades," in 2023 Russia will likely remain the dominant supplier, as it boosts exports while EU and Norwegian output declines. Demand could rise to 585 bcm with the Russians supplying as much as 175 bcm the amount of gas from Russia is not only set to rise, but Russia's share of Europe's gas market will remain stable around 30 percent Gazprom won't face problems in increasing gas supplies as its reserve base is big," said Nesterov, an analyst with state-owned Sberbank Slovakia, the Czech Republic or Bulgaria, rely even more heavily on Russian Some of Europe's larger natural gas companies have huge financial interests in maintaining Russian supplies and do not see a problem in depending so much on one country,"

Russia will continue being the prominent supplier to Europe despite US increases in production

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Russia is nearing the end of stagnation, and the Ministry of Economic Development anticipates the economy will expand more rapidly in the next two quarters, fueled by investment. In the second quarter, Russia’s economy grew by 1.9 percent, an improvement from the 1.6 percent growth it posted in the first quarter, but still well below the best case scenario of 3 percent growth. In 2012 the economy grew 4.7 percent. The growth figures are from RosStat, Russia’s federal service of state statistics. Though higher than forecast, Russia’s economic performance in Q1 was the worst quarter since 2009. The Ministry of Economic Development expects the economy to jump start in July, propelled by rising exports and a boost in investment in the second half of the year. Trade promises strong growth. In June exports rose 0.4 percent to $41.6 billion, and imports rose by 5.7 percent to $27.9 billion, according to the Ministry of Economic Development. Russian academics say the country has entered a technical recession, as its basic industries contracted for 6 months in a row. Investment is the bigger challenge and a highly sensitive ingredient to Russia’s growth. In Q1 investment fell 30 percent, and the pessimistic trend is slated to roll over into July. High inflation has weakened the ruble’s exchange rate, which the government plans to loosen. In June, the World Bank cut its growth forecast for Russia to less than 2.2 percent in 2013 and 3 percent in 2014, after revising the January forecast the economy would grow by 3.6 percent in and 3.9 percent in 2014. Bloomberg has projected growth of 2.5 percent. “We are taking a conservative path, and in some cases even lower,” Deputy Economic Development Minister Andrey Klepac said, as GDP in June only grew by 1.5 percent. According to Klepac, almost a third of investment is accrued in November and December, which will contribute to reviving Russia’s sluggish economy. Russia's economy has been hit by weaker investment and exports, but is expected to pick up later in the year thanks to stronger budget spending. The government expects growth to slow to 2.4 percent this year, from 3.4 percent in 2012. Renaissance Capital, a leading investment bank in Russia, doesn’t foresee the economy growing faster than 2 percent in the coming year. "We anticipate that there will be a turning point in negative trends in the second quarter and that economic growth will surpass 3% in the second half of the year," Andery Belousov, head of the Ministry of Economic Development, said in June. Recent signs of slowdown have prompted government officials to prepare Russia for recession by inflating the real economy. The new Central Bank chief Elvira Nabiullina hasn’t budged on changing interest rates, but, under pressure from the Kremlin to increase the credit line to the economy, will hold its first auction for secured against non-market assets and guarantees on July 29. The monetary easing policy will offer a floating interest rate set at 5.75 per one-year loan. With $15.3 billion (500 billion rubles) on offer. The new ‘anti-crisis tool’ has been praised by economists. Rosbank’s Vladimir Kolychev lauded Nabiullina for ‘rolling out the big bazooka’. The sell-off will hopefully provide more long-term funding for banks, as well as make the ruble more liquid. Moody’s rating service downgraded the long-term senior debt and deposit ratings of Russia’s key state lender Sberbank (to Baa1 from A3), Bank VTB and VTB24 (to Baa2 from Baa1) and Russian Agricultural Bank (to Baa3 from Baa1). The outlook for these ratings is stable. "Recession is not expected. I think that the growth in the second half [of this year] will be higher than in the first [half]," the country's economy minister and former central bank deputy chairman, Alexey Ulyukayev, told Prime news agency Tuesday.

RT 7/22 [July 22, 2013. RT. “Rock bottom: Russian economy hits low, will pick up in July” http://rt.com/business/rock-bottom-russian-economy-407/]

Russia is nearing the end of stagnation the economy will expand more rapidly in the next two quarters, fueled by investment The Ministry of Economic Development expects the economy to jump start in July, propelled by rising exports and a boost in investment Trade promises strong growth exports rose 0.4 percent to $41.6 billion imports rose by 5.7 percent to $27.9 billion Investment is the bigger challenge and a highly sensitive ingredient to Russia’s growth. We are taking a conservative path, Deputy Economic Development Minister Klepac said almost a third of investment is accrued in November and December, which will contribute to reviving Russia’s sluggish economy. Russia's economy but is expected to pick up later in the year thanks to stronger budget spending. We anticipate that there will be a turning point in negative trends in the second quarter and that economic growth will surpass 3% in the second half of the year Belousov, head of the Ministry of Economic Development, said Recent signs of slowdown have prompted government officials to prepare by inflating the economy. Central Bank chief Nabiullina under pressure from the Kremlin will hold its first auction for secured against non-market assets and guarantees The new ‘anti-crisis tool’ has been praised Kolychev lauded Nabiullina for ‘rolling out the big bazooka’. as well as make the ruble more liquid The outlook for these ratings is stable Recession is not expected.

The Russian economy will pick up soon, avoiding crisis – investment is key

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Russia has the largest land area of any nation. Its land is not only vast, but rich. Oil, gas, base minerals, diamonds, precious metals, high quality timber, vast freshwater resources -- Russia has it all. But due to corruption and bad management, most of Russia's production infrastructure still dates to the Soviet era, old and decrepit. The same is true for most of Russia's vaunted military infrastructure. And worst of all, the core population of ethnic Russians is shrinking -- being replaced by Central Asian immigrants with divided loyalties. And so Russia's oil production is doomed to go the way of Mexico's, if Russia refuses to spend the necessary amount to upgrade its production infrastructure. While a decade of rising oil output and prices fueled the resurgence of the Russian economy and the Kremlin, a tougher future beckons. The International Energy Agency forecasts a slight decline in Russian oil output for the next two decades. – WSJ. The corrupt Putin oligarchy is indistinguishable from a third world dictatorship in the way that it is stripping the country's natural resources for the enrichment of top officials and their close crony connections. Russia's western Siberian fields—60% of the country's current output—are a declining Soviet legacy. Offsetting this with new fields in areas like the Arctic offshore will be challenging and, hence, expensive. Lower exports and rising costs point to smaller margins for oil companies—and a smaller take for a state whose dependence on energy revenue has increased. Unless Russia can crack modernization and diversification for its economy, this represents a crisis in the making. –WSJ. If oil production and oil income decline, there will be less booty to pass around the table of kleptocrats. That would likely shift the attention of the oligarchs to the scavenging of other parts of Russia's infrastructure -- the military in particular. The comparison of Russia with Mexico is not as far fetched as one might think. The same loss of control of vast parts of the landscape to criminal organisations that one sees in Mexico, is taking place across large areas of Siberia -- extending even West of the Urals. Of course in Siberia, Chinese interests are also beginning to insinuate themselves in a large way. Moscow -- like Mexico City -- is losing its ability to control outlying areas. One of the worst things that could happen is that the Russian government could intentionally or unintentionally lose control of its nuclear arsenal. Should that happen, Russia and the rest of the world would have much more to worry about than the price of oil.

Fin ’12 [November 5, 2012. Al Fin runs a number of very successful blogs that cover, energy, technology, news and politics. “The Inevitable Decline of Russia's Energy Sector” http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Inevitable-Decline-of-Russias-Energy-Sector.html]

ue to corruption and bad management, most of Russia's production infrastructure still dates to the Soviet era, old and decrepit. The same is true for most of Russia's vaunted military infrastructure the core population of ethnic Russians is shrinking -- being replaced by Central Asian immigrants And so Russia's oil production is doomed to go the way of Mexico's, While a decade of rising oil output and prices fueled the Russian economy a tougher future beckons The corrupt Putin oligarchy is indistinguishable from a third world dictatorship in the way that it is stripping the country's natural resources for the enrichment of top officials and their close crony connections. Russia's western Siberian fields Offsetting this with new fields in areas like the Arctic offshore will be challenging Lower exports and rising costs point to and a smaller take for a state whose dependence on energy revenue has increased Unless Russia can crack modernization and diversification for its economy, this represents a crisis in the making If oil production decline, there will be less booty to pass around the table of kleptocrats. That would likely shift the attention of the oligarchs to the scavenging of other parts of Russia's infrastructure the military The comparison of Russia with Mexico is not as far fetched as one might think. course in Siberia, Chinese interests are also beginning to insinuate themselves Moscow -- is losing its ability to control outlying areas One of the worst things that could happen is that the Russian government could intentionally or unintentionally lose control of its nuclear arsenal. Should that happen, Russia and the rest of the world would have much more to worry about than the price of oil.

Russian economic crisis inevitable due to corruption and infrastructure – diversification key to prevent energy insecurity and nuclear war

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

But unlike diversified Western majors, the Russian state-controlled company's assets are concentrated in its own country. It hasn't competed aggressively for foreign oil assets in the way other national oil companies such as PetroChina have. Nor is it likely to soon. Besides taking on more debt to buy TNK-BP, there is too much to do at home. While a decade of rising oil output and prices fueled the resurgence of the Russian economy and the Kremlin, a tougher future beckons. The International Energy Agency forecasts a slight decline in Russian oil output for the next two decades. Even achieving this will require a step up in capital expenditure: $740 billion between 2011 and 2035. Russia's western Siberian fields—60% of the country's current output—are a declining Soviet legacy. Offsetting this with new fields in areas like the Arctic offshore will be challenging and, hence, expensive. Lower exports and rising costs point to smaller margins for oil companies—and a smaller take for a state whose dependence on energy revenue has increased. Unless Russia can crack modernization and diversification for its economy, this represents a crisis in the making. So a heavy burden rests on Russia's national oil champion to lead the charge in developing the country's next generation of resources. This was why Rosneft signed the original Arctic partnership with BP in 2011 that led to the TNK-BP deal. Indeed, for BP, the potential opportunity arising from Rosneft's need for foreign expertise is one rationale for selling its stake. Rosneft's need also lies behind other recent development deals with the likes of Exxon. Bigger scale should help Rosneft take on some of these projects, especially in terms of getting financing in place and infrastructure built. But further concentration of Russia's oil assets in large, state-backed firms raises concerns about efficiency. The stocks of Rosneft and its natural-gas counterpart Gazprom OGZPY -0.76% trade at persistent discounts to those of their Western and emerging-markets peers on price/earnings multiples, despite the companies' vast reserves. Moreover, as a vibrant ecosystem of minnows and majors in much of the rest of the world demonstrates, the biggest companies aren't always the best tools for the job. This is especially true because of Russia's need to enhance production from its older fields while also striking out for new frontiers. Elsewhere, it is often the smaller, nimbler companies that take on the mature fields from majors—who have bigger fish to fry—and squeeze more out of them. This has been the experience in older areas like the North Sea. Smaller companies also have been at the forefront of America's shale boom. Unfortunately, Russia's longstanding tendency toward gigantism and state control saw larger oil firms swallow up smaller rivals over much of the past 15 years. Indeed, in "Wheel of Fortune," his new history of the post-Soviet oil industry, Thane Gustafson writes that small companies produce less than 5% of Russia's oil, and that share is declining. Rosneft has partnered with Exxon to develop Siberian shale, but it remains to be seen whether two big integrated companies can replicate the success of the smaller U.S. exploration and production firms. Rosneft's bigger scale is in some ways emblematic of the structural challenges faced by Russia's oil sector and economy. Far from being a threat, this latest shift in the landscape may represent an opportunity for western majors.

Denning ’12 [November 5, 2012. Liam Denning is Deputy Editor for Heard on the Street, Wall Street Journal who is an expert on commodities and energy. “With Russian Oil, Size Isn't Everything” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204707104578094970555555666.html]

Russian state-controlled company's assets are concentrated in its own country. It hasn't competed for foreign oil assets there is too much to do at home. While a decade of rising oil output and prices fueled the resurgence of the Russian economy and the Kremlin, a tougher future beckons. Russia's western Siberian fields are declining Offsetting this with new fields in areas like the Arctic will be challenging and expensive Lower exports and rising costs point to smaller margins for oil companies—and a smaller take for a state whose dependence on energy revenue has increased. Unless Russia can crack modernization and diversification for its economy, this represents a crisis in the making. Bigger scale should help Rosneft in terms of getting financing in place and infrastructure built. concentration of Russia's oil assets raises concerns about efficiency The stocks Gazprom trade at persistent discounts to those of their Western and emerging-markets despite the companies' vast reserves the biggest companies aren't always the best tools for the job This is especially true because of Russia's need to enhance production from its older fields while also striking out for new frontiers it is often the smaller, nimbler companies that take on the mature fields from majors who have bigger fish to fry—and squeeze more out of them Smaller companies also have been at the forefront of America's shale boom. Russia's longstanding tendency toward gigantism and state control saw larger oil firms swallow up smaller rivals

Russian economic crisis inevitable – large oil companies and inefficiencies

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

During the first decade of the 21st century Putin could successfully use petrodollars to stabilize the economy and provide the population with basic services. But since the world energy geopolitics is drastically changing and not, unfortunately for Putin, in favor of Russia and Gazprom, the social structure of Russia is endangered. As Alexandros Petersen wrote, Gazprom makes up 10 percent of Russian export revenues, so losses leave Putin with fewer resources to spread throughout his patronage network. Russia 's resurgence as a great power after the shame and poverty of the tumultuous 1990s is a major pillar of Putin's popularity, but much of that rebound was based on turning Russia into a petrostate, dependent on Gazprom's profits. As the company falters, the state may not be far behind. The rise of the urban middle class and upcoming possible economic earthquake could break up the very foundations of Putin’s Russia. Both domestic and foreign socio-political currents spark that movement of anti-Putinism: the Arab Spring and the fall of a number of dictatorships in the Middle East, an African democracy boom, as well as the faltering Chavismo in Latin America all signal the powerlessness of authoritarian regimes in the new digital age. To alleviate these possible scenarios, the once popular Putin is trying to stand out in foreign policy endeavors. But here too flaws are noticeable. As Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Dmitri Trenin puts it, “The bitter irony is that despite all its efforts and the money spent, Russia's image in the world is currently much worse than the actual situation in the country warrants. In the West, this image is plainly disastrous. This was not always the case. Soviet Russia was once attractive to many Western left-leaning intellectuals, as well as social modernizers from the rest of the world. Post-Communist Russia, by contrast, inspired few admirers. Its 1991 democratic revolution first produced near-chaos, which earned Russia the sobriquet of the "wild East," and was later followed by stabilization along the lines of soft authoritarianism.” This is an excellent explanation of the incompatibility of failed domestic politics with a much vaunted foreign policy. Trenin goes further: "In the Western popular imagination, the Mafiosi of the Yeltsin eras were succeeded by the spooks of Vladimir Putin. Crucially, Russia has failed to develop its economy beyond natural resources, so even when it started to grow, thanks to the surge in energy prices in the 2000s, it was dismissed as 'Nigeria with snow,' hardly a significant improvement over its late-Cold War title of an 'Upper Volta with missiles.'" To put a halt to that deteriorating image of Putin’s Russia, the Kremlin has tried to initiate an abrupt reversal in its foreign policy strategy, instead applying a “soft power” model. But as IR guru Joseph Nye explains, Putin has told his diplomats that "the priority has been shifting to the literate use of soft power, strengthening positions of the Russian language." Russian scholar Sergei Karaganov noted in the aftermath of the dispute with Georgia, Russia has to use "hard power, including military force, because it lives in a much more dangerous world--and because it has little soft power.". Simply put, an authoritarian regime with a “flourishing resource economy of the 18th century type” cannot be attractive to the outside world. Moreover, as Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center notes, because Putin’s foreign policy is all about political survival, it has no modernizing dimension. The covetousness in the search for political longevity of Putinists dominates over prudent economic and socio-political policy. Putin’s Russia is doing all their utmost to postpone the fall of Russia’s Putin. What seems surprisingly striking, however, is the West’s short-sighted policy vis-à-vis Russia. Instead of engaging the newborn middle class and helping the potentially vibrant civil society with opening up and democratization, western policymakers have opted for confrontation with and alienation from Russia. By such a haphazard agenda they do help Putin and his regime to thumb nose at a population looking for greater political transparency. Instead of making empty remarks on human rights abuses in Russia, the U.S. and EU in particular (as the latter appears to be more attractive to many Russians) should directly engage with large sectors of Russian society. Although the leverage of Russian civil society organizations has diminished to a minimum due to the notorious Russian “Foreign Agents” law covering NGOs, there are other means that the West can reach out, such as visa changes for Russian citizens, more educational programs for Russian students to study abroad in western universities, the elimination of anti-Russian rhetoric from the Western media, and so on--all could be good steps for “Russian awakening.” Western policymakers must understand one simple truth: Russia is not Putin and his regime; its territory is larger than those of the EU and the U.S. combined, and its population is more than any of an EU member state. Russia needs a change, a modernization, and creative decision-making. A strong Russia is good not only for Russians but for the world as well. As Dmitri Trenin pointed, “As a lone great power constantly in search of a balance, Russia seeks to diversify its economic and political relationships as widely as possible, in order to gain more options.” Historically Russia had mindset and heartland of a superpower, and that is why its collapse and further long-term diminishing role will no longer be tolerated by the Russian people. They do not need Russia’s Putin and Putin’s Russia any more--they need a Russians’ Russia.

Ayvazan 7/15 [July 15, 2013. Vahram Ayvazyan is a 2012 graduate of the Genocide and Human Rights University Program at the International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies in Toronto. “PUTIN’S RUSSIA VS. A RUSSIANS’ RUSSIA” http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/eurozone/1526-putin-s-russia-vs-a-russians-russia]

since the world energy geopolitics is drastically changing not in favor of Gazprom, the social structure of Russia is endangered Gazprom makes up 10 percent of Russian export revenues Russia 's resurgenc was based on turning Russia into a petrostate, dependent on Gazprom's profits As the company falters, the state may not be far behind. The rise of the urban middle class and upcoming possible economic earthquake could break up the very foundations of Putin’s Russia omestic and foreign socio-political currents spark that movement of anti-Putinism: the Arab Spring the fall of dictatorships in the Middle East an African democracy boom, as well as the faltering Chavismo all signal the powerlessness of authoritarian regimes Putin is trying to stand out in foreign policy flaws are noticeable despite all its efforts and the money spent, Russia's image in the world is currently much worse than the actual situation in the country warrants. , this image is plainly disastrous Post-Communist Russia inspired few admirers It earned the sobriquet of the "wild East and was later soft authoritarianism Russia has failed to develop its economy beyond natural resources, so even when it started to grow, it was dismissed as 'Nigeria with snow,' To put a halt to that deteriorating image of Putin’s Russia, the Kremlin has tried to initiate an abrupt reversal in its foreign policy strategy, instead applying soft power” as Nye explains Putin has told his diplomats that "the priority has been shifting to the literate use of soft power, strengthening positions of the Russian language." scholar Karaganov noted Russia has to use "hard power, including military force, because it lives in a much more dangerous world--and because it has little soft power an authoritarian regime with a “flourishing resource economy of the 18th century type” cannot be attractive to the outside world. Putin’s Russia is doing all their utmost to postpone the fall of Russia’s Putin Instead of engaging the newborn middle class and helping the potentially vibrant civil society with opening up and democratization, western policymakers have opted for confrontation with and alienation from Russia. they do help Putin and his regime to thumb nose at a population looking for greater political transparency the U.S should engage with Russian society and could be steps for “Russian awakening As a lone great power constantly in search of a balance, Russia seeks to diversify its economic and political relationships as widely as possible, in order to gain more options. Historically Russia had mindset and heartland of a superpower, and that is why its collapse and further long-term diminishing role will no longer be tolerated by the Russian people.

Monopolies like Gazprom are the manifestation of Putin’s authoritarianism – a “Russian awakening” will happen with US involvement

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Now on to Russia. Again, five years from today. Did the global recession and Russia’s present serious economic problems substantially modify Russian foreign policy? No. (President Obama is beginning his early July visit to Moscow as this paper goes to press; nothing fundamental will result from that visit). Did it produce a serious weakening of Vladimir Putin’s power and authority in Russia? No, as recent polls in Russia make clear. Did it reduce Russian worries and capacities to oppose NATO enlargement and defense measures eastward? No. Did it affect Russia’s willingness to accept much tougher sanctions against Iran? No. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has said there is no evidence that Iran intends to make a nuclear weapon.25 In sum, Russian foreign policy is today on a steady, consistent path that can be characterized as follows: to resurrect Russia’s standing as a great power; to reestablish Russian primary influence over the space of the former Soviet Union; to resist Western eff orts to encroach on the space of the former Soviet Union; to revive Russia’s military might and power projection; to extend the reach of Russian diplomacy in Europe, Asia, and beyond; and to oppose American global primacy. For Moscow, these foreign policy first principles are here to stay, as they have existed in Russia for centuries. 26 None of these enduring objectives of Russian foreign policy are likely to be changed in any serious way by the economic crisis.

Blackwill 9 – former associate dean of the Kennedy School of Government and Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning (Robert, RAND, “The Geopolitical Consequences of the World Economic Recession—A Caution”, http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2009/RAND_OP275.pdf)

Did Russia’s economic problems substantially modify Russian foreign policy? No. Did it weaken Putin’s power No, as recent polls in Russia make clear Russian foreign policy is today on a steady, consistent path None of these enduring objectives of Russian foreign policy are likely to be changed in any serious way by the economic crisis.

No impact – won’t alter their foreign policy

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Politics: It is no secret that the Kremlin uses an iron fist to maintain domestic control. There are few domestic forces the government cannot control or balance. The Kremlin understands the revolutions (1917 in particular) and collapses (1991 in particular) of the past, and it has control mechanisms in place to prevent a repeat. This control is seen in every aspect of Russian life, from one main political party ruling the country to the lack of diversified media, limits on public demonstrations and the infiltration of the security services into nearly every aspect of the Russian system. This domination was fortified under Stalin and has been re-established under the reign of former President and now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. This political strength is based on neither financial nor economic foundations. Instead, it is based within the political institutions and parties, on the lack of a meaningful opposition, and with the backing of the military and security services. Russia's neighbors, especially in Europe, cannot count on the same political strength because their systems are simply not set up the same way. The stability of the Russian government and lack of stability in the former Soviet states and much of Central Europe have also allowed the Kremlin to reach beyond Russia and influence its neighbors to the east. Now as before, when some of its former Soviet subjects -- such as Ukraine -- become destabilized, Russia sweeps in as a source of stability and authority, regardless of whether this benefits the recipient of Moscow's attention

Goodrich and Zeihan 9 [Lauren Goodrich, Stratfor's Director of Analysis and Senior Eurasia analyst, and Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis at Stratfor, “The Financial Crisis and the Six Pillars of Russian Strength,” March 3 2009, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090302_financial_crisis_and_six_pillars_russian_strength]

the Kremlin uses an iron fist to maintain domestic control There are few domestic forces the government cannot control or balance. The Kremlin understands the revolutions and collapses and has control mechanisms in place to prevent a repeat seen in every aspect of Russian life, from one main party ruling the country to the lack of diversified media domination was fortified under Stalin and has been re-established under the reign of former President and now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin political strength is based on neither financial nor economic foundations. Instead, it is based within the political institutions and parties

Russian stability does not depend on its economy

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Most Americans have probably heard about the "boom" in natural gas, with U.S. production up by one-third since 2005. Besides historically low natural gas prices, one consequence is that companies like Exxon Mobil are now pushing the federal government to approve permits for more than 20 liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. Big fossil fuel's goal is to sell U.S. natural gas overseas, where it can fetch a higher price. Is that really such a good idea? Future generations will be incredulous that we ever debated the wisdom of increasing LNG exports. The permits that the Department of Energy is considering would export as much as 45 percent of current U.S. gas production. Once the terminals are built, trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated could make it difficult to impossible to limit how much gas we actually export. The result will be higher domestic prices as well a lot more drilling for natural gas -- primarily by fracking. So far, the Department of Energy has failed to consider the environmental and health consequences of such a radical increase in natural gas drilling. They really should, because both the potential risks and the known harms are enormous. Here are five environmental reasons why LNG exports are a very bad idea: 1. The current shale-gas rush has already had serious effects on our air quality. As the Department of Energy's own Shale Gas Subcommittee reported: "Significant air quality impacts from oil and gas operations in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Texas are well documented, and air quality issues are of increasing concern in the Marcellus region (in parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York)." Because of natural gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming now have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. This air pollution doesn't just spoil the view -- it's been linked to respiratory disease, heart failure, and premature death. 2. Increased fracking will endanger and further strain increasingly scarce water resources. A single fracking well can require up to 5 million gallons of water. And because that water is contaminated during the fracking process, most of it must be considered toxic waste and can never be used for human consumption again. Meanwhile, contamination of surface and groundwater sources from spills and leaks remains an ever-present risk. 3. Intense gas production can transform entire regions -- and not for the better. We're talking hundreds of thousands of new wells, along with a vast infrastructure of roads, pipelines, and support facilities. Pennsylvania's forests have already been decimated by fracking wells -- we could see that pattern repeated from New York to Monterey. 4. Higher natural gas prices could help revive the fortunes of the declining coal-fired power industry. At a time when we should be working to move as fast as possible beyond all fossil fuels, burning more coal is beyond crazy -- it's suicidal. 5. Which brings us to what may be the most important reason of all why we shouldn't ramp up gas production so we can export LNG: Increased use of any fossil fuel is the wrong move if we want to limit climate disruption. The International Energy Agency estimates that to have a shot at keeping global warming within a range that is potentially survivable, we need to keep two-thirds of our known oil, coal, and natural gas reserves in the ground. LNG export terminals are the latest example of how the Obama administration's "all of the above" energy approach is misguided and fundamentally at odds with its stated priority of fighting climate change. How can we justify taking a huge additional percentage of U.S. fossil fuel reserves and selling them overseas for profit at the expense of countless future generations? Then again, people once made economic arguments for perpetuating the slave trade and other morally repugnant enterprises. They were profoundly wrong. Let's not give history a reason to say the same of us.

Brune ’13 [May 29, 2013. Michael Brune is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. “LNG Exports: The Wrong Side of History” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brune/lng-exports-the-wrong-sid_b_3354078.html]

Once the terminals are built, trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership could make it difficult to impossible to limit how much gas we actually export The result will be higher domestic prices as well a lot more racking the Department of Energy has failed to consider the environmental and health consequences of such a radical increase in natural gas drilling. The current shale-gas rush has already had serious effects on our air quality. Significant air quality impacts from oil and gas operations in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Texas are well documented, and air quality issues are of increasing concern i Because of natural gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming now have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. air pollution been linked to respiratory disease, heart failure, and premature death. Increased fracking will endanger and further strain increasingly scarce water resources A single fracking well can require up to 5 million gallons of water because water is contaminated most of it must be considered toxic waste and can never be used for human consumption contamination of surface and groundwater sources remains a risk. Intense gas production can transform entire regions not for the better forests have been decimated we could see that pattern repeated Higher natural gas prices could help revive the fortunes of the declining coal-fired power industry we should be working to move as fast as possible beyond all fossil fuels burning more coal is suicidal. Increased use of any fossil fuel is the wrong move if we want to limit climate disruption. LNG export terminals are the latest example of how the Obama administration's "all of the above" energy approach is misguided and fundamentally at odds with its stated priority of fighting climate change.

Shale fracking kills the environment – 5 warrants

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

The oil and gas industry is seeking to expand natural gas production across the nation, as new technology makes it easier to extract gas from previously inaccessible sites. Over the last decade, the industry has drilled thousands of new wells in the Rocky Mountain region and in the South. It is expanding operations in the eastern United States as well, setting its sights most recently on a 600-mile-long rock formation called the Marcellus Shale, which stretches from West Virginia to western New York. Nearly all natural gas extraction today involves a technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which dangerous chemicals are mixed with large quantities of water and sand and injected into wells at extremely high pressure. Fracking is a suspect in polluted drinking water in Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, where residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations. NRDC opposes expanded fracking until effective safeguards are in place. Natural gas producers have been running roughshod over communities across the country with their extraction and production activities for too long, resulting in contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes. Weak safeguards and inadequate oversight fail to protect our communities from harm by the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production using hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." Americans shouldn't have to accept unsafe drinking water just because natural gas burns more cleanly than coal. Many companies don't play by the rules that do exist and the industry has used its political power to escape accountability for its actions, leaving the American people unprotected. And no industry can claim to be part of the solution if it supports exemptions from basic laws designed to ensure that we have clean water, clean air, and the ability to make our voices heard.

NRDC No Date [National Resources Defense Council. “Risky Gas Drilling: Threatens Health, Water Supplies” http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gasdrilling/]

Nearly all natural gas extraction today involves a technique called hydraulic fracturing in which dangerous chemicals are mixed with large quantities of water and sand and injected into wells at extremely high pressure Fracking is a suspect in polluted drinking water where residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations Natural gas producers have been running roughshod over communities across the country with their extraction and production activities for too long, resulting in contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes Weak safeguards and inadequate oversight fail to protect our communities from fracking." Americans shouldn't have to accept unsafe drinking water companies don't play by the rules t the industry has used its political power to escape accountability for its actions, leaving the American people unprotected. no industry can claim to be part of the solution if it supports exemptions from basic laws designed to ensure that we have clean water, clean air,

Shale fracking destroys the environment

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Rarely does a new form of energy — shale gas — have such a dizzying range of potential impacts, good and bad. It could significantly increase America’s level of energy independence and help transition us to a lower-carbon future, but one of its major components, methane, is a highly potent greenhouse gas. As the journal Nature has reported, research teams continue to find that methane leaks resulting from the natural gas extraction process pose significant environmental problems. That the United States has large deposits of shale gas is a blessing for consumers, but exploiting them could have significant environmental and health impacts, including air and water pollution as well as long-term risks such as cancer and respiratory illnesses. Even earthquakes have been reported. Part of the risk from shale gas comes from how it’s extracted: Hydraulic fracturing — better known as fracking — involves drilling down vertically through hundreds of feet of rock and then horizontally through the shale bed. Millions of gallons of rock, sand and chemicals are then pumped down under high pressure to “frack” the shale bed, releasing the natural gas trapped within it. But in drilling down to the deposits, wells often pass through aquifers that provide water to communities, plants and wildlife on the surface. Leakage of shale gas into water supplies isn’t supposed to happen, but reports may indicate otherwise. And while the surface impacts of natural-gas extraction are nothing compared to, say, mountaintop removal coal mining, they can be considerable, and deposits’ location frequently magnifies the problem — for example, the Barnet Shale, one of the richest in the U.S., underlies the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Residents often have little say over how gas wells are run, even those on their own property, and truck traffic can be considerable as water is trucked in and waste trucked out. And as droughts intensify, concerns rise over the massive quantities of water required to extract for hydraulic fracturing. In February 2013, the EPA reported that petroleum and natural gas systems, including fracking, constituted the second largest sector in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. (See EPA’s interactive map to locate these facilities.)

Walter ’13 [May 27, 2013. Leighton Walter is a Web Editor and Journalist at Journalist's Resource, Harvard Kennedy School. “Fracking, shale gas and health effects: Research roundup” http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/fracking-shale-gas-health-effects-research-roundup#sthash.XdXFJOy2.dpuf]

shale gas could significantly increase America’s level of energy independence but methane, is a highly potent greenhouse gas ethane leaks resulting from the natural gas extraction process pose significant environmental problems. the United States has large deposits of shale gas exploiting them could have significant environmental and health impacts, including air and water pollution as well as long-term risks such as cancer and respiratory illnesses earthquakes have been reported. the risk from shale gas comes from Hydraulic fracturing Millions of gallons of rock are pumped down under high pressure releasing the natural gas in drilling down to the deposits, wells often pass through aquifers that provide water to communities, plants and wildlife on the surface. deposits’ location frequently magnifies the problem Residents often have little say over how gas wells are run and truck traffic can be considerable as water is trucked in and waste trucked out as droughts intensify, concerns rise over the massive quantities of water required to extract for hydraulic fracturing fracking constituted the second largest sector in terms of greenhouse gas emissions

Shale fracking exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions and health problems

Mexico Energy Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Case Negatives

2013

Mexico’s auto industry has experienced tremendous growth since the mid-1980s. Last year, 19% of all light vehicles produced in North America originated in Mexico (see table 1). That is up sharply from 20 years ago and puts Mexico ahead of Canada in terms of the number of vehicles produced Table 1: Distribution of light vehicle production in North AmericaOn May 30, a panel of distinguished experts gathered at an event hosted by the Detroit branch of the Chicago Fed to discuss factors behind Mexico’s growth as a vehicle producer.Most of the presentations are available here. Also, see a recent Chicago Fed Letter on the same topic.Mexico has a long history of vehicle production; by the late-1930s Ford, GM, and Chrysler were producing vehicles in the country. Over the years, the Mexican auto industry was shaped by economic development policies put in place by the Mexican government. Starting in the mid-1960s, a policy of import substitution favored production of vehicles and parts within Mexico. A number of years later, the policy focus changed to export promotion, which encouraged Mexican producers to seek international markets for their products. In 1995, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). It established a framework and set out a timetable for boosting trade among the three countries. In the process, Mexico has become a very attractive export platform for North, Central, and South America (see table 2). In fact, the country has negotiated more than 40 free trade agreements, more than any other North American country. In addition, Mexico has benefited from a general improvement in its manufacturing competitiveness during the past few years. Its productivity-adjusted wages are the lowest among major manufacturing countries, it is an energy rich country, and it has a history of manufacturing (35% of the country’s GDP is represented by manufacturing).

Klier, 6-13 (Thomas, senior economist in economic research department at Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, published scholarly journals including Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, MBA from Frierich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Germany, PhD in economics from Michigan State University, “Mexico’s Growing Role in the North American Auto Industry,” June 13, 2013, http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2013/06/klier_blog.html) Harbeck

Mexico’s auto industry has experienced tremendous growth since the mid-1980s. Last year, 19% of all light vehicles produced in North America originated in Mexico (see table 1). That is up sharply from 20 years ago and puts Mexico ahead of Canada in terms of the number of vehicles produced , the Mexican auto industry was shaped by economic development policies put in place by the Mexican government. Starting in the mid-1960s, a policy of import substitution favored production of vehicles and parts within Mexico. A number of years later, the policy focus changed to export promotion, which encouraged Mexican producers to seek international markets for their products . In the process, Mexico has become a very attractive export platform for North, Central, and South America the country has negotiated more than 40 free trade agreements, more than any other North American country

First, Mexico economy growing now - auto industry

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Once shuttered off by tariffs and trade controls, Mexico has opened up to become a place where the world does business. The North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which in 1994 eliminated most tariffs between Mexico, the United States and Canada, was only the beginning: Mexico now boasts free-trade deals with 44 countries, more than any other nation. In northern and central Mexico German companies turn out electrical components for Europe, Canadian firms assemble aircraft parts and factory after factory makes televisions, fridge-freezers and much else. Each year Mexico exports manufactured goods to about the same value as the rest of Latin America put together. Trade makes up a bigger chunk of its GDP than of any other large country’s.¶ Normally that would be a good thing, but after the 2007-08 financial crisis it meant that Mexico got a terrible walloping. Thanks to its wide-open economy and high exposure to the United States it suffered the steepest recession on the American mainland: in 2009 its economy shrank by 6%. The country had already had a rocky decade. When China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, it started undercutting Mexico’s export industry. In the ten years to 2010 Mexico’s economy grew by an average of just 1.6% a year, less than half the rate of Brazil, which flourished in part by exporting commodities to China.¶ But now changes are under way, in Mexico’s factories, its financial sector and even its oil and gas fields, that augur well for a very different decade. Latin America’s perennial underachiever grew faster than Brazil last year and will repeat the trick this year, with a rate of about 4% against less than 2% in Brazil. Mr Peña is aiming to get annual growth up to 6% before his six-year presidency is over. By the end of this decade Mexico will probably be among the world’s ten biggest economies; a few bullish forecasters think it might even become the largest in Latin America. How did Mexico achieve such a turnround?¶ China’s cut-price export machine sucked billions of dollars of business out of Mexico. But now Asian wages and transport costs are rising and companies are going west. “The China factor is changing big-time,” says Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs economist who in 2001 coined the “BRICs” acronym—Brazil, Russia, India and China—much to Mexico’s irritation. China is no longer as cheap as it used to be. According to HSBC, a bank, in 2000 it cost just $0.32 an hour to employ a Chinese manufacturing worker, against $1.51 for a Mexican one. By last year Chinese wages had quintupled to $1.63, whereas Mexican ones had risen only to $2.10 (see chart 1). The minimum wage in Shanghai and Qingdao is now higher than in Mexico City and Monterrey, not least because of the rocketing renminbi.¶ Right next door¶ Hauling goods from Asia to America is costlier too. The price of oil has trebled since the start of the century, making it more attractive to manufacture close to markets. A container can take three months to travel from China to the United States, whereas products trucked in from Mexico can take just a couple of days. AlixPartners, a consultancy, said last year that the joint effect of pay, logistics and currency fluctuations had made Mexico the world’s cheapest place to manufacture goods destined for the United States, undercutting China as well as countries such as India and Vietnam.¶ Companies have noticed. “When you wipe away the PR and look at the real numbers, Mexico is startlingly good,” says Louise Goeser, the regional head of Siemens, a German multinational. Siemens employs 6,000 people at 13 factories and three research centres around Mexico. From its recently enlarged facility in Querétaro, in central Mexico, surge-arrestors and transformers trundle up to warehouses in the central United States in two days. Ms Goeser says that Mexican workers are well qualified as well as cheap: more engineers graduate in Mexico each year than in Germany, she points out.¶ In Aguascalientes, not far away, Nissan is building a $2 billion factory. Together with an existing facility it will turn out a car nearly every 30 seconds. About 80% of the parts in each car are made in Mexico. By using local suppliers, the company is “armoured” against currency fluctuations, says José Luis Valls, head of Nissan Mexico. “If you are localised, you can navigate through floods and storms. If you depend on imports of components, you are very fragile.” In nearby Guanajuato Mazda and Honda are building factories; Audi is constructing a $1.3 billion plant in Puebla. This year Mexico will turn out roughly 3m vehicles, making it the world’s fourth-biggest auto exporter. When the new factories are up and running, capacity will be 4m.¶ According to projections by HSBC, in six years’ time the United States will be more dependent on imports from Mexico than from any other country (see chart 2). Soon “Hecho en México” will become more familiar to Americans than “Made in China”.¶ On the opposite side of Cuernavaca from Nissan’s gigantic factory, Antonio Sánchez plays a smaller role in Mexico’s motor business. At his carwash customers queue to pay 46 pesos ($3.60) for their cars to gleam in the ever-present sun. Mr Sánchez seems to have enough business to open another branch, but credit is scarce and expensive. He explains that banks tend to charge interest rates of 25% or more and demand collateral worth three times the value of the loan. “It’s complicated, expensive and the risk is too much,” he says.¶ Mexican businesses have been fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, thanks to a chronic credit drought. Lending is equivalent to 26% of GDP, compared with 61% in Brazil and 71% in Chile. The drought started with the “tequila crisis” of 1994, when a currency devaluation triggered the collapse of the country’s loosely regulated banking system. Banks spent the best part of a decade dealing with their dodgy legacy assets and were nervous about making new loans.¶ But things are looking up. Inflation, now running at 4.6%, has been well under control for ten years. The conservatively run Mexican subsidiaries of foreign banks such as BBVA, Citigroup and Santander are all rated higher than their American or European parent companies. Now they are starting to turn on the credit tap. Loans to companies are growing at 12% a year and to individuals at 23%. Given that many enterprises are informal, many of these “personal” loans probably go to businesses, according to David Olivares of Moody’s, a ratings agency. “There are many financing opportunities in Mexico that are not tapped,” says Agustín Carstens, the governor of the central bank. This gives Mexico an advantage over other Latin American countries that are deep in debt. Five to six consecutive years of loan growth, coupled with macroeconomic stability, would increase Mexico’s annual growth rate by half a percentage point, the central bank estimates.¶ As credit starts flowing, so could oil. Since striking black gold in the 1970s, Mexico has been one of the world’s ten biggest oil producers. The revenues of Pemex, the state-run oil and gas monopoly, provide about a third of the government’s income.

The Economist, 2012 (“Cheaper than China and with credit and oil about to start flowing, Mexico is becoming a Brazil-beater,” November 24, 2012, http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21566782-cheaper-china-and-credit-and-oil-about-start-flowing-mexico-becoming?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/se_ores_start_your_engines) Harbeck

Mexico now boasts free-trade deals with 44 countries, more than any other nation. Each year Mexico exports manufactured goods to about the same value as the rest of Latin America put together. Trade makes up a bigger chunk of its GDP than of any other large country’s.¶ But now changes are under way, in Mexico’s factories, its financial sector and even its oil and gas fields, that augur well for a very different decade Peña is aiming to get annual growth up to 6% before his six-year presidency is over. By the end of this decade Mexico will probably be among the world’s ten biggest economies; a few bullish forecasters think it might even become the largest in Latin America. How did Mexico achieve such a turnround Hauling goods from Asia to America is costlier too. The price of oil has trebled since the start of the century, making it more attractive to manufacture close to markets. A container can take three months to travel from China to the United States, whereas products trucked in from Mexico can take just a couple of days. Mexico the world’s cheapest place to manufacture goods destined for the United States, undercutting China as well as countries such as India and Vietnam.¶ , Mexico has been one of the world’s ten biggest oil producers. The revenues of Pemex, the state-run oil and gas monopoly, provide about a third of the government’s income.

Mexico's economy will continue to grow - Pena Nieto reforms and trade

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Suddenly, the eyes of investors turned toward Mexico, and not because of the violence unleashed by the drug war. It seems that the land of the tequila is becoming one of the favorite sites for global companies looking to expand their business operations worldwide.¶ “We have found in Mexico an attractive industrial environment and a ready supply of skilled labor,” said Serge Durand, CEO of Eurocopter de Mexico, in October 2011, during the construction launch of a new manufacturing plant in the city of Querétaro, with an investment value of a US$550 million.¶ Although Mexico still faces important challenges, the country is turning into the new “little darling of emerging markets,” as mentioned by Kenneth Rapoza in Forbes magazine, on July 2012.¶ There are several reasons and facts that explain why this nation reflects an important economic evolution, achieved in only 25 years.¶ Reason number one is the opening of the market, started in 1986, when the country joined the GATT, later the World Trade Organization. Now Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries, including NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States and Canada, in effect since 1994. Since then, the average trade tariff fell from 27 percent to 6.9 percent. The opening policy also included the financial and foreign direct investment liberalization of sectors not considered as strategic for the nation.¶ Mexico was also able to make a strategic change in its exports’ structure. In the 1980s, 61 percent of Mexico’s export products were crude oil. At present, 81 percent of its exports are manufactured goods, of which 24 percent are high-tech products, including aerospace, computers, non-electronic machinery, electronic-telecommunications, weapons, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and scientific instruments, according to INEGI (Mexico’s National Statistics Institute). Mexico is now inserted vertically into the most important segments of global production chains, as 60 percent of FDI inflows received by the country go to manufacturing.¶ Thanks to all these changes, the country is now one of the world’s most important export platforms and “an ideal base from which to supply international markets,” Rupert Stadler, chairman of the Board of Management of Audi AG, told the Financial Times in September 2012.¶ Today, this nation of 114 million people is the leading world exporter of flat screen TVs and the second leading exporter of refrigerators. It is also the major supplier of medical devices to the U.S. market, the eighth producer and the fourth exporter of new vehicles, as well as the main supplier of auto parts to the U.S. market, where 11 percent of all cars and light trucks are produced in Mexico. Moreover, of total U.S. imports, 24 percent of automotive products, 23 percent of chemicals and 21 percent of electronics are coming from the other side of the country’s southern border.¶ Global automakers have announced new direct investments in Mexico of about $15 billion, making Mexico the world’s fourth biggest exporter of automobiles, behind Germany, Japan and South Korea, with exports expected to be around 2.14 million vehicles by the end of 2012.

Connelle, 2013 (Claudia, executive director of Mexican Association of Industrial Parks, 23 years of experience in international business with private and public sector, “Why Made in Mexico Means Quality and Competitiveness,” January, 2013, http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2013/jan/mexico.cfm) Harbeck

“We have found in Mexico an attractive industrial environment and a ready supply of skilled labor,” said Durand, CEO of Eurocopter de Mexico Although Mexico still faces important challenges, the country is turning into the new “little darling of emerging markets,” as mentioned by Rapoza in Forbes Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries, Mexico was also able to make a strategic change in its exports’ structure. In the 1980s, 61 percent of Mexico’s export products were crude oil. At present, 81 percent of its exports are manufactured goods, of which 24 percent are high-tech products, including aerospace, computers, non-electronic machinery, electronic-telecommunications, weapons, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and scientific instruments, Thanks to all these changes, the country is now one of the world’s most important export platforms and “an ideal base from which to supply international markets Global automakers have announced new direct investments in Mexico of about $15 billion, making Mexico the world’s fourth biggest exporter of automobiles,

Mexico's economy will continue to be competitive - energy, trade, industrial sector

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

"Made in China" is giving way to "Hecho en Mexico," attendees at the Arizona-Mexico Commission's plenary session heard Thursday. Rising fuel costs, coupled with higher labor costs in China, make North America more appealing to manufacturing companies, said Christopher Wilson, associate of the Mexico Institute for the Woodrow Wilson Center.That is a financial boon for the United States - and especially for states along the Mexican border - because the shorter supply chain means bigger profits, he told the crowd of Arizona and Sonora business leaders and politicians meeting in Scottsdale.For every dollar spent on manufacturing in China, the U.S. earns 4 cents, Wilson said. If that company manufactures in Mexico, the earnings are 40 cents.Mexico's economy is growing faster than the U.S. economy, and although ours is much larger, "we have a chance to tap into that growing economy," Wilson said.He said monopoly breakups, education reforms and a pact among the three main political parties could have a positive effect on Mexico's credit rating, making it more attractive to foreign investors."The hypothesis of saying 'We have to go to China' is fading," said Juan Carlo Briseño, who is with the Mexican Ministry of Economy's Pro Mexico program.Mexico has emerged as a leader in the manufacturing of automobiles, medical devices, electronics and aerospace components.Now China is casting a curious eye on the country to see what it's doing right, Briseño said.In Sonora, where the average age is 25, aerospace manufacturing has taken off in the past couple of years with big companies readying to announce further expansion of existing operations.Sonora has five international airports, two with cargo capacity, Briseño noted, making it a natural attraction.Its proximity to Arizona as an export entryway is a selling point, he said.The overview was presented in anticipation of today's sessions, when committees will meet to map out or approve joint plans and ventures in the areas of economic development, energy, real estate and infrastructure.Just a little over a decade ago, the focus on these commission meetings was to school Mexico on how to do business with the United States, said Bruce Wright, associate vice president for university research at the University of Arizona."How refreshing for you in the Sonora business world to hear us talking about how to do business with Mexico," he said.The Arizona-Mexico Commission meeting is being hosted by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Sonora Gov. Guillermo Padres.The two governors are expected to address the crowd today and will host a joint news conference.

Rico, 6-14 (Gabriela, writes for Arizona Daily Star, “Mexico growing on manufacturers,” June 14, 2013, http://azstarnet.com/business/local/mexico-growing-on-manufacturers/article_6e4804e7-35e7-52fd-b0ea-c13e20cc5cfd.html) Harbeck

Rising fuel costs, coupled with higher labor costs in China, make North America more appealing to manufacturing companies, because the shorter supply chain means bigger profits, he Mexico's economy is growing faster than the U.S. economy, and although ours is much larger, "we have a chance to tap into that growing economy," Mexico has emerged as a leader in the manufacturing of automobiles, medical devices, electronics and aerospace components. aerospace manufacturing has taken off in the past couple of years with big companies readying to announce further expansion of existing operations.Sonora has five international airports, two with cargo capacity, Briseño noted, making it a natural attraction.

Mexico growing – most recent evidence proves

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

its economy grew 4% last year—quicker than even Brazil’s. Credit is increasingly available, inflation is under control and more of the population is joining the middle class, according to a new study put out by the Wilson Center based in Washington, D.C.¶ Sizable Passenger Vehicle Market and Healthy Annual Sales: Mexico has 20 million motor vehicles in circulation, with strong annual sales of about 1 million.¶ Mexicans Love Trucks: Mexican motorists enjoy and use light trucks. Between 2005–2011, 40% of all vehicles sold in Mexico were pickups and SUVs.¶ Similar Vehicle Demographics: Many of the vehicles sold in Mexico are the same models that sell well in the United States. Between 2005–2011, the best-selling pickups in Mexico were Ford’s F-150 and F-250, with 232,810 units sold. The Chevrolet Silverado was also a top model, with 164,928 sold during that period. Jeep sales were also strong, with 145,397 sold between 2005–2011, and Ford also sold 13,511 Mustangs between those same years.¶The country is an increasingly important gateway to the rest of Latin America. Mexico has free-trade agreements with 44 countries—more than any other country in the world—including the 2004 North American Free Trade Agreement, which eliminated most tariffs between Mexico, Canada and the United States.¶ No Argentinian or Brazilian Tariffs: Among the many trade deals negotiated by Mexico is its most recently modified pact with Argentina, which allows Mexico to export up to $600 million in Mexican vehicles to that country without tariffs. Mexico also has a free-trade deal with Brazil. Both Brazil and Argentina are notorious for their high tariffs, but their agreements with Mexico allow vehicles and parts—up to a certain limit—to be shipped to those countries tariff free.¶ OEM Production: There are nine manufacturers producing vehicles in Mexico, including Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan and others. These days, Marcos Alvarez, business director of Big Country America, is quite optimistic about sales opportunities in Mexico and indirectly to the rest of Latin America. Alvarez notes, “International eyes are on Mexico now under what has been called MEMO [Mexican Moment], as quality, lead times, trust and currency and political stability are bringing back manufacturing from Asia to Mexico.” By selling to the vehicle manufacturers’ Mexican operations, SEMA members can find an additional route to reach South and Central American markets.¶ There are two excellent upcoming opportunities to explore the Mexican market. For the first, you don’t even need to leave the United States.¶ The annual SEMA Show, held each year in early November, draws more than 130,000 visitors, and 25% of all buyers attending the trade-only event come from outside the United States, including large numbers from Mexico and other Latin American countries.¶ Another first-rate automotive event where companies should consider exhibiting is the annual PAACE Automechanika show, which will be held July 10–12, 2013, at Centro Banamex in Mexico City. The 2012 event boasted 14% growth, with 541 exhibiting companies from 20 countries and 19,763 visits by specialized buyers from more than 33 countries.¶ This year, PAACE Automechanika will feature a specialized vehicle area where the cars will be categorized as “Import,” “Euro,” “Racing” and “Classic.”

Spencer, 2013 (Linda, writes for SEMA, worldwide automotive company, “Considering Mexico Strong Growth and Fatter Pocketbooks Warrant a Closer Look at the Potential in Latin America’s Second-Largest Economy,” March, 2013, http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2013/13/opportunities-in-mexico-potential-in-latin-americas-second-largest-economy) Harbeck

ts economy grew 4% last year—quicker than even Brazil’s Credit is increasingly available, inflation is under control and more of the population is joining the middle class, according to a new study put out by the Wilson Center Mexico has 20 million motor vehicles in circulation, with strong annual sales of about 1 million. The country is an increasingly important gateway to the rest of Latin America. Mexico has free-trade agreements with 44 countries—more than any other country in the world—including the 2004 North American Free Trade Agreement, which eliminated most tariffs between Mexico, Canada and the United States. There are nine manufacturers producing vehicles in Mexico, including Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan and others “International eyes are on Mexico now under what has been called MEMO [Mexican Moment], as quality, lead times, trust and currency and political stability are bringing back manufacturing from Asia to Mexico There are two excellent upcoming opportunities to explore the Mexican market.

Mexico’s economy is growing and strong

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

A series of events in recent months seem quite ominous for China-U.S. relations. Last November, President Obama vowed that the U.S. would remain a power in the Asia-Pacific region for the rest of this century, while the secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declared that America was pivoting to Asia. The current standoff in the South China Sea adds to the foreboding. The U.S.-China relationship is complex, but lucrative for both sides. Neither nation wants confrontation. This rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific region is not necessarily the new U.S. strategy after the military pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does unequivocally signal the shift of America’s attention from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. What follows is America’s new and firm military restructuring in the region: setting Darwin Port in Australia as the new submarine corps base, rotating military presence to the Philippines, ushering in the Pentagon’s global security programs that very specifically target China. Now the Asian version of missile defense is under intense discussion, reminiscent of the American plan to create a missile interception network all over Europe — a plan that unnerved the world’s other great power, Russia. Against this tense backdrop, human rights issues are now creating rifts between Washington and Beijing. After a local police official, Wang Lijun, reportedly sneaked into the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu in early February, the blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng sought shelter this week at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. Despite quiet diplomacy so far, there is little sign that the two nations could realistically reach an agreement about human rights questions, as there is slight room to maneuver. Beijing believes that the U.S. criticisms over human rights are deliberate and well plotted, aimed at abolishing the Communist Party’s ruling legitimacy and detracting from China’s re-emergence. Therefore China’s rulers might find it much harder to back down over human rights clashes. However there is little worry that the two powers will collide into a “new cold war.” First of all, China’s authoritarian system has been tremendously mobilized for international integration. Beijing has been pretty conservative and doesn’t welcome democratization. But it does not strictly adhere to traditional communism either. Any new confrontation like the cold war would risk a huge backlash in China by greatly damaging the better-off Chinese people. Such a conflict could ultimately undermine the Communist Party’s ruling legitimacy. Second, the power disparity between Washington and China hasn’t significantly narrowed, regardless of Chinese achievements in the past decades. My view is that Beijing remains an adolescent power, and should learn how to be a great power rather than unwisely rushing to any confrontation. Though some Chinese want the nation to assert itself more forcefully, the huge disparity in power should keep China in place. China is in no position to challenge the U.S. But China will be more enthusiastic and straightfoward about addressing and safeguarding its legal interests. Competition between Washington and Beijing will intensify, but that does not automatically mean that the relationship will be unmanageable. Lastly, the cycle of action and reaction has mostly turned out to be fruitful for the U.S. and China. Further competition is promising. The U.S. doesn’t want to put China in a corner, or force Beijing to stand up desperately. The dealings over many thorny issues have proved that each side wants to handle the conflict, not escalate it. Chen Guangcheng’s departure from the U.S. Embassy is telling evidence. Neither side wants diplomatic confrontation. Rather, it seems that both sides are struggling to react constructively. In the years to come, China-U.S. relations will continue to be very complicated, but also very important. The glue to keep these two nations together is not pragmatism only, but mutual interest — especially in trade.

Zhu Feng 12is a professor in the School of International Studies and the deputy director of the Center for International and Strategic Studies at Beijing University. No one wants a Clash; The New York Times. 5-3-12. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/02/are-we-headed-for-a-cold-war-with-china/no-one-wants-a-cold-war-between-the-us-and-china Reyes

U.S.-China relationship is lucrative for both sides Neither nation wants confrontation. Beijing believes that the U.S. criticisms over human rights are deliberate and well plotted, aimed at abolishing the Communist Party . However there is little worry that the two powers will collide into a “new cold war , China’s authoritarian system has been tremendously mobilized for international integration Beijing has been pretty conservative But it does not strictly adhere to traditional communism either the power disparity between Washington and China hasn’t significantly narrowed, regardless of Chinese achievements Beijing remains an adolescent power, and should learn how to be a great power rather than unwisely rushing to any confrontation. the huge disparity in power should keep China in place China is in no position to challenge the U.S. Competition between Washington and Beijing will intensify, but that does not automatically mean that the relationship will be unmanageable dealings over many thorny issues have proved that each side wants to handle the conflict, not escalate it China-U.S. relations will continue to be very complicated, but also very important. The glue to keep these two nations together is not pragmatism only, but mutual interest — especially in trade.

1 - No US-China war; both don’t want conflict and negotiation deters

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea is challenging US primacy in the Asia Pacific.¶ Chinese sailors stand on a fishing vessel setting sail for the Spratly Islands, an archipelago disputed between China and other countries including Vietnam and the Philippines (Photo: AAP)¶ Even before Washington announced its official policy of rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its military posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin.Since then, the United States has deployed Combat Littoral Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines.¶ But these developments do not presage armed conflict between China and the United States. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has been circumspect in its involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and the United States has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea appears unlikely.¶ Another, more probable, scenario is that both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate to maintain security in the South China Sea. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, recently stated, ‘there has also been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case … it is a strategy of collaboration and cooperation’.¶ However, a review of past US–China military-to-military interaction indicates that an agreement to jointly manage security in the South China Sea is unlikely because of continuing strategic mistrust between the two countries. This is also because the currents of regionalism are growing stronger.¶ As such, a third scenario is more likely than the previous two: that China and the United States will maintain a relationship of cooperation and friction. In this scenario, both countries work separately to secure their interests through multilateral institutions such as the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus and the Enlarged ASEAN Maritime Forum. But they also continue to engage each other on points of mutual interest. The Pentagon has consistently sought to keep channels of communication open with China through three established bilateral mechanisms: Defense Consultative Talks, the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the Defense Policy Coordination Talks.¶ On the one hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about US–China military relations. Military-to-military contacts between the two countries have gone through repeated cycles of cooperation and suspension, meaning that it has not been possible to isolate purely military-to-military contacts from their political and strategic settings.¶ On the other hand, the channels have accomplished the following: continuing exchange visits by high-level defence officials; regular Defense Consultation Talks; continuing working-level discussions under the MMCA; agreement on the ‘7-point consensus’; and no serious naval incidents since the 2009 USNS Impeccable affair. They have also helped to ensure continuing exchange visits by senior military officers; the initiation of a Strategic Security Dialogue as part of the ministerial-level Strategic & Economic Dialogue process; agreement to hold meetings between coast guards; and agreement on a new working group to draft principles to establish a framework for military-to-military cooperation.¶ So the bottom line is that, despite ongoing frictions in their relationship, the United States and China will continue engaging with each other. Both sides understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical component of bilateral engagement. Without such interaction there is a risk that mistrust between the two militaries could spill over and have a major negative impact on bilateral relations in general. But strategic mistrust will probably persist in the absence of greater transparency in military-to-military relations. In sum, Sino-American relations in the South China Sea are more likely to be characterised by cooperation and friction than a modus vivendi of collaboration or, a worst-case scenario, armed conflict.¶

Carlyle A. Thayer 13. Carlyle A. Thayer is Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra. The ideas in this paper were first presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Asian Studies held at San Diego, 22 March 2013. Why China and the US won’t go to war over the South China Sea; East Asia Forum. May 13 2013. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/ Reyes

the United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its military posture to the region these developments do not presage armed conflict between China and the United States the United States has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China Armed conflict between China and the United States appears unlikely both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate to maintain security in the South China Sea Obama emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to Asia is not directed at containing China it is a strategy of collaboration and cooperation’ China and the United States will maintain a relationship of cooperation and friction both countries work separately to secure their interests But they also continue to engage each other on points of mutual interest. despite ongoing frictions in their relationship, the United States and China will continue engaging with each other Both sides understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical component Sino-American relations are more likely to be characterised by cooperation and friction than armed conflict

2 - No US-China war in SCS, any tensions from miscalc are mended through negotiations, if miscalc nuke war threat was real, their impacts from miscalc should’ve happened already

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

War between China and the United States would be "disastrous" for the entire world, says Australia's top diplomat, who also suggests that a conflict between the global giants is unlikely.¶ ¶ As Chinese economic and military power--and its global influence--grows, U.S. analysts, lawmakers, and some Asian leaders worry Beijing could clash with the world's sitting lone superpower: the United States.¶ A war between the eagle and the dragon would be "disastrous" for both nations, the Asia-Pacific region, and the entire globe, Bob Carr, Australian minister for foreign affairs, told a forum Wednesday in Washington.¶ Expert forecasts that China could challenge America's perch atop the global totem pole are based on even more economic growth in China and across the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration's ongoing shift of U.S. foreign and national security policies from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific is based on a belief that much of the history of this century will be written there.¶ But such predictions might be off the mark, says Carr, who spends ample time jetting around the vast region.¶ The United States dominated much of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st. But the next 88 years, "might not belong to anyone," Carr said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.¶ The levers of global and economic power are trending toward being more widely dispersed than some experts predict, Carr says.¶ He also noted Chinese officials collective response to the administration shift toward their backyard has been "muted," suggesting the U.S. and China will be able to coexist.¶ Carr showed few signs of worry about what likely would be a bloody and costly U.S.-China war, sounding a much different tone than did Singapore defense chief Ng Eng Hen during an April visit to Washington.¶ Ng urged increased American engagement in Asia, warning that anything else could spawn deadly U.S.-China tensions.¶ During an April 4 speech in Washington, Ng called the United States a "resident power" in Asia. But he also made clear Singaporean and other regional leaders feel the U.S. and China must enhance military-to-military contacts, which they believe will help prevent a war.¶ It was clear from several of Ng's comments in April that Singaporean and other regional leaders are increasingly concerned about a U.S.-China war.¶ But Carr, who spent the opening part of his prepared remarks underscoring the U.S.-Australian partnership, calls a rising China a good thing for his nation, the Asia-Pacific realm, and the world. Just how China's continued rise goes, he says, will depend largely on Beijing's own actions.¶

John T. Bennett 12. Senior Congressional Reporter at Defense News ¶ Past DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT at U.S. News & World Report ¶ Senior Defense Reporter at The Hill ¶ Senior Reporter - Pentagon & National Security Beat at Defense News ¶ Education The Johns Hopkins University ¶ Appalachian State University. Top Australian Diplomat: U.S.-China War Would Be 'Disastrous' RSS Feed Print, US News. April 25, 2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/25/top-australian-diplomat-us-china-war-would-be-disastrous Reyes

Australia's top diplomat suggests that a conflict between the global giants is unlikely such predictions off the mark The United States dominated much of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st. But the next 88 years, "might not belong to anyone Chinese officials collective response to the administration shift toward their backyard has been "muted," suggesting the U.S. and China will be able to coexist U.S. and China must enhance military-to-military contacts, which they believe will help prevent a war a rising China a good thing for the Asia-Pacific realm, and the world

3 - No risk of Sino backlash - Multilateral power balances in Asia prove coexistence of China and US influence possible

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

In discussing this relationship, American public intellectuals have become fond of referencing Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta to issue warnings about the risk of conflict, and to offer advice on how one can best manage the geopolitical tensions that have historically attended the rise of a new great power.[1] Leaders on both sides, the argument goes, must be acutely aware of the dilemma they face if they are to avoid it. Reflecting this discourse, as well as their own research into the rise of previous great powers, Chinese scholars and officials have consistently called for a “New Type of Great Power Relationship” (新型大国关系, xinxing daguo guanxi) between Washington and Beijing that avoids the tensions that surrounded past rising powers.[2]

Greitens, 6/11 [Sheena Chestnut, Academy Scholar, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Harvard University, Brookings.edu, 6/11/13, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relations-asia-alliances-greitens] He

Leaders on both sides, the argument goes, must be acutely aware of the dilemma they face if they are to avoid it. Reflecting this discourse, as well as their own research into the rise of previous great powers, Chinese scholars and officials have consistently called for a “New Type of Great Power Relationship” (新型大国关系, xinxing daguo guanxi) between Washington and Beijing that avoids the tensions that surrounded past rising powers.[2]

4 - US-China Relations increasing.

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

In my view, No-First Use (NFU) has been a theoretical pillar of China’s nuclear policy. This rationale of NFU of nuclear weapons serves Beijing’s foremost security interests. It also contributes to the maintenance of world strategic stability. There are at least five reasons to explain why China has consistently stuck to that principle, and will continue to do so in the future.

Zhenqiang 05 (Pan, Professor of International Relations at the Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defence University of the People’s Liberation Army of China , retired Major General of the People’s Liberation Army, “China Insistence on No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons”, China Security (World Security Institute China Program, http://www.irchina.org/en/news/view.asp?id=403]

No-First Use has been a theoretical pillar of China’s nuclear policy. This rationale of NFU of nuclear weapons serves Beijing’s foremost security interests. It also contributes to the maintenance of world strategic stability There are at least five reasons to explain why China has consistently stuck to that principle, and will continue to do so in the future

And, it won't go nuclear - China's No-First-Use policy

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The relationship today isn’t good, but it’s nowhere near as bad as it could be. As difficult as things can sometimes be with Moscow – and they have been very difficult lately – and as diametrically opposed President Putin and President Obama and their teams seem to be, fundamentally, Russia and America are not out to get one another. You could imagine a world in which they were, and it would be a very different and far, far worse world.

CIC 7-30-13 ("US-Russia Relations: It Could Be Worse, Canadian International Council, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/)

The relationship today is nowhere near as bad as it could be. As difficult as things can sometimes be with Moscow – and as diametrically opposed President Putin and President Obama and their teams seem to be, fundamentally, Russia and America are not out to get one another

First, US-Russian Relations are stable now - relations are resilient

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Right now, the U.S.-Russia relationship is caught in a trap of mutual distrust. Both sides are relatively convinced that they’re talking to the wrong person. The United States thinks that if they just wait out Putin, or fund some people that might be able to replace him, then maybe in a couple of years there will be a much better Russian government with which they can negotiate. On the other side, you have Putin thinking, ‘I’m tougher than these guys, I’ve been around longer than these guys, I’m just going to embarrass them on one issue after another and then soon enough I won’t have to deal with them’.

CIC 7-30-13 ("US-Russia Relations: It Could Be Worse, Canadian International Council, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/interviews/u-s-russia-relations-it-could-be-worse/)

the U.S.-Russia relationship is caught in a trap of mutual distrust. Both sides are relatively convinced that they’re talking to the wrong person.

And, no risk of bad relations escalating to conflict

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

WASHINGTON: Missile defence, an issue that has poisoned US-Russia relations, could be a "game-changer" that transforms ties if the two sides cooperate on a shared system, says a report by former top officials from both sides of the Atlantic. Recent headlines in both countries have been reminiscent of the Cold War, with the Russians threatening to deploy missiles aimed at countering a proposed US missile shield, and the Americans responding that they will build the system, come what may. The planned US shield, endorsed by NATO, would deploy US interceptor missiles in and around Europe in what Washington says is a layered protection against missiles that could be fired by countries like Iran. Moscow says this could undermine its security if it becomes capable of neutralizing Russia's nuclear deterrent. Now an international commission has been working on the matter for two years that has designed a basic concept for cooperation with the help of military professionals from both sides.

Business Recorder 2012 [Pakistani business agency - cites a US-Russia working group that studied how missile defense relates to US-Russia cooperation, "Missile defence poisoned US-Russia relations: report", February 04, http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/1-front-top-news/44716-missile-defence-poisoned-us-russia-relations-report.html]

Missile defence, an issue that has poisoned US-Russia relations, could be a "game-changer" that transforms ties if the two sides cooperate on a shared system . Recent headlines in both countries have been reminiscent of the Cold War, with the Russians threatening to deploy missiles aimed at countering a proposed US missile shield, and the Americans responding that they will build the system, come what may Moscow says this could undermine its security

And, alternate causality to US-Russian Relations - missile defense

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Why democracy isn't working for America At its core, the democratic process of electing representatives is a popularity contest. The voters inevitably end up supporting whichever lawmakers offer the best handouts right now, regardless of the long-term consequences to the nation. Voting, in other words, is a contest based on short-term rewards rather than long-term vision. Not surprisingly, when the voters go to the polls, they tend to elect the person who promises them the most right now. Now, it's crucial to recognize this simple economic fact: No government can offer something to one person without first taking it from another. So the more handouts, entitlements and benefits any government offers, the more it must confiscate from others in order to meet its "obligations" to the voters. This creates a downward spiral of entitlements leading to inescapable debt. Because sooner or later, governments always run out of other people's money. But that doesn't stop the voting action which still boils down to a popularity contest to decide the leader who tells the best lies. When given a choice between a realistic candidate who says America is deep in debt (Ron Paul) and a fantasy-land candidate who says there's nothing to worry about (almost everybody else), most voters will choose the fantasy candidate... especially if it means more money in their pockets.

Adams, 11 [Mike, editor for Natural News, “Why democracy is failing America,” 5/10/11, http://www.naturalnews.com/032346_democracy_America.html] STRYKER

democracy isn't working the democratic process of electing representatives is a popularity contest voters inevitably end up supporting whichever lawmakers offer the best handouts right now, regardless of the long-term consequences to the nation a contest based on short-term rewards rather than long-term vision No government can offer something to one person without first taking it from another. So the more handouts, entitlements and benefits any government offers, the more it must confiscate from others in order to meet its "obligations" to the voters. This creates a downward spiral of entitlements leading to inescapable debt But that doesn't stop the voting action which still boils down to a popularity contest to decide the leader who tells the best lies. most voters will choose the fantasy candidate... especially if it means more money in their pockets.

First, Democracy is unsustainable---inescapable debt leads to economic collapse

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Contemporary doubts about democracy follow the long tradition of pre-modern political thought, a tradition that pointed both to the disadvantages of democratic regimes and the advantages of non-democratic regimes. Democratic regimes allow for the expression of the range of views held by the members of a political community. And it has often been held that, in a number of ways, this makes government difficult. For one thing, the people are likely to be resistant to the demands of government, and especially, to taxes and military service. But effective government requires that governments pay their bills and mobilize armies. Critics of democracy suppose that monarchs and aristocrats, who have greater experience with and training for political matters will, be better able to grasp and deal with these necessities of politics. For another thing, the people are likely to be divided about the proper direction of government. This leads to two possible problems. If political circumstances allow one group and then another to triumph over another, a government might adopt a series of radical changes in direction. If, on the other hand, political circumstances make it difficult for one group to gain power, the result is likely to be stalemate. Either way, it will be difficult for democratic regimes to adopt consistent and effective public policies. Under favorable conditions, conflict in or paralysis of democratic regimes may not be too serious. But, under unfavorable conditions, these regimes will, it is held, be unable either to protect themselves or serve the common good. The result, then, is likely to be dissatisfaction, dissent and, eventually instability. Once opposition to the regime arises, a democracy is, again, likely to find it difficult to respond in ways that preserves itself. Democratic regimes are often reluctant to use force against their own population. And, even when they do so, they are not as likely to be as brutally decisive and potent as a dictator who is not constrained by the rule of law or popular opinion. That, we all think, is to the good. But in our preference for benign government, we should not assume that a good government is always the most stable government.

Mundt, 97 [Robert, author on history studies, “Is Democray Stable? Compared to What?” 1997, http://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htm] STRYKER

Contemporary doubts about democracy follow the long tradition of pre-modern political though Democratic regimes allow for the expression of the range of views held by the members of a political community. And it has often been held that, in a number of ways, this makes government difficult. For one thing, the people are likely to be resistant to the demands of government, and especially, to taxes and military service. But effective government requires that governments pay their bills and mobilize armies. Critics of democracy suppose that monarchs and aristocrats be better able to grasp and deal with these necessities of politics people are likely to be divided about the proper direction of government. This leads to two possible problems. If political circumstances allow one group and then another to triumph over another, a government might adopt a series of radical changes in direction under unfavorable conditions, these regimes will, it is held, be unable either to protect themselves or serve the common good. The result, then, is likely to be dissatisfaction, dissent and, eventually instability a good government is always the most stable government.

And, Democracies are unstable---free expression leads to collapse

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Recent trends suggesting the erosion of democracy in Latin America have led some observers to warn of a possible authoritarian resurgence in the region. They fear that the economic crisis in some countries is undermining democratic regimes.¶ Based on our study of 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia after World War II, such fears are unnecessary. Democracies are far more resilient than authoritarian regimes in the face of economic adversity. It is not the democrats but the dictators who should fear for their survival when an economic crisis hits. A case in point is the Asian financial crash of 1997, which brought down the Suharto regime that had ruled Indonesia for more than 30 years. In South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines, however, democracies survived the crisis intact.¶ Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong. In 46, or half, of the cases we studied, the crisis produced neither a change of government nor a change of a regime (system of government). In 17 cases, it led to a change of government but not of regime. With one exception, all of these changes took place in democratic states as a result of elections, no-confidence votes or resignations. Such changes do not destabilize the political system and seldom lead to an outbreak of violence.¶ Economic crisis caused regime collapses in 30, or about one-third, of the cases, mostly through a gradual process. Immediate collapse is rare — only six regime collapses (three of which took place in Ecuador) were observed within nine months of the outbreak of the crisis. Among the fallen were 15 dictatorships, 10 democracies and five semidemocracies — regimes that rely on coercion to maintain power despite having formal democratic institutions.¶ The 10 cases of collapsed democracies suggest that political factors, rather than purely economic ones, contributed to the breakdown. In fact, the severity of economic crisis (measured in terms of inflation and negative growth) bore no relationship to the collapse. Political variables, however, such as ideological polarization, labor radicalism, guerrilla insurgencies and an anti-Communist military, played a more direct role in the demise of democracy in developing countries.¶ The most striking and heartening finding is that democracies may have grown more resilient over time. Since 1980, only one democracy — Peru — has fallen in the midst of crises. Of the 23 economic crises that struck democracies in Latin America and Asia after 1980, 10 had no serious political effects while only 12 led to constitutional changes of government. In economic terms, many of these crises were more severe than those that claimed democratic regimes in the same countries in the 1960s and 1970s.¶ Argentina is a case in point. Since its transition in 1983, the Argentine democracy has weathered hyperinflation and deep recession — in sharp contrast to the repeated collapse of democracy when Argentina experienced less devastating crises during the Cold War.¶ The source of democracies' resilience is their institutional capacity to enforce political accountability, via elections or confidence votes. Governments fall, but democracy survives as a system of government.¶

Pei and Adesnik 2000 (Minxin and Ariel, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Mr. Adesnik is a junior fellow there, "Democracies Grow More Resilient to Economic Crisis, New York Times, 3/4/2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/opinion/04iht-edpei.2.t.html) Han

Recent trends suggesting the erosion of democracy in Latin America have led some observers to warn of a possible authoritarian resurgence in the region. They fear that the economic crisis in some countries is undermining democratic regimes. Based on our study of 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia after World War II, such fears are unnecessary. Democracies are far more resilient than authoritarian regimes in the face of economic adversity. In South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines, however, democracies survived the crisis intact. half, of the cases the crisis produced neither a change of government nor a change of a regime changes do not destabilize the political system and seldom lead to an outbreak of violence. Economic crisis caused regime collapses in bout one-third, of the cases, mostly through a gradual process. Immediate collapse is rare the severity of economic crisis (measured in terms of inflation and negative growth) bore no relationship to the collapse. Political variables, however, such as ideological polarization, labor radicalism, guerrilla insurgencies and an anti-Communist military, played a more direct role in the demise of democracy in developing countries. democracies may have grown more resilient over time. Governments fall, but democracy survives as a system of government.

And, No democratic backslide---democracies grow more resilient in economic crises

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

In politics and political science alike, awareness is growing about the increasing international influence of authoritarian regimes. The primary focus of attention has been the neighbor ‐ hood policies of Russia’s post ‐ Soviet regime as well as China’s international political and economic activities. The controversy about a “reverse wave” of democratization, the expan ‐ sion of nondemocratic rule (Merkel 2010; Puddington 2008, 2009) and the earlier “backlash against democracy promotion” (Carothers 2006, 2009) reflects these trends. More recently, scholarly attention has turned away from the international dimension of democratization to address the international dimension of authoritarian regimes. This new interest drew authors from two strands. First, scholars formerly interested in processes of democratization took notice of the authoritarian rollback that reversed many efforts of de ‐ mocracy promotion (Burnell and Schlumberger 2010; Burnell 2011). Second, scholars previ ‐ ously interested in the stability and durability of authoritarian regimes became increasingly aware of the importance of international factors (Art 2012: 201). Some of the literature main ‐ tains a democratizing perspective insofar as it asks how and why some nondemocratic re ‐ gimes were able to fend off international diffusion of or even pressure for democracy (Levitsky and Way 2010; Weyland 2010). However, the strand of research that does not approach the issue from the angle of democratization still needs to develop a comprehensive conceptual approach. The issue goes well beyond the particular antidemocratic “leverage” of authoritarian powers, such as Russia’s counterinfluence on the color revolutions in its neighborhood. Au ‐ thoritarian regimes collaborate in various ways: — They provide each other with ideational and material support; — They protect each other on the international level – for example, through vetoes in the UN Security Council; — They help each other in military ‐ and security ‐ related issues; — They learn from each other in how to deal with opposition and how to build a solid polit ‐ ical party; — They exchange ideas on the design of development strategies; — And they provide each other with direct personal advice on how to cope with insurgent forces and how to control Internet usage. While it is obvious that authoritarian regimes use multiple forms of international coopera ‐ tion to reinforce their rule, the existing literature pays scant attention to these phenomena.

Erdmann et al, 13 [Dr. Gero Erdmann is head of Research Program 1 “Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems” and lead research fellow at the GIGA Institute of African Studies, André Bank is a research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies, Dr. Bert Hoffmann is acting director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, Dr. Thomas Richter is a senior research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies, “International Cooperation of Authoritarian Regimes: Toward a Conceptual Framework,” 7/2013, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp229_erdmann-bank-hoffmann-richter.pdf] STRYKER

awareness is growing about the increasing international influence of authoritarian regimes “reverse wave” of democratization, the expan ‐ sion of nondemocratic rule and the earlier “backlash against democracy promotion” reflects these trends authoritarian rollback that reversed many efforts of de ‐ mocracy promotion Second, scholars previ ‐ ously interested in the stability and durability of authoritarian regimes became increasingly aware of the importance of international factors nondemocratic re ‐ gimes were able to fend off international diffusion of or even pressure for democracy Au ‐ thoritarian regimes collaborate in various ways provide ideational and material support protec on the international level help in military authoritarian regimes use multiple forms of international coopera ‐ tion

And, Democracy collapse doesn’t lead to extinction---authoritarian regimes cooperate to solve the same problems

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Since the earliest times, the control of leaders which led to the oppression of the people has been demonstrated. The concept of authoritarianism developed throughout history wherein people in various societies lived under the authority of scrupulous people. Even English monarchs in the 15th and 16th century, when the printing press was realized, compelled restrictive censorship on publishers through a series of limitations such as licensing, taxation, and seditious libel. Actually, these forms of limitations are not bad at all because these serve as gatekeepers for some irresponsible printed materials.

Rahib Raza 12, columnist at The Express Tribune http://rahib-raza.blogspot.com/2012/10/normative-theory-authoritarian-theory.html, 10-29,12 Shah

Since the earliest times, the control of leaders which led to the oppression of the people has been demonstrated. these forms of limitations are not bad at all because these serve as gatekeepers for some irresponsible printed materials.

And, Authoritarianism isn’t bad---limitations are good

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The empirical study of democratic regimes in the last fifty years has focused on the question of what makes for stable democracies.[1] Various hypotheses have been put forward and tested about the social and political conditions under which democratic regimes come to be or to endure. A presupposition of most of this research is that democratic regimes are particularly fragile. The supposition that democracies are fragile probably has a number of sources. The frightening experience of the descent of European democracies into fascism and communism is perhaps the most important. But we can also find support for this presupposition in the evident fragility of democratic regimes in the less developed world. And, standing behind these events, is the long standing tradition in political philosophy—and especially, in pre-modern political thought—of disparaging democracy and warning that it is likely to lead to tyranny.

Mundt, 97 [Robert, author on history studies, “Is Democray Stable? Compared to What?” 1997, http://www.stier.net/writing/demstab/stability.htm] STRYKER

empirical study of democratic regimes in the last fifty years has focused on the question of what makes for stable democracies democratic regimes are particularly fragile The supposition that democracies are fragile probably has a number of sources. The frightening experience of the descent of European democracies into fascism and communism is perhaps the most important we can also find support for this presupposition in the evident fragility of democratic regimes in the less developed world. And, standing behind these events, is the long standing tradition in political philosophy—and especially, in pre-modern political thought—of disparaging democracy and warning that it is likely to lead to tyranny.

Democracy will inevitably collapse---it is inherently unstable

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

You don’t have to be a C-SPAN junkie to see that our government is just plain broken. You get the feeling that more substantial work gets accomplished at a high school’s model UN. But what if it’s not just government that’s broken? What if democracy itself doesn’t work? After watching “Jaywalking,” or, God help us all, an episode of “Jersey Shore,” it’s hard to argue that We the People are best equipped to make the important decisions of state. As Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Maybe the problem with government these days is simply that we Americans (and that includes many of those in power) don’t know enough to make the best choice. To see just how sensible we as a people are, let’s look at some times we’ve been given a chance to be heard:

Tucker, 10 [Reed, contributor to NYPost, “When Democracy fails,” 2/14/10, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_democracy_fails_LHBo3rZ6u43hQfgpULEZ7L] STRYKER

our government is just plain broken democracy itself doesn’t work it’s hard to argue that We the People are best equipped to make the important decisions of state. As Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” the problem with government these days is simply that we Americans don’t know enough to make the best choice

Democracy is fundamentally flawed---the average voter doesn’t know what’s best

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The recent coups in the Maldives and Mali against democratically elected leaders, and the continuing political struggles in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya following the Arab Spring, are potent reminders that democracy is a fragile institution. In fact, of the 120 attempts at democratization that have occurred around the world since 1960, nearly half have been reversed at some point. The reasons for democratic failure, however, are surprising. In our book, The Fate of Young Democracies, Nathan Converse and I found that democracies do not fail for the reasons commonly supposed. They do not generally fail, for example, because of poor economic performance. In fact, the democracies that are overthrown have, on average, higher growth rates than those that are sustained over long periods of time. Some recent examples of fast growing democracies that have reversed include Russia, Venezuela, and Thailand. Nor do democracies reverse while undergoing the process of economic reform. To the contrary, reforms like trade liberalization and privatization tend to support the democratic process, as they bring forth entrepreneurs who provide a bulwark against an authoritarian backlash. Finally, democracies are no more likely to be sustained by adopting parliamentary instead of presidential institutions. Though parliamentary forms of government are often said to help prevent power grabs by the executive branch, prime ministers have proved to be very adept at commanding power—think of Vladimir Putin—and parliaments are often weak and sharply divided, thus incapable of exercising authority. Why, then, do democracies fail? Our study identified several common factors. First, young democracies are often weakened by extreme levels of income inequality. Rising income inequality indicates a dysfunctional democratic state in which economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, rather than one in which economic opportunities are widely shared and diffused. Second, young democracies that are unable to constrain the executive branch of power—whether presidential or parliamentary—will find it difficult to sustain participatory forms of government. The usual red flags here are changes—or attempts to change—the constitution, particularly with respect to term limits and electoral cycles. Among the leaders who have threatened their democracies in this way are Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Eduardo Correa in Ecuador. Third, democratic states that are ethnically fragmented face severe challenges of institution building they may be unable to overcome. Such societies are often characterized by “insider”-“outsider” tensions that are not easily resolved. As the “insiders”—the ethnically dominant group—centralize political power, the “outsiders” may find they have no alternative but to try and overthrow the regime. Fourth, newly democratic states that do not provide adequate supplies of “public goods” like health care and education are unlikely to succeed. In crucial respects, democracy as a regime type is justified by its ability to deliver public goods to a broad spectrum of citizens, and not just to an elite. If democracies are unable or unwilling to meet these demands, their very raison d’etre may be called into question.

Kapstein, 12 [Ethan, visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development with expertise in airer trade; inequality and growth; political economy, “Why Democracies Fail: Lessons from Mali?” 3/29/12, http://www.cgdev.org/blog/why-democracies-fail-lessons-mali] STRYKER

The recent coups in the Maldives and Mali against democratically elected leaders, and the continuing political struggles in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya following the Arab Spring, are potent reminders that democracy is a fragile institution of the 120 attempts at democratization that have occurred around the world since 1960, nearly half have been reversed at some poin First, young democracies are often weakened by extreme levels of income inequality. Rising income inequality indicates a dysfunctional democratic state in which economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, rather than one in which economic opportunities are widely shared and diffused. Second, young democracies that are unable to constrain the executive branch of power Among the leaders who have threatened their democracies in this way are Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Eduardo Correa in Ecuador. Third, democratic states that are ethnically fragmented face severe challenges of institution building they may be unable to overcome. Such societies are often characterized by “insider”-“outsider” tensions Fourth, newly democratic states that do not provide adequate supplies of “public goods” like health care and education are unlikely to succeed.

Democracies are unstable---several reasons

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

JUST a quarter-century ago, and for millenniums before that, the Arctic Ocean was covered year-round by ice, creating an impregnable wilderness that humans rarely negotiated. Today, as the effects of global warming are amplified in the high north, most of the ocean is open water during the summer and covered by ice only in the winter. This unexpected transformation has radically altered the stakes for the Arctic, especially for the eight nations and indigenous peoples that surround it. But while there has been cooperation on extracting the region’s oil, gas and mineral deposits, and exploiting its fisheries, there has been little effort to develop legal mechanisms to prevent or adjudicate conflict. The potential for such conflict is high, even though tensions are now low. Several countries, along with corporations like ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, are preparing to exploit the region’s enormous oil and natural gas reserves. New shipping routes will compete with the Panama and Suez Canals. Vast fisheries are being opened to commercial harvesting, without regulation. Coastal areas that are home to indigenous communities are eroding into the sea. China and the European Union are among non-Arctic governments rushing to assert their interests in the region. Some states have increased military personnel and equipment there. The most fundamental challenge for the Arctic states is to promote cooperation and prevent conflict. Both are essential, but a forum for achieving those goals does not yet exist. In 1996, eight countries — the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark (which manages the foreign affairs and defense of Greenland) — and groups representing indigenous peoples established the Arctic Council to chart the region’s future. So far, this high-level forum has identified sustainable development and environmental protection as “common Arctic issues.” But another crucial concern — maintaining the peace — was shelved in the talks that led to the council’s creation. The fear then, as now, was that peace implied demilitarization. It doesn’t. But if these nations are still too timid to discuss peace in the region when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate to ease conflicts if they arise? Since 2006, each of the Arctic nations has adopted its own security policy to safeguard its sovereign rights. What they must do now is compare their separate security policies, identify the ways in which those policies reinforce or conflict with one another, and then balance national interests with common interests. How, for instance, will each nation position its military and police its territory? How will the Arctic states deal with China and other nations that have no formal jurisdictional claims but have strong interests in exploiting Arctic resources? How will Arctic and non-Arctic states work together to manage those resources beyond national jurisdictions, on the high seas and in the deep sea? Without ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea, a 1982 treaty governing use of the world’s oceans, how can the United States cooperate with other nations to resolve territorial disputes in the ocean? NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict” if the world’s leaders failed to ensure Arctic peace. Whether it is through the Arctic Council or another entity, there needs to be a forum for discussing peace and stability, not just environmental and economic issues. We need “rules of the road” to take us safely into the Arctic’s future. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whose economy is reliant on its rich deposits of oil and natural gas, clearly understands the benefits of a northern sea route and of the hydrocarbon deposits on his nation’s continental shelf, and has emphasized the importance of peace and cooperation in the Arctic. So have leaders of other Arctic nations. But we have heard virtually nothing from President Obama, even as he has made the dangers of a warming earth a priority of his second term. At an Arctic Council meeting in Tromso, Norway, last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state, said “the world increasingly looks to the North” but did not go much further. She called for “responsible management of resources” and efforts “to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change.” As the head of an Arctic superpower and a Nobel laureate, Mr. Obama should convene an international meeting with President Putin and other leaders of Arctic nations to ensure that economic development at the top of the world is not only sustainable, but peaceful

Berkman 3/12 [Paul Arthur Berkman a biological oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of “Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean: Promoting Co-operation and Preventing Conflict.” March 12, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/preventing-an-arctic-cold-war.html?_r=0 accessed on August 1, 2013] JAKE LEE

the Arctic Ocean was covered year-round by ice, creating an impregnable wilderness that humans rarely negotiated. Today, as the effects of global warming are amplified in the high north, most of the ocean is open water during the summer and covered by ice only in the winter. Several countries, along with corporations like ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, are preparing to exploit the region’s enormous oil and natural gas reserves. New shipping routes will compete with the Panama and Suez Canals. Vast fisheries are being opened to commercial harvesting, without regulation. Coastal areas that are home to indigenous communities are eroding into the sea. The most fundamental challenge for the Arctic states is to promote cooperation and prevent conflict. eight countries — the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark (which manages the foreign affairs and defense of Greenland) — and groups representing indigenous peoples established the Arctic Council to chart the region’s future. So far, this high-level forum has identified sustainable development and environmental protection as “common Arctic issues maintaining the peace — was shelved in the talks that led to the council’s creation. how can the United States cooperate with other nations to resolve territorial disputes in the ocean? NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whose economy is reliant on its rich deposits of oil and natural gas, clearly understands the benefits of a northern sea route and of the hydrocarbon deposits on his nation’s continental shelf, and has emphasized the importance of peace and cooperation in the Arctic. So have leaders of other Arctic nations. But we have heard virtually nothing from President Obama, even as he has made the dangers of a warming earth a priority of his second term. At an Arctic Council meeting in Tromso As the head of an Arctic superpower and a Nobel laureate, Mr. Obama should convene an international meeting with President Putin and other leaders of Arctic nations to ensure that economic development at the top of the world is not only sustainable, but peaceful

First, - No chance of Arctic Conflict- Countries are maintaining peace in the region now

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Against the background of the changes in the Arctic, this region is occasionally identified as a potential area of future conflict. However, it is important first to point out that there is much scope for cooperation. This is particularly apparent when considering “soft” security concerns such as environmental pollution resulting from the extraction of raw materials. The threats that arise for humans from the exceptional climatic situations are pushing actors towards cooperative approaches, too. Many of these issues are taken on by the Arctic Council. Founded in 1996, the Council is a forum to promote coordination among the eight Arctic countries. Representatives of indigenous peoples have a consultative role. One concrete result of the Arctic Council is a binding agreement on maritime search and rescue activities. For 2013, an agreement on standards for oil spill preparedness and response is expected, which will reinforce the current non-binding offshore oil and gas guidelines. Cooperation among the littoral states is also advancing in the sensitive area of national sovereign rights. The 2010 border treaty between Russia and Norway indicates that bilateral agreements are possible – even though the power asymmetry between the two countries is reflected in a deal advantageous to Russia. International maritime law and the pressure of non-Arctic countries are also fostering multilateral cooperation, at least in areas where all parties can still gain further sovereign rights. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows for the extension of the continental shelf towards the North Pole, which would extend the mining privileges of the coastal states at the expense of the interests of non-Arctic states. The water column and the animals living in it, by contrast, would continue to enjoy international status. In the Ilulissat Declaration adopted in 2008, the coastal states declared their intention to settle any territorial conflicts within the framework of UNCLO S. By signing the declaration, the US – which has not ratified UNCLO S – has signalled its willingness to observe it within the Arctic. What is more, the coastal states have been collaborating for a long time in the exploration of the sea bed. Provided that there are no major conflicts among these countries, non- Arctic players will hardly be able to assert themselves in this context. Potential for conflict The scope of sovereign rights in the maritime area around the Svalbard archipelago, believed to be rich in oil and gas, is a question that is not easy to resolve. On the one hand, the archipelago and the surrounding 200-mile zone are an undisputed part of Norwegian territory. On the other hand, Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago is substantially limited by the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. All 40 signatory countries have the right to exploit natural resources and to conduct research. The treaty also states that the archipelago must not be used for offensive military purposes. Likewise, the right to levy taxes is limited to the administrative requirements of Svalbard. It was only later under UNCLO S that the EEZ emerged as an institution. Hence, it remains unclear whether the Svalbard Treaty also applies to this zone. Countries such as Russia, Iceland, and the UK assume this to be the case. Norway takes the opposite view. Nevertheless, Oslo has not declared a full EEZ in this area, but established a fisheries protection zone instead. It concedes fishing privileges to Russia, Iceland, and other nations. This has never been explicitly acknowledged by these countries, but is usually accepted in practice. The modus vivendi has so far provided stability as it has served Russian interests too, with the fisheries protection zone granting privileges to Russian fishing interests over other signatory states. Moreover, Russia has sufficient oil and gas reserves at its disposal on its own territory. Norway, by contrast, has a strong interest in opening up the area for oil and gas exploration. Such an opening, however, would undermine the current fragile balance and encourage other signatory states to question openly the scope of the Treaty. Even if Norway were to take no action, other nations could try to push for an opening of the area for exploration with reference to the Treaty. Due to the variety of the players concerned and the absence of international rules, the issue can ultimately only be resolved at a political level. Interests and positions diverge concerning the issue of sovereignty over the new sea routes as well. Again, even the Arctic coastal states do not agree on the legal status: Russia and Canada regard the routes as internal waterways in what is a very broad interpretation of UNCLO S. This implies that ships flying foreign flags must request permission for transit. Other coastal nations, such as the US, and non-Arctic players like the EU and presumably China, however, consider these to be international waterways for which no authorisation for transit is necessary. For the time being, no escalation of this conflict is to be expected, since the commercial navigation routes are competing with non-Arctic sea routes and the use of these routes will correlate with the extent of their opening and the stability of the agreed arrangements. In addition, Russia and Canada depend on the cooperation of foreign non-state and state-owned players in order to attract investments in their inadequate coastal infrastructures. Also, the International Maritime Organisation is working on a binding Polar Code, which will establish clear rules for polar navigation. This will weaken the case for additional national regulations and approval procedures.

Grätz 12 [Jonas Grätz for Center for Security Studies (CSS) “The Arctic: Thaw With Conflict Potential” July 2012 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?id=157901&contextid774=157901&contextid775=157922 accessed on August 1, 2013] JAKE LEE

the background in the Arctic this region is occasionally identified as a potential area of future conflict it is important first to point out that there is much scope for cooperation. Many of these issues are taken on by the Arctic Council. Founded in 1996, the Council is a forum to promote coordination among the eight Arctic countries. Representatives of indigenous peoples have a consultative role. One concrete result of the Arctic Council is a binding agreement on maritime search The 2010 border treaty between Russia and Norway indicates that bilateral agreements are possible – even though the power asymmetry between the two countries non-Arctic countries are also fostering multilateral cooperation, at least in areas where all parties can still gain further sovereign rights. The (UNCLOS the coastal states declared their intention to settle any territorial conflicts Provided that there are no major conflicts among these countries The scope of sovereign rights in the maritime area around the Svalbard archipelago Russia, Iceland, and other nations. This has never been explicitly acknowledged by these countries, but is usually accepted in Russia has sufficient oil and gas reserves at its disposal on its own territory. Norway, by contrast, has a strong interest in opening up the area for oil and gas exploration. Russia and Canada regard the routes as internal waterways in what is a very broad interpretation of UNCLO S. This implies that ships flying foreign flags must request permission for transit. Other coastal nations, such as the US, and non-Arctic players like the EU and presumably China, In addition, Russia and Canada depend on the cooperation of foreign non-state and state-owned players in order to attract investments in their inadequate coastal infrastructures. Also, the International Maritime Organisation is working on a binding Polar Code

Second, Zero chance of escalation- there are treaties made to prevent conflict

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The exaggerated fears of a coming Arctic war with Russia have largely receded since a media freakout last year. But that isn’t stopping Russia from building new bases in the frigid north. Canada is also splurging on Arctic drones. Less assertive is the United States, which is boosting Coast Guard operations near Alaska.¶ On Monday, Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev said Russia is planning to build a string of new naval bases in the Arctic. The bases are intended to be “key double-purpose sites” for warships “in remote areas of the Arctic Seas.” There’s no word on what those double purposes might be. Russia’s plans to create a “combined-arms force” for the Arctic is also still on track, according to Moscow-based news wire RIA Novosti.¶ The logic behind Russia’s Arctic bases is seductive. The thinking goes like this: As global warming causes the northern polar ice to recede — and one day disappear during the summer months — nations like Russia, Canada, Norway and the United States will scramble for the bountiful deposits of oil, gas and minerals hidden beneath, sparking an Arctic resource war. Oh, and a swarm of media reports — and even videogames — about a hypothetical war on the northern horizon.¶ But a war is exceedingly unlikely — because Russia would lose. For one, the United States has an overwhelming and decisive advantage in submarines. U.S. subs are more advanced, there are more of them, and their crews are better trained. It’s unlikely Arctic nations would also begin killing each other over low-key — and remote — territorial disputes.

Beckhusen 2012 (Robert, Staff writer for Wired on International Affairs, Wired, 8/9/12, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/arctic/ ) Okuno

The exaggerated fears of a coming Arctic war with Russia largely receded since a media freakout last year. Canada is also splurging on Arctic drones Russia is planning to build a string of new naval bases in the Arctic. The logic behind Russia’s Arctic bases is seductive. The thinking goes like this: As global warming causes the northern polar ice to recede — and one day disappear during the summer months — nations like Russia, Canada, Norway and the United States will scramble for the bountiful deposits of oil, gas and minerals hidden beneath Oh, and a swarm of media reports — and even videogames — about a hypothetical war on the northern horizon war is exceedingly unlikely — because Russia would lose. U S overwhelming and decisive advantage in submarines It’s unlikely begin killing over territorial disputes.

And, Zero Risk of Arctic Conflict – Just media hype

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the resource-rich region is overblown, say experts. For long a mystery because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry. Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil. The interest is reflected in the growing list of those wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region. While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada form the council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status. "The Arctic has become a new meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by far in the last years." He points to its red-carpet treatment of politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means greater shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in 2012. For a ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is connected to shipping. Russia is also keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways. According to Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there." And he believes the biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. "The biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said. This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict. But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert.

Mahony 3/19 [Honor Mahony is a staff writer for the EU observer “Fears of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'” March 19, 2013 http://euobserver.com/foreign/119479 accessed on August 3, 2013] JAKE LEE

The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the resource-rich region is overblown melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil . "The Arctic has become a new meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea According to Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. " This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict. But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert.

And, the melting of the polar ice means no conflict

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

War and conflict sell papers -- the prospect of war, current wars, remembrance of wars past. Accordingly, a growing cottage industry devotes itself to writing about the prospect of conflict among the Arctic nations and between those nations and non-Arctic states, which is mostly code for “China.” As a follower of Arctic news, I see this every day, all the time: eight articles last week, five more already this week from the Moscow Times, Scientific American or what-have-you. Sometimes this future conflict is portrayed as a political battle, sometimes military, but the portrayals of the states involved are cartoonish, Cold-War-ish...it’s all good guys and bad guys.¶ I’m convinced that this is nonsense, and I feel vindicated when I see the extent to which these countries' militaries collaborate in the high North. From last week's meeting of all eight Arctic nations' military top brass (excepting only the US; we were represented by General Charles Jacoby, head of NORAD and USNORTHCOM) to Russia-Norway collaboration on search & rescue; from US-Canada joint military exercises to US-Russia shared research in the Barents...no matter where you look, the arc of this relationship bends towards cooperation.¶ But there's a bigger misconception that underlies the predictions of future Arctic conflict that we read every week. This is the (usually) unspoken assumption that the governments of these states are capable of acting quickly, unilaterally and secretly to pursue their interests in the Arctic. False.¶ This idea that some state might manage a political or military smash-and-grab while the rest of us are busy clipping our fingernails or walking the dog is ridiculous. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the governments of the Arctic states are, like most massive organizations, bureaucratic messes. Infighting between federal agencies is rampant all around, as are political shoving matches between federal and state/provincial/regional governments. Money is still scarce, and chatter about military activism isn’t backed up by much: Canada is engaged in a sad debate over the downgrading of the proposed Nanisivik port; the United States’ icebreaker fleet is barely worth mentioning and shows little sign of new life in the near-term future; US Air Force assets are being moved 300+ miles south from Fairbanks to Anchorage; and Russia’s talk about a greater Arctic presence has been greatly inflated for the sake of the recent elections. In a more general sense, we have viciously polarized governments in the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada, as well as numerous “hotter” wars elsewhere that will take the lion’s share of our blood and treasure before the Arctic gets a drop of either.

Fries 2012 (Tom, , 4/18/12, The Arctic Institute, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/04/perspective-correction-how-we.html ) Okuno

War and conflict sell papers the prospect of war, current wars, remembrance of wars past. conflict among the Arctic nations and between those nations and non-Arctic states, Sometimes this future conflict is portrayed as a political battle, sometimes military, but the portrayals of the states involved are cartoonish I’m convinced that this is nonsense, and I feel vindicated when I see the extent to which these countries' militaries collaborate in the high North. From last week's meeting of all eight Arctic nations' to Russia-Norway collaboration on search & rescue; from US-Canada joint military exercises to US-Russia shared research the arc of this relationship bends towards cooperation.¶ This is the unspoken assumption that the governments of these states are capable of acting quickly, unilaterally . False.¶ that some state might manage a political or military smash-and-grab while the rest of us are busy clipping our fingernails or walking the dog is ridiculous overwhelming evidence chatter about military activism isn’t backed up by much Russia’s talk about a greater Arctic presence we have viciously polarized governments in the US

No Arctic Conflict – all signs point towards cooperation

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

New technologies and climate change have significantly raised the profile of Arctic resources for the global economy. According to the Economist, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Many experts quoting Alfred T. Mahan’s work «The Influence of Sea Power Upon History» agree that seaborne commerce in the High North will become an important geopolitical factor over the next several decades. Prospects of political dominance in the Arctic provoke heated debates sometimes overdramatised by the media. But realpolitik dictates that all states concerned should rely on existing legal and institutional framework enabling peaceful cooperation.¶ Looking beyond the media hype we should admit that political tension in the Arctic is low today. Nevertheless, business competition may create challenges in the future. Luckily the Arcitc Council has already established all necessary mechanisms to deliver credible and balanced regional management. If we want to understand the Arctic better, the situation analysis should cover three important areas: military aspects, legal environment and energy policy.¶ Speaking about power politics the U.S. military planners currently consider the Arctic to be «an area of low conflict». Swedish experts agree with American conclusions. Background paper «Military Capabilities in the Arctic» (SIPRI, 2012) says, that power projection into the Arctic in 2010-2011 was very limited. The Arctic states maintain military presence in the region only to patrol and protect sovereign territories. There is no sign of military standoff along the borders - the situation is stable and predictable. Therefore any extension of NATO’s engagement in the Arctic is counterproductive, because it could renew tensions nonexistant since the end of the Cold War. As the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it in 2011, «there is no reason for drawing NATO into Arctic affairs». The Arctic is a zone of peace now and should remain so.¶ From the legal point of view the status of the Arctic is already specified in the provisions of the international law. The Arctic Council and the Ilulissat Declaration (Greenland, 2008) provide a solid institutional and legal foundation for responsible management of the Arctic by the five coastal states. Under the Ilulissat declaration any demarcation issues in the Arctic should be resolved on a bilateral basis between contesting parties. Besides, all members of the Arctic Council except the U.S. ratified an important treaty - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Norway and Denmark also made an official submission into the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Russia's final claim to a portion of the Arctic shelf would be filed with the Comission by December 2013, according to Arthur Tchilingarov, the veteran explorer who led the expedition to plant a Russian flag on the seabed at the North Pole in 2007.

Alexeev 2/20 (Igor, Russian reporter, blogger, and journalist for the Strategic Culture Foundation specializing in oil and gas politics, 2/20/13, Strategic Culture Foundation, http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/02/20/economic-cooperation-prevents-conflict-interests-in-arctic.html ) Okuno

New tech climate change have significantly raised the profile of Arctic resources for the global economy will become an important geopolitical factor over the next several decades. heated debates sometimes overdramatised by the media realpolitik dictates that all states concerned should rely on existing legal and institutional framework enabling peaceful cooperation.¶ we should admit that political tension in the Arctic is low today military aspects, legal environment and energy policy. currently consider the Arctic to be «an area of low conflict». There is no sign of military standoff along the borders of NATO’s engagement could renew tensions nonexistant since the end of the Cold War The Arctic is a zone of peace the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Russia's final claim to a portion of the Arctic shelf would be filed with the Comission by December 2013,

Peaceful cooperation in arctic now – economic cooperation

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The territories of the Arctic zone are already divided and should not be a subject of dispute, Russia's special envoy and representative in the Arctic Council, Anton Vasilyev, said in an interview with Interfax. The Russian diplomat said there have been no conflicts involving territorial boundaries in the Arctic. "Concerning the continental shelf, no overlapping bids have been involved thus far,” Vasilyev said. “Russia filed its bid in 2001 and is gathering additional scientific proof to support it. We have done enormous work in this connection.” In May 2007, Russian explorers traveled to the floor of the Arctic and planted a Russian flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the North Pole in an effort to prove that an underwater area, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, was an extension of its continental territory. Russia’s successful mission sparked something of a gold rush in the region, which is thought to contain oil, gas and mineral reserves. “We are playing by the rules and we are working in the institutions, specially set up for this purpose,” Vasilyev, who spoke at the Arctic Future Symposium, organized by the International Polar Foundation jointly with the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, told Interfax. “We can see that our partners are doing the same." The Arctic resources already prospected lie 95-97 percent within the zone of the Arctic states' sovereign rights, he added. Norway's additional bid got the backing from the UN Continental Shelf Commission in 2009, while Canada and Denmark could file their additional bids, too, he said. "It is a normal process and these countries are working to provide substantiation for their bids," Vasilyev said. The Russian special envoy then spoke about the difficulties of proving claims so far below one of the coldest places on Earth. "Contrary to some media reports and unconscientiously written commentaries, there is no conflict between the countries that have filed their bids for the continental shelf already, or will probably do so, because according to the rules all of us abide by, we are to prove the same thing,” he said. “Our proof and the proof to be provided by our partners, involves an enormous amount of work, including the gathering of scientific evidence which lies in the realm of logic and natural sciences – physics, geology, etc." "But most important, the members of the Arctic Five – Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the United States – have established a dialogue and we exchange data and inform each other of the progress made in gathering additional proof to back our bids or in preparing new ones,” he said.

RT 11 [News source for Russian Politics “Arctic not zone of interstate conflicts - Russian diplomat” October 13, 2011 http://rt.com/politics/arctic-russia-reserves-rights-785/ accessed on August 1, 2013] JAKE LEE

The territories of the Arctic zone are already divided The Russian diplomat said there have been no conflicts involving territorial boundaries in the Arctic Russian explorers traveled to the floor of the Arctic and planted a Russian flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the North Pole in an effort to prove that an underwater area Russia’s successful mission sparked something of a gold rush in the region, which is thought to contain oil, gas and mineral reserves We are playing by the rules and we are working in the institutions We can see that our partners are doing the same." The Arctic resources already prospected lie 95-97 percent within the zone of the Arctic states' sovereign rights, he added. Norway's additional bid got the backing from the UN Continental Shelf Commission in 2009, while Canada and Denmark could file their additional bids, too there is no conflict between the countries that have filed their bids for the continental shelf already, or will probably do so, because according to the rules all of us abide by, we are to prove the same thing,” he said. “Our proof and the proof to be provided by our partners, But most important, the members of the Arctic Five – Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the United States

No risk of Arctic Conflict- Boundaries have been set up and no one has attacked anyone

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there first. That is completely false," he said.¶ He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region," with international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles off their coast.¶ On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every value in the water and under the seabed."¶ "Up to 97 percent of energy resources is actually belonging to someone already," says Wang.¶ He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment, which requires stable politics and security.¶ But he concedes there are "risk factors." These include "ambiguous communication" (so that there is an impression of a security conflict), and possible fishing wars as fish stocks move further north because of rising temperatures into areas with no fishing rules.¶ A fall-out in relations between the China and the US could also impact the Arctic region but the "Arctic itself will not create conflict."¶ As for the EU, it has been seeking to gain a foothold in the region. It spends millions of euros each year on research, environmental and social programmes in the Arctic area.

Mahoney 3/18 (Honor, is editor of the EU observer in Brussels and has also written for The Irish Times, Sunday Business Post and Spiegel Online., 3/18/13, EU Observer, http://euobserver.com/foreign/119479 ) Okuno

is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up it is an "extremely well-regulated region international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone " He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment, which requires stable politics and security. Arctic itself will not create conflict." As for the EU, it has been seeking to gain a foothold in the region. It spends millions of euros each year on research, environmental and social programmes in the Arctic area.

Zero chance of conflict – area is well-regulated

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

With global demand for energy resources surging, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed hopes that there will never be a “war for resources” – or an even “hotter” conflict – in the Arctic Region.¶ Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban expressed confidence that no such conflict over resources would ever take place.¶ "We are trying to fight for the Arctic shelf, but in light of recent events involving the Shtokman field, [other sources of fuel] will prevail," Gorban told Interfax on Wednesday. ¶ Gazprom announced last month that its foreign partners were withdrawing from the Shtokman project due to cost concerns. Other reasons for the pullout include the shale gas revolution in the United States, which had been viewed as a primary export market for Shtokman.¶ Foreign companies like Total claimed that the project has not been canceled, but simply postponed.¶ Russia has been a pioneer in the research and development of Arctic fuel sources. In 2007, a Russian expeditionary team made a daring 4,000-meter descent to the seabed of the Arctic Ocean – a historic first. The expedition aimed to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Russia's landmass.¶ If Russia’s claims are validated, the find will increase the nation's claims on the continental shelf by 1.2 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles). This area is said to hold some nine or ten trillion tons of hydrocarbon reserves.¶ There are five Arctic-bordering countries that have laid claim to the vast deposits of natural resources deep below the region’s frigid waters: Russia, the United States (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland).¶ The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives each nation a ten-year period to register a claim to their portion of the continental shelf. If valid, each country would have exclusive rights to resources on or below their area’s seabed.

RT 2012 (News source for Russian Politics, 9/12/12, “Race for Arctic Resources Shouldn’t Spark New Cold War”, http://rt.com/politics/arctic-resources-russia-gas-972/ ) Okuno

With global demand for energy resources surging expressed hopes that there will never be a “war for resources or an even “hotter” conflict confidence that no such conflict over resources would ever take place. in light of recent events involving the Shtokman field, will prevail its foreign partners were withdrawing from the Shtokman project due to cost concerns Other reasons for the pullout include the shale gas revolution in the United States, If Russia’s claims are validated, the find will increase the nation's claims on the continental shelf by 1.2 million square kilometers There are five Arctic-bordering countries that have laid claim to the vast deposits of natural resources deep below the region’s frigid waters: If valid, each country would have exclusive rights to resources on or below their area’s seabed

There would never be an Arctic Conflict – well-regulated

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the U.S. and Russia, but the Russian Duma has refused to ratify it. However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than lead to war.¶ And there was the seabed boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea, which led Norway to double the size of its navy over the past decade. But last year the two countries signed a deal dividing the disputed area and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between NATO and the Russian Federation.¶ Which leaves the fish, and it’s hard to have a war over fish. If countries with Arctic coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an international body to regulate fishing.¶ And they will have to let other countries fish there too, with agreed catch limits.¶ So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the ice is melting. But that’s a problem for another day.

Dyer 2012 (Gwynn, Independent Journalist specializing in International Affairs, 8/2/12, The Sudbury Star, http://www.thesudburystar.com/2012/08/02/wars-unlikely-over-arctics-resources ) Okuno

there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the U.S. and Russia, However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than lead to war But last year the two countries signed a deal dividing the disputed area and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between NATO and the Russian Federation.¶ Which leaves the fish, and it’s hard to have a war over fish. they can only do so by creating an international body to regulate fishing. So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the ice is melting. But that’s a problem for another day.

No Arctic conflict– security measures

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Russian television contacted me the other night asking me to go on a program about the race for Arctic resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will be big strategic conflicts over the seabed resources — especially oil and gas — that become accessible when it’s gone. The media always love conflict, and now the Cold War is long gone, there’s no other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry about. Governments around the Arctic Ocean are beefing up armed forces for the coming struggle, so where are the flashpoints and what are the strategies? It’s great fun to speculate about possible wars. In the end I didn’t do the interview because the Skype didn’t work, so I didn’t get the chance to rain on their parade. But here’s what I would said to the Russians. There are three separate “resources” in the Arctic. On the surface, there are the sea lanes that are opening up to commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet’s last unfished ocean. The sea lanes are mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes the North-West Passage that weaves between Canada’s Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery. Practically every summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his determination to defend Canada’s Arctic sovereignty from — well, it’s not clear from exactly whom, but it’s a great photo op. Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water naval port and Arctic warfare training centre in the region, but it’s all much ado about nothing. The Arctic Ocean will increasingly be used as a shortcut between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, but the shipping will not go through Canadian waters. Russia’s “Northern Sea Route” will get the traffic, because it’s already open and much safer to navigate. Then there’s the hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic seabed, which the U.S. Geological Survey has forecast may contain almost one-fourth of the world’s remaining oil and gas resources. But from a military point of view, there’s only a problem if there is some disagreement about the seabed boundaries. There are only four areas where the boundaries are disputed. Two are between Canada and its eastern and western neighbours in Alaska and Greenland, but there is zero likelihood of a war between Canada and the United States or Denmark (which is responsible for Greenland’s defence). In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the United States and Russia, signed in the dying days of the Soviet Union, but the Russian Duma has refused to ratify it. However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than to lead to war. And then there was the seabed boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea, which led Norway to double the size of its navy over the past decade. But last year the two countries signed an agreement dividing the disputed area right down the middle and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. Which leaves the fish, and it’s hard to have a war over fish. The danger is rather that the world’s fishing fleets will crowd in and clean the fish out. If the countries with Arctic coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an international body to regulate the fishing. And they will have to let other countries fish there too, with agreed catch limits, since it is mostly international waters. They will be driven to co-operate, in their own interests. So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the fact that the ice IS melting, which will ultimately raise sea levels worldwide by seven metres. But that’s a problem for another day.

Dyer 12 [Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. “Sorry, generals: No war over the warming Arctic” August 4, 2012 http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2251611-sorry-generals-no-war-over-the-warming-arctic accessed on August 3, 2013] JAKE LEE

Arctic resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will be big strategic conflicts over the seabed resources — especially oil and gas — that become accessible when it’s gone. The media always love conflict, and now the Cold War is long gone, there’s no other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry about. where are the flashpoints and what are the strategies? It’s great fun to speculate about possible wars are three separate “resources” in the Arctic. On the surface, there are the sea lanes that are opening up to commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet’s last unfished ocean. The sea lanes are mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes the North-West Passage that weaves between Canada’s Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery. Practically every summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his determination to defend Canada’s Arctic sovereignty from — well, it’s not clear from exactly whom, but it’s a great photo op. Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water naval port Then there’s the hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic seabed, which the U.S. Geological Survey has forecast may contain almost one-fourth of the world’s remaining oil and gas resources ). In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the United States and Russia, signed in the dying days of the Soviet Union, but the Russian Duma has refused to ratify it However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter future investment in drilling there than to lead to war. And then there was the seabed boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea Which leaves the fish, and it’s hard to have a war over fish. The danger is rather that the world’s fishing fleets will crowd in and clean the fish out So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the fact that the ice IS melting, which will ultimately raise sea levels worldwide by seven metres. But that’s a problem for another day.

There will be no Arctic conflict- the ice is melting to fast

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Biological Weapons Biological weapons are toxic materials produced from pathogenic organisms (usually microbes) or artificially manufactured toxic substances that are used to intentionally interfere with the biological processes of a host. These substances work to kill or incapacitate the host. Biological weapons may be used to target living organisms such as humans, animals or vegetation. They may also be used to contaminate nonliving substances such as air, water and soil. There are a variety of microorganisms that can be used as biological weapons. Agents are commonly chosen because they are highly toxic, easily obtainable and inexpensive to produce, easily transferable from person to person, can be dispersed in aerosol form, or have no known vaccine. While it is possible to develop biological weapons from microbes, typically bacteria, finding a means of distributing the substances is difficult. One possible way is through aerosols. This can be ineffective as the materials often get clogged when spraying. Biological agents distributed by air may also be destroyed by UV light or rain may wash them away. Another method of distribution may be to attach the toxins to a bomb so that they may be released upon explosion. The problem with this is that the microbes will most likely be destroyed by the explosion as well.

Bailey 13 (Regina Bailey is an About.com Guide who holds a bachelor's degree in biology from Emory University, in Atlanta, Ga., Biological Weapons, http://biology.about.com/od/biotechnologycloning/a/biological-weapons.htm, Website last updated 2013) Deng

While it is possible to develop biological weapons from microbes finding a means of distributing the substances is difficult aerosols can be ineffective as the materials often get clogged when spraying agents distributed by air may also be destroyed by UV light or rain may wash them away Another method of distribution may be to attach the toxins to a bomb so they release upon explosion. The problem is that the microbes will be destroyed by the explosion

First, Bioweapons can’t spread – won’t cause epidemic

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Since 2001, a new sense of vulnerability to radiation, infectious diseases, toxins and chemical agents has generated significant research and development efforts to identify and produce innovative therapies and means to protect against threats that could be used as biological weapons. There is a growing need for products that protect the population against such agents of bioterrorism, as well as against emerging infectious diseases that could arise through natural epidemics. With very few exceptions, such products do not exist, and those that are available for current deployment are based on outdated and sometimes ineffective technologies. Many of these products will only be used in the event of an emergency. Products to combat biological warfare or bioterrorism will be supplied to the population from medicines stored in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). The federal government has previously established a special fund to acquire biological warfare countermeasures (termed Project Bioshield), which allocated $5.6 billion over a 10-year period to acquire products for the SNS. Realizing that many of these countermeasures do not yet exist, the US government has recently established the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). The existence of BARDA creates a situation in which products arising from research, primarily sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DoD), can be prioritized and then developed for large-scale manufacturing and clinical evaluation, and ultimately acquisition of the product for the SNS. Soligenix, Inc. is addressing the development of products and technologies that can be used to protect against several biological threats considered agents of bioterrorism, consistent with biological warfare threats and emerging diseases that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the NIH, has identified as high priorities. Soligenix is developing several potential products to prevent morbidity and mortality due to the threat of biological toxins for which preventive vaccination is the most feasible means to protect a susceptible population. This approach is being taken because the known mechanism of protection against toxin exposure is mediated through antibodies in the serum or present on mucosal surfaces that can be elicited by vaccination with subunit immunogens. Soligenix's process for product development of biodefense products is highly cooperative with government funding, since the government itself will be the final supplier of the products. Currently, Soligenix is operating under a $9.4 million grant award from NIAID, which will fund, over a five-year period, the development of formulation and manufacturing processes for vaccines, including RiVax™ (ricin toxin vaccine), and VeloThrax™ (anthrax vaccine) that are stable at elevated temperatures. The grant will also fund the development of improved thermostable adjuvants expected to result in rapidly acting vaccines that can be given with fewer injections over shorter intervals. In addition, Soligenix is expanding the range of applicability of its lead product, oral beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), referred to as OrbeShield™, for gastrointestinal Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS).

Soligenex 13 (Soligenex Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing products to treat inflammatory diseases and biodefense countermeasures, BioDefense and Emerging Diseases, http://www.soligenix.com/prod_def.shtml, Website last updated 2013) Deng

Since 2001 vulnerability has generated research and development efforts to protect against biological weapons Products to combat bioterrorism will be supplied from the US Strategic National Stockpile The government established a special fund to acquire biological warfare countermeasures (termed Project Bioshield which allocated $5.6 billion Soligenix, Inc. is addressing the development of products and technologies that can be used to protect against several biological threats considered agents of bioterrorism Soligenix is developing several potential products to prevent morbidity and mortality due to the threat of biological toxins for which preventive vaccination is the most feasible means to protect a susceptible population Soligenix's process for product development of biodefense products is highly cooperative with government funding, since the government itself will be the final supplier of the products. Currently, Soligenix is operating under a $9.4 million grant which will fund formulation and manufacturing processes for vaccines

And, bioweapon defense is getting better - solves the impact to an attack

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Since we published our 2011 forecast, bin Laden has been killed as well as senior al Qaeda leader Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who reportedly died in a strike by a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle Aug. 22 in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. We continue to believe that the al Qaeda core group is off balance and concerned for its security -- especially in light of the intelligence gathered in the raid on bin Laden's hideout. The core group simply does not enjoy the operational freedom it did prior to September 2001. We also believe the group no longer has the same operational capability in terms of international travel and the ability to transfer money that it had prior to 9/11. Some people believe there is a greater chance of an attack on this year's 9/11 anniversary because of the killing of bin Laden, while others note that al-Zawahiri may feel pressure to conduct an attack in order to prove his credibility as al Qaeda's new leader. Our belief, as noted above, is that al Qaeda has been doing its utmost to attack the United States and has not pulled any punches. Because of this, we do not believe it possesses the ability to increase this effort beyond where it was prior to bin Laden's death. As to the pressure on al-Zawahiri, we noted in December 2007 that the al Qaeda core had been under considerable pressure to prove itself relevant for several years and that, despite this pressure, had yet to deliver. Because of this, we do not believe that the pressure to conduct a successful attack is any heavier on al-Zawahiri today than it was prior to bin Laden's death. Finally, we believe that if al Qaeda possessed the capability to conduct a spectacular attack it would launch the attack as soon as it was operationally ready, rather than wait for some specific date. The risk of discovery is simply too great.

Stewart 11 (Scott 1/8/11 “Why Al Qaeda is Unlikely to Execute Another 9/11” http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110831-why-al-qaeda-unlikely-execute-another-911) Scullion

bin Laden has been killed as well as senior al Qaeda leader al-Rahman that the al Qaeda core group is off balance and concerned for its security especially in light intelligence gathered in the raid on bin Laden . The core group does not enjoy the operational freedom it did prior to 2001 al Qaeda has been doing its utmost to attack the United States and has not pulled any punches

No risk of Al Qaeda attack

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The discovery of vaccines has led to the near eradication of several important diseases and has had a tremendous impact on health for a relatively low cost. However, most vaccines in use today were developed by techniques that were pioneered more than 100 years ago and do not represent the full potential of the field. The introduction of genetic engineering has fueled rapid advances in vaccine technology and is now leading to the entry of new products in the marketplace. In the past, options for the utilization of vaccines in the area of managed care had been quite limited because of the historically straightforward application of immunizations. The growing number and type of vaccine targets, coupled with novel, more effective formulations, adjuvants, and routes of delivery for vaccines, will undoubtedly create new challenges. Although progress in vaccine technology has the potential to prevent illness and reduce the economic burden of diseases in the long term, thereby improving outcomes, ongoing problems remain in the short term. Who should and will pay for these anticipated improvements in health? How will this period of change be managed? This article describes the present “vaccine revolution” and attempts to answer these questions, which are becoming increasingly important in managed care.The advent of vaccines to prevent deadly childhood illnesses was one of the great success stories of the 20th century. Universal immunization against certain diseases has led to the eradication of smallpox and has almost completely eliminated many other infectious agents in the U.S., including those causing diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b invasive disease.1 However, many other diseases, including the three biggest killers—human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, tuberculosis, and malaria—have not yet been adequately targeted by a vaccine effective enough to achieve a similar outcome. In addition, some common vaccine-preventable diseases such as influenza and pertussis continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality, primarily in adults, because of the under-utilization or ineffectiveness of available vaccines.2,3 Recent advances in vaccine technology stemming from the application of genetic engineering are now providing an opportunity to target new diseases. The previous century’s successes in reducing the primary causes of mortality in childhood now include protecting against infectious agents that can result in significant morbidity. Scientific progress and these broadened applications will no doubt result in improved health-based outcomes, but progress often comes at a significant short-term cost. Although it is true that improved outcomes are the goal of health care technology and that preventing disease is preferable to treatment, thus reducing overall costs, confusion persists about the best course going forward. Given the current underutilization of vaccines (even when patients have no copayments) and the expanding use of vaccines to cover morbidity rather than mortality, managed care organizations (MCOs) are confronted with several questions, particularly in terms of benefits, reimbursement, and formulary management. To accept the newer vaccine technology, MCOs will require not only improved mortality data but also cost-efficacy data with long-term proven outcomes accompanied by lower medical and pharmacy expenses. For example, the use of new vaccines for human papillomavirus (HPV) must result in fewer cases of cervical cancer as well as in reduced cost savings in related medical expenses, such as for Pap smears and colposcopies. In this way, a manufacturer might be able to differentiate its product from a competing one. For several years, cost efficacy has been used to evaluate other classes of injectable vaccines, and it is a good method of comparing products when no head-to-head studies have been conducted. MCOs are beginning to analyze data involving comparisons of outlays for resources for specific outcomes, such as adverse events and hospitalizations. Most vaccines in use today were developed by one of two classic methods. In the 19th century, Salmon and Smith pioneered the inactivation of an organism and the injection of immunogenic components.4 The attenuation of live organisms, as first attempted by Louis Pasteur,5 was adapted to modern vaccine technology by Enders et al. in the 1950s.6 All but three vaccines in the currently recommended immunization schedule in the U.S.—those directed against hepatitis B virus, rotavirus, and HPV—are manufactured according to these techniques. In the 1970s, a pair of key discoveries—the expression of proteins in plasmids and the ability to sequence DNA—ushered in the era of genetic engineering.7,8 A decade later, in 1986, these techniques were used to develop the first recombinant vaccine, the hepatitis B vaccine.9 Recombinant technology enables the target antigen to be produced outside the context of the parent organism, such that no live, infectious agents or potentially toxic components of those agents need to be handled. As a result, the quantity of antigen produced, the vaccine’s safety, and the purity of the product are improved; efficacy is increased; costs are reduced; and potential side effects are minimized. Since the advent of the hepatitis B vaccine in 1998, one recombinant vaccine, LYMErix, has been approved. Although LYMErix was effective against Lyme disease in adults,10 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) withdrew this product in 2002 because of declining sales and negative publicity.11 This outcome has dampened enthusiasm for further development of human vaccines against Lyme disease, but it has not had an adverse impact on the prospects for creating a vaccine that uses a similar strategy of a recombinant protein against other infectious agents. Many other recombinant vaccines are currently being evaluated in clinical trials to determine their activity against such varied targets as malaria, hookworm, cytomegalovirus, parvovirus, and anthrax.12 The second major advance in the 1980s was in the area of adjuvantation. Adjuvants are used to improve the presentation of an antigen to the immune system or to enhance its immunogenicity. The only adjuvants currently approved in the U.S. for the concomitant use with vaccines are the mineral salts calcium phosphate and alum.13 Mineral salts are still used in some inactivated vaccines, but their effectiveness is modest at best. For example, aluminum salts were included in early influenza vaccine formulations but were removed when the vaccines showed comparable immunogenicity in the absence of these salts.14 In 1987, however, the application of conjugation as a method of adjuvantation led to the approval of a highly effective vaccine against H. influenzae type b, a leading cause of invasive infections, including meningitis, in children.15 Polysaccharide-based vaccines in general are poorly immunogenic, particularly in small children, because of a lack of T-cell help for the B-cell–dependent antibody response. Conjugating polysaccharides to a toxoid carrier converts these antigens from T-independent to T-dependent antigens, thus improving overall immunogenicity and lengthening the period of effectiveness.16 The success of this approach has led to the development of other polysaccharide conjugate vaccines, including Prevnar (Wyeth), a 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine approved in the U.S. in 2000, and Menactra (Sanofi-Pasteur), a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine licensed in the U.S. in 2004. A vaccine directed against the serotypes of Salmonella typhi, which is responsible for typhoid fever, is now being studied.12 The ongoing problem of suboptimal immunogenicity of protein-based vaccines, coupled with the success of conjugation for polysaccharide-based vaccines, is driving a search for new vaccine adjuvants. We predict that the development of virtually all vaccines licensed from this point forward will involve some form of genetic engineering. Entire viral genomes can now be cloned into bacterial or yeast vectors, allowing manipulation of genes prior to “rescue,” or regeneration of infectious organisms in culture. These techniques enable the rapid custom design of organisms for use in vaccines. Influenza virus vaccines can serve as an example. The surface proteins from circulating strains can be cloned into plasmids and are co-expressed with a set of “backbone” genes responsible for high growth in eggs but attenuation in humans, allowing the production of safe, high-yield vaccines.17 Undesirable traits, such as the multibasic cleavage site found in the main attachment protein of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, can be “edited out” at the DNA level before rescue of the virus, further enhancing safety.18 The use of plasmid-based methods also has the potential to hasten production of reassortant vaccines (i.e., vaccines from viruses created by combining genes from more than one organism or strain). The current process for making influenza vaccine relies on selecting appropriate vaccine strains from among many candidates generated by chance, whereas molecular methods allow complete control over the output, eliminating several steps in the generation of seed stocks.17 A variety of virus types, engineered by these methods to be safe in humans, are being used to express immunogenic foreign proteins outside of the context of the virulent parent organism. As an example, adenoviruses in which critical virulence genes are deleted have been used to express proteins from HIV19 and are being utilized in clinical trials for many other pathogens such as the Ebola virus and malaria.12 It may be possible to create vaccine cocktails directed against several different pathogens by inserting multiple proteins into a single vector or by mixing several vaccines made with the same viral vector but expressing different proteins.20 It is also possible to deliver the immunogenic proteins without using a replication-competent, live virus. Virus-like particles (VLPs) are self-assembling constructs that express a viral antigen, but they do not contain the necessary material to replicate. This technology was used to develop Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine to protect against HPV, approved in 2006.21 In conjunction with new technology for vaccines, adjuvants are also needed. New compounds may enhance immunogenicity quantitatively, by increasing the levels of protective immune responses, and qualitatively, by eliciting responses from different arms of the immune system or by broadening the scope of covered immunogens. This advance has the potential to improve overall outcomes and achieve cost-savings by allowing lower doses to be used and, possibly, by eliminating or postponing the need for booster injections. Although no new adjuvants have been approved in the U.S. since the original licensing of the mineral salts, several compounds appear close to being approved. The squalene-containing, oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant MF59 from Novartis has been approved in Europe for use in influenza vaccines targeted to the elderly population.22 In a clinical trial in humans, another oil-in-water emulsion from GSK enhanced the immunogenicity of a potential pandemic influenza vaccine. This vaccine enabled the dose to be reduced, and it induced responses that were cross-reactive in several clades (distinct virus groupings).23Clinical trials of GSK’s VLP-based HPV vaccine Cervarix have shown similar cross-protective responses to subtypes not included in the vaccine, which might be attributable to the novel adjuvant ASO4.21,24,25 The ability of certain adjuvants to enhance the levels of memory B cells and antibodies, in some cases to numbers much higher than those seen with natural infection,26 has implications for the longevity of the response as well. In one study comparing ASO4 plus alum with alum alone against HPV, significantly higher antibody titers were observed when ASO4 was included.26 This advantage was maintained during long-term follow-up. These dual benefits—extending the time that antibody levels are maintained above the threshold required for neutralization of the organism and enhancing the capacity of the patient to respond to a booster immunization—are important for future planning and estimating costs. However, we need to better define the correlates of immunity for specific vaccines. The threshold necessary for neutralization differs among various organisms; knowing this parameter and other related measures is desirable and sometimes necessary. Advances in vaccine technology necessitate concomitant advances in vaccine immunology. Considering the rising costs of research and development, another desirable feature of adjuvants is their ability to be paired with multiple antigens so that they can be included in different vaccines. For example, ASO4 has been studied in conjunction with both hepatitis B and HPV vaccines.26 This capability can reduce the vaccine’s developmental costs and the time to market. With each new adjuvant and each new combination of adjuvant and vaccine, the advantages of increased immunogenicity, longevity, and perhaps broadened coverage of strains must be balanced with the potential for increased reactogenicity. In this context, reactogenicity refers to the generally undesirable effects of the vaccine, typically mediated by the immune response to the vaccine rather than by the product’s direct toxicological effects. Redness or swelling at an injection site are two common examples. Despite this rapid technical progress, vaccines were not on the “radar screen” for managed care before some of the recent product launches. Previously, the extent of managed care’s involvement was limited to assisting in acquiring supplies for some integrated systems, working with quality on Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures, and participating in clinics and health fairs. However, the advent of newer vaccines that target diseases causing morbidity rather than mortality in the U.S. (e.g., rotavirus or herpes zoster) is encouraging MCOs to perform more clinical and economic analyses in order to ensure that their investments in vaccination are being maximized. The entry of the live attenuated influenza vaccine FluMist (MedImmune) into the market in 2004 and the anticipated introduction of a second HPV vaccine (Cervarix, GSK) present new challenges. These products target essentially the same disease processes as those targeted by vaccines already approved, but they differ in their approach and, potentially, in their clinical effectiveness. The availability of similar products is relatively new in the world of vaccines, and MCOs will have to evaluate them closely in terms of their efficacy, safety, and economic impact. For example, the question confronting MCOs, in view of the HPV vaccine (Gardasil), as well as ASO4, and MF59, is whether the potential of lower reactogenicity from an established adjuvant is more important than the potential for a stronger and possibly more durable immunogenic response. Ultimately, we might simply derive the answer if we know which product provides better protection against the HPV types most commonly linked to cervical cancer in a cost-effective manner. These types of analyses place a greater value on cost-effectiveness, clinical, and budget-impact data for the newer vaccines—data that have been lacking in the past. Although short-term benefits offer immediate returns to MCOs, it would be irresponsible for these health plans to focus exclusively on these benefits and deny coverage of vaccines in an effort to save money. Such restrictions place the broader population at risk, and they may have the unintended consequence of damaging a company’s reputation. Further, a focus on short-term benefits puts health plans at a disadvantage in terms of competing for participants during enrollment; most plans offer broad vaccine coverage, although there might be restrictions based on product labels, guidelines, or age limitations. Another way to increase the value of future vaccines would be to quantify both the possible short-term and long-term cost offsets attributable to the availability of the specific product. Again, because it is crucial that MCOs not waste money, the emphasis should be on outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In concert with the advances in vaccine engineering and adjuvantation, novel routes of delivery are also being investigated. Intradermal delivery directly to an environment rich in antigen-presenting cells (APCs) is considered to be a dose-sparing measure for several vaccines, including those used for HIV and influenza.27 Needle-free variants of this route, such as trans-dermal patches and electroporation, are also being tested for conditions as diverse as influenza, traveler’s diarrhea, and melanoma.12,28,29 Mucosal delivery, which has the advantage of not requiring a needle, is already being used for several vaccines. The live, attenuated influenza vaccine FluMist is given as a nasal spray, and the rotavirus vaccine, licensed in the U.S in 2006, is delivered orally.30,31 The mucosal route of delivery may contribute to the heterovariant cross-protection seen with both of these vaccines by inducing broader immunity, including mucosal immunoglobulin A. Mucosal delivery is also being studied for several other potential vaccines directed against diseases such as HIV infection and tuberculosis.12 In the past, MCOs tended not to pay a premium for convenience alone. If an alternative (needle-free) route of delivery is associated with improved outcomes, such a premium might be worth the additional investment. The demand for vaccines by employers and physicians is also an important consideration. Individual health plan members and small employers might be less willing to cover the cost of new vaccines because of the possibly significant impact on premiums. Small employers with a pool of healthy young employees might not be interested in covering vaccines for disease states with poorly documented short-term benefits. With the arrival of many new biologic agents and vaccines, as well as the future role of genomics, the traditional model of medical coverage may need to evolve. The questions of how these innovations will be funded and who will fund them may become more fluid. In the past, the question of whether different vaccines created an equivalent reduction in morbidity and mortality for the same cost was not asked; however, this question needs to be addressed. Many payment and reimbursement structures—ranging from universal coverage, effective from the first dollar, to differing levels of reimbursement, such as a standard coverage (100%) versus a nonstandard benefit (a 20% plan member copayment)—will be analyzed and reviewed by those responsible for funding these advances. Again, documented clinical and financial outcomes and targeted disease states will be playing a significant role in determining how health plans approach the placement of vaccine products. The role of activism and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines will remain important variables. This is because many health plans routinely follow the ACIP’s recommendations; if this reviewing body begins to cover certain vaccines or populations, many plans will probably follow those guidelines. The success of vaccines against childhood diseases has created enthusiasm for researching additional targets. Merck’s Gardasil was the first vaccine licensed with a primary indication to prevent cervical cancer. A second HPV vaccine, Cervarix is being considered for licensure in the U.S. Other preventive cancer vaccines are also in development, many of which are in clinical trials,12 and therapeutic vaccines designed to treat or ameliorate different types of cancer after it has occurred are also being pursued. Therapeutic vaccines for chronic infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, HIV, and cytomegalovirus are being studied, as are vaccines designed to halt or reverse the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.12,32 Even with these new goals and with the trend of therapeutic vaccines moving toward targeting morbidity rather than mortality, we must still ask: How should efficacy be analyzed? Although 100% efficacy is rarely seen, products with the greatest clinical impact on the broadest population have been favored. With some of the newer agents, this criterion might not remain as important. For instance, if a vaccine works in a portion of the population and that segment can be identified, an MCO might direct the product’s use to ensure its appropriateness for that segment. If a screening tool or a laboratory value can narrow the pool of patients to those who are most likely to benefit from a vaccine, an MCO might use controls (e.g., prior authorizations) to ensure that the most appropriate patients are being targeted with that tool or lab value, thereby resulting in improved success and in protection of the company’s financial investment. As more costly vaccines enter the market, the financial implications for health plans and physicians will become more pronounced. The debate over who will pay and how much will be paid will only intensify. Vaccines remain the single best investment in health care,33 but the costs associated with the increasing options are beginning to strain both public and private systems. Most health plans have liberal coverage and reimbursement policies for vaccines, and this approach is considered to offer a good return on investment. As we mentioned earlier, this traditional approach may be re-examined in some areas, with many alternative options to be explored. With most of these alternatives, one goal remains: making sure that the best vaccines reach the right patients with few impediments. For physicians, the introduction of newer vaccines has led to a greater number of nontraditional vaccinators, such as pharmacies and businesses traditionally outside the health care system that are now becoming acquainted with, and challenged by, the financial implications. Expectations about reimbursement levels and profitability may need to be addressed to ensure that all parties involved—health plans, physicians, employers, and patients—feel their contribution is significant. In 2007, the immunization schedule for children was already crowded; 15 different vaccines were recommended for children from birth to six years of age, and 14 were recommended for older children, seven to 18 years of age. Many of these vaccines are administered multiple times, and adults may need additional boosters. The development and approval of new vaccines against infectious diseases, as well as other potential uses for them, are likely to exacerbate this problem. A desire to simplify the regimen is fueling a trend toward combination vaccines. Although many combined vaccines have been used historically (e.g., diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus), new combinations are being approved for children (e.g., pentavalent vaccines such as GSK’s Pediarix [diphtheria, acellular pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, and inactivated polio vaccine]) and for adults (e.g., GSK’s Twinrix for hepatitis A and B). The main challenge will be to balance immunogenicity in the newer formulations while maintaining their benefits of easier administration and lower costs. In this regard, adherence is likely to be a key issue in the future. If it can be shown that a product improves compliance and clinical outcomes while reducing costs, that vaccine may benefit from preferential positioning by health plans. For instance, Happe et al., using data from SelectHealth, retrospectively compared children receiving the HEDIS Combination 2 vaccine series with those receiving each vaccine series individually.34 By two years of age, children in the combination cohort were more likely to have been fully vaccinated, and vaccinated within the recommended age ranges, than children receiving each series individually (86.9% vs. 74.1%, P < 0.001; 45.2% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.001 respectively). Additional studies with data indicating improved compliance rates and outcomes support the value of this technological advancement. Vaccines exemplify the premise behind managed care to promote wellness and prevent disease while also avoiding unnecessary treatment-related costs. The benefits of childhood vaccines in reducing mortality alone are undeniable.1 However, the cost–benefit relationship for the new generation of vaccines that can target reductions in morbidity or prevent rare and costly illnesses such as cancer is less clear. The promise of a brighter future is motivation up to a point; eventually, however, as the health care dollar is stretched, proven results, both clinical and financial, will be required. In health care, there is an increasing awareness of the need to look at the “bigger picture” and to have less “siloing” between pharmacy and medical divisions. Most organizations that practice evidence-based medicine acknowledge that both pharmacy and medical dollars often need to be spent in order to realize improved overall outcomes and reduced long-term expenses. One obstacle that affects this “investment” is the phenomenon of continuous enrollment in areas of the community with high competition for plan enrollees. If one plan invests liberally in vaccine benefits but a competitor does not, is the plan making the investment placed at a disadvantage in terms of premiums? Community-wide standards, agreed upon by health plans, employers, and physicians, would need to address this matter and ensure that all parties act in concert through their investments in the short-term and long-term health of the community. Rapid advances in our understanding of the immune system and our desire to engineer both preventive and therapeutic vaccines for a wide spectrum of diseases are fueling changes in medicine and in the managed care industry. There will be a growing emphasis on providing evidence-based medicine demonstrating tangible, long-term clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. There will always be a need to balance cost, efficacy, and choice, and our advancements in science will force all parties to alter their approaches to treatment.

McCullers 2008 [Jonathan, MD, Adjunct faculty at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Chair of the Department of Pediatrics at University of Tennessee, Pediatrician in Chief at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, National Center for Biotechnology Information, January 2008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730064/] Bak

The introduction of genetic engineering has fueled rapid advances in vaccine technology and is now leading to the entry of new products in the marketplace. Universal immunization against certain diseases has led to the eradication of smallpox and has almost completely eliminated many other infectious agents in the U.S., including those causing diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b 1 2 3 Recent advances in vaccine technology stemming from the application of genetic engineering are now providing an opportunity to target new diseases. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 Entire viral genomes can now be cloned into bacterial or yeast vectors, allowing manipulation of genes prior to “rescue,” or regeneration of infectious organisms in culture. These techniques enable the rapid custom design of organisms for use in vaccines. 17 18 17 19 12 20 21 22 23 21 24 25 26 26 26 27 12 28 29 30 31 12 12 12 32 33 34 1 Rapid advances in our understanding of the immune system and our desire to engineer both preventive and therapeutic vaccines for a wide spectrum of diseases are fueling changes in medicine and in the managed care industry.

1 - Advances in vaccine technology solve disease extinction

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

The density of a population is an important parameter for both PVA and host–pathogen theory. A fundamental principle of epidemiology is that the spread of an infectious disease through a population is a function of the density of both susceptible and infectious hosts. If infectious agents are supportable by the host species of conservation interest, the impact of a pathogen on a declining population is likely to decrease as the host population declines. A pathogen will spread when, on average, it is able to transmit to a susceptible host before an infected host dies or eliminates the infection (Kermack and McKendrick 1927, Anderson and May 1991). If the parasite affects the reproduction or mortality of its host, or the host is able to mount an immune response, the parasite population may eventually reduce the density of susceptible hosts to a level at which the rate of parasite increase is no longer positive. Most epidemiological models indicate that there is a host threshold density (or local population size) below which a parasite cannot invade, suggesting that rare or depleted species should be less subject to host-specific disease. This has implications for small, yet increasing, populations. For example, although endangered species at low density may be less susceptible to a disease outbreak, recovery to higher densities places them an increasing risk of future disease-related decline (e.g., southern sea otters; Gerber et al. 2004). In the absence of stochastic factors (such as those modeled in PVA), and given the usual assumption of disease models that the chance that a susceptible host will become infected is proportional to the density of infected hosts (the mass action assumption) a host- specific pathogen cannot drive its host to extinction (McCallum and Dobson 1995). Extinction in the absence of stochasticity is possible if alternate hosts (sometimes called reservoir hosts) relax the extent to which transmission depends on the density of the endangered host species. Similarly, if transmission occurs at a rate proportional to the frequency of infected hosts relative to uninfected hosts (see McCallum et al. 2001), endangered hosts at low density may still face the threat of extinction by disease. These possibilities suggest that the complexities characteristic of many real host– pathogen systems may have very direct implications for the recovery of rare endangered specie of extinction by disease. These possibilities suggest that the complexities characteristic of many real host–pathogen systems may have very direct implications or the recovery of rare endangered species,

Gerber 2005 [Leah, PhD, Associate Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Science Ecological Society of America, August 2005, https://labs.eemb.ucsb.edu/kuris/armand/pubs/Gerber_etal_05_EA.pdf] Bak

A fundamental principle of epidemiology is that the spread of an infectious disease is a function of the density of both susceptible and infectious hosts. If infectious agents are supportable by the host species of conservation interest, the impact of a pathogen on a declining population is likely to decrease as the host population declines. A pathogen will spread when it is able to transmit to a susceptible host before an infected host dies or eliminates the infection If the parasite affects the reproduction or mortality of its host the parasite reduce the density of susceptible hosts to a level at which the rate of parasite increase is no longer positive the chance that a susceptible host will become infected is proportional to the density of infected hosts a host- specific pathogen cannot drive its host to extinction

2- Disease can’t cause extinction – Burnout theory

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

Microbes evolve faster than people. For this reason, infectious disease will always exist. Many poorly understood diseases were later found to have an infectious disease basis. Infectious agents are continually evolving. New organisms are being recognized, and old ones develop new capabilities. As we develop new therapeutic agents, microbes evolve defenses against this technology. We are seeing increasing problems with infectious disease in humans and animals. Why? Are we losing ground in the "arms war"? Is this due to increased exposure to otherwise remote part of the globe? Is it a natural cycle of infectious disease? Is it a result of a declining global environment? Has the irresponsible use of technology contributed to this problem? Why is Lyme disease more prevalent now? How much of what is called "Lyme disease" is some other infectious disease? Could some of these patients be infected with seronegative syphilis? What can we do to reduce the number of infected ticks in our environment?

Bransfield 01 (Dr. Robert Carroll Bransfield M.D. “The Neuropsychiatric Assessment of Lyme Disease”. February 1, 2001. http://www.mentalhealthandillness.com/tnaold.html ) Ji

Microbes evolve faster than people infectious disease will always exist New organisms are being recognized, and old ones develop new capabilities As we develop new therapeutic agents, microbes evolve defenses against this technology. We are seeing increasing problems with infectious disease in humans and animals.

3- No solvency for impacts---New infectious diseases will always appear and quicker than medical tech advances

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013

During the last three decades, the biopharmaceutical industry has invested significantly in new and improved vaccines. The results have provided remarkable new ways to prevent cases of cervical cancer, meningitis, pneumonia, pandemic influenza, and rotavirus diseases.
 
The collaborative efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), national governments and industry have led to major progress in addressing global immunization goals and reducing illness and death due to vaccine-preventable diseases. According to the WHO, immunizations prevent between two and three million deaths each year. Thanks to polio eradication efforts, for example, the WHO estimates that more than eight million people are walking today who would otherwise be paralyzed, and the incidence of polio has declined by 99.8 percent. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths annually. The WHO reports that the number has dropped by 71 percent, thanks to vaccinations. Vaccines do not just save lives, they also save money. The CDC estimates that for every dollar spent in the U.S. on pediatric vaccines, we save $10.20.  In fact, the U.S. saves almost $70 million in direct and indirect costs each year as a result of the pediatric vaccination program. In 2005, Harvard University scientists calculated that spending on the GAVI Alliance’s program to expand vaccine coverage would deliver a rate of return of 18 percent by 2020, higher than most other health preventions. The Gates Foundation, meanwhile, has found that just three vaccines – HIB, pneumococcal and rotavirus – have the capacity to save $63 billion annually. Although vaccinations are among the most cost-effective health interventions developed, vaccine development is a highly complex, lengthy, expensive and high-risk venture. Despite that hurdle, the research and development pipeline is robust. According to BIO Ventures for Global Health, there are more than 200 vaccines in development targeting 23 neglected diseases that disproportionately affect the poorest countries, such as dengue, cholera, malaria, and tuberculosis. As science expands and our world shrinks, we have unrealized opportunities to reach and save greater numbers of people. We have the power to increase the availability of vaccinations to respond to a wider variety of infectious and non-infectious diseases.

Greenwood and Pisani 4/18 [Jim, President and CEO of Biotechnology Industry Organization, Director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, The Hill, April 18 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/294505-the-promise-of-vaccines-for-preventing-and-eradicating-disease] Bak

During the last three decades, the biopharmaceutical industry has invested significantly in new and improved vaccines. The results have provided remarkable new ways to prevent cases of cervical cancer, meningitis, pneumonia, pandemic influenza, and rotavirus diseases.
 
The collaborative efforts of the CDC WHO national governments and industry have led to major progress in addressing global immunization goals and reducing illness and death due to vaccine-preventable diseases. immunizations prevent between two and three million deaths each year. Thanks to polio eradication efforts, for example more than eight million people are walking today who would otherwise be paralyzed, and polio has declined by 99.8 percent. In 1980 measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths annually. that number has dropped by 71 percent, thanks to vaccinations. vaccinations are among the most cost-effective health interventions developed there are more than 200 vaccines in development targeting 23 neglected diseases that disproportionately affect the poorest countries, such as dengue, cholera, malaria, and tuberculosis As science expands and our world shrinks, we have unrealized opportunities to reach and save greater numbers of people. We have the power to increase the availability of vaccinations to respond to a wider variety of infectious and non-infectious diseases.

Constant improvements in vaccines solve disease extinction – past proves

Advantage Frontline Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5

Northwestern (NHSI)

Affirmatives

2013