OCS Drilling - Politics DA - Hester

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Bormann, Hester, Stevenson Politics DA – OCS Drilling

Index – Politics Off-Shore Drilling DA
Index – Politics Off-Shore Drilling DA...........................................................................................1
1NC Shell.........................................................................................................................................3
1NC Shell.........................................................................................................................................4
Link Ext’s – Alternative Energy = Dems Compromise on Drilling.................................................5
Link Ext’s – Alternative Energy = Dems Compromise on Drilling.................................................6
Link Ext’s – Alternative Energy = Dems Compromise on Drilling ................................................7
Link Ext’s – Alternative Fuels.........................................................................................................8
Link Ext’s – Air Power/CLW ..........................................................................................................9
Link Ext’s – Air Power/CLW.........................................................................................................10
Link Ext’s – Air Power/CLW ........................................................................................................11
Link Ext’s – Brownfields...............................................................................................................12
Link Ext’s – Cap and Trade...........................................................................................................13
Link Ext’s – Cap and Trade ..........................................................................................................14
Link Ext’s – Native Americans......................................................................................................15
Link Ext’s – Nuclear Power...........................................................................................................16
Link Ext’s – RPS............................................................................................................................17
Link Ext’s – Wind Power...............................................................................................................18
Internal Link – Dems are willing to Compromise.........................................................................19
Internal Link – Dems are willing to Compromise.........................................................................20
Internal Link – Dems are willing to Compromise ........................................................................21
Internal Link – Democrats Key to OCS Drilling...........................................................................22
Now is the Key Time ....................................................................................................................23
Congress is key – No Drilling Without their Support....................................................................24
Uniq – No Compromise in the Present System.............................................................................25
Uniq – Recent Energy Bills Don’t Deal with OCS........................................................................26
Drilling Bad – Destroys the Ocean................................................................................................27
Drilling Bad – Destroys the Ocean................................................................................................28
Drilling Bad – Destroys the Ocean ...............................................................................................29
Drilling Bad – Oceans Key to Survival.........................................................................................30
Drilling Bad – Oceans Key to Survival ........................................................................................32
Drilling Bad – Kills Coral Reefs....................................................................................................33
Drilling Bad – Kills Coral Reefs....................................................................................................34
Drilling Bad – Reefs Key to Biodiversity......................................................................................35
Drilling Bad – Reefs Key to Biodiversity .....................................................................................36
Drilling Bad – One Accident =’s Our Impacts...............................................................................37
Drilling Bad – Biodiversity Impacts..............................................................................................38
Drilling Bad – Increases Air Pollution..........................................................................................39
Drilling Bad – Increases Warming.................................................................................................40
Drilling Bad – Increases Warming.................................................................................................41
Drilling Bad – OCS = Drill in ANWR...........................................................................................43
Drilling Bad – ANWR Impacts......................................................................................................44
Drilling Bad – Kills Tourism.........................................................................................................48
Drilling Bad – Tourism Key to the Economy................................................................................49
Drilling Bad – Won’t Decreases Oil Prices....................................................................................50
Drilling Bad – Won’t Decreases Oil Prices....................................................................................51
Drilling Bad – Stops Transition to Alternative Energy..................................................................52
Drilling Bad – Stops Transition to Alternative Energy..................................................................53
Drilling Bad -- New Tech Doesn’t Solve......................................................................................54
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Cuban Drilling...........................................................................................55
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Cuban Drilling ..........................................................................................56
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Resource Wars............................................................................................57
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Tanker Spills Turn......................................................................................58
Aff – No Link – Dems want Compromise on Other Issues...........................................................59
Aff – Compromise Impossible.......................................................................................................60
Aff – Compromise Impossible.......................................................................................................61
Aff – Drilling is Safe......................................................................................................................62
Aff – Drilling is Safe .....................................................................................................................63
Aff – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs................................................................................................64
Aff – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs................................................................................................65
Aff – Environmental Impacts Exaggerated....................................................................................66
Aff – Drilling Won’t Stop the Transition to Alternative Energy....................................................67
Aff – Drilling Good – Seepage Turn..............................................................................................68
Aff – Drilling Good – Cuban Drilling Turn...................................................................................69
Aff – Drilling Good – Tanker Spills Turn .....................................................................................70
Aff – Drilling Good – Resource Wars Turn...................................................................................71
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases the US Economy........................................................................72
Aff -- Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices ..........................................................................73
Aff -- Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices...........................................................................74
Aff -- Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy...........................................................75
Aff -- Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy ..........................................................76
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases Trucking.....................................................................................77
Aff – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy ........................................................................78
Aff – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy.........................................................................79
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases Tourism......................................................................................80
1NC Shell
A) No drilling will occur in present system -- there will be no political compromise on
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Lorber, June 29, 2008 (Janie, staff writer, Newsday)

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-usgas295745942jun29,0,4195606.story
But for all the talk, significant compromise in Washington has been out of reach in this pre-election
summer, and few experts predict any sweeping legislation that could lead to a comprehensive solution to the
energy crisis - or even put a serious dent in gas prices. One reason, analysts say, is that both parties cling to
long-standing positions on energy - then blame their colleagues across the aisle for blocking their
efforts
B) Link – The plan will spark Democrats to compromise on drilling in the OCS – they want
an increase in alternative energy
Harshaw July 10, 2008 (Tobin, staff writer, New York Times)
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/bipartisan-but-to-what-end/?ref=opinion
Senate Democrats seem to be willing to compromise with Republicans on an energy plan that would expand
offshore drilling, and it’s leaving Mother Jones’s Jonathan Stein a bit bemused: This feels like a compromise in
search of a conflict. The Democrats in Congress are ready to pass an energy bill that, in exchange for “investments
in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators, and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully
utilizing land that is already leased for exploration,” will legalize additional offshore drilling. Really? Am I just out
of touch? Has there been a public outcry in support of offshore drilling? There was a media war on the subject a
while back, and I thought we were able to prove the idea is a useless pander it won’t lower gas prices substantially,
it won’t put any additional oil on the market for seven to 10 years, it distracts us from serious and long-term energy
solutions, etc. And after all that, congressional Dems are just going to cede the issue? Maybe they need to include
offshore drilling as a sop to the Republicans in order to get renewable energy provisions in this upcoming bill.
FYI -- (sop means to pacify in this context)

1NC Shell
C) Even with technological advances OCS drilling will destroy Ocean biodiversity
Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/coasts/ocs/testimony.asp
Lifting the OCS Moratorium will have Damaging consequences for our beaches, for marine life and
their habitat, and for the broader environment. Damage to Marine Life and habitat: While there have
been many advances in oil and gas recovery technologies in recent decades, many serious consequences
still result from exploration and drilling for either oil or gas. Seismic Surveys
The first step to drilling for oil and gas involves doing an inventory of estimated resources. One technology
used for this type of inventory is a "seismic survey." This technology involves ships towing multiple
"airgun" arrays with tens of thousands of high-decibel explosive impulses to gather geologic profiles of
seabed rock structures. These airgun arrays fire regular bursts of sound at frequencies in the range of 20 to
150 Hz, which is within the auditory range of many marine species, including whales.
Marked changes in behavior in marine species in response to loud underwater noises in the ocean have been
well documented. Seismic survey devices and military sonars (which operate at a similar decibel level) have
been implicated in numerous whale beaching and stranding incidents, including a December 2001 mass
stranding of 16 whales in the Bahamas, an incident of Cuviers beaked whales being beached and stranded in
the Galapagos Islands and a more recent stranding in the Canary Islands.
The auditory organs of fish are particularly vulnerable to loud sounds such as those produced by survey
airguns. As fish rely on their ability to hear to find mates, locate prey, avoid predators, and
communicate, damage to their ears can seriously compromise their ability to survive. In addition,
mortality is possible in species like salmon that have swim bladders (the flotation organ that fish use to orient
themselves vertically in the water), which have been shown to rupture on exposure to intense sounds.
Maintaining Biodiversity is critical to prevent human extinction
Diner 1994 (Major David N. Diner, Judge Advocate General's Corps, “The Army and the
Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangered Now? “143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Winter 1994
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread
extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so
does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of
the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects,
could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind
may be edging closer to the abyss.
Link Ext’s – Alternative Energy = Dems Compromise on Drilling
Democrats will compromise on off-shore drilling if there is an increase in alternative
energy
Raju and Soraghan, July 9, 2008 (Staff writers, The Hill, Manu and Mike)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-signal-they-could-be-open-to-compromise-on-
offshore-drilling-2008-07-09.html
Democratic leaders showed varying degrees of interest Wednesday in opening up new areas for oil
production, as public opinion veers in favor of drilling.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that expanded offshore drilling, which the
Republicans have long supported, is not off the table. He said he opposes giving the states the right to
choose whether to drill off their coasts, but also said Democrats are “taking a look at that.”“I’m not knee-
jerk-opposed to anything,” Reid said. “We’re willing to work; we haven’t shut our minds to anything.” His
Republican counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), said Wednesday that there was an
“increasing possibility that we may be able to accomplish something.” He signaled a willingness to
consider ways to boost energy production from renewable sources, such as wind, solar and biomass.
Only big concessions like the plan will be able gain sufficient democratic support for
drilling
Tally and Power, July 9, 2008 (Staff Writers, Wall Street Journal, Ian and Stephen)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121557215418238349.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Many Democrats in Congress remain opposed to a relaxation of the current ban and are likely to
demand considerable concessions from oil companies before consenting to a compromise. Such
demands could limit the impact of any legislation, or render it unpalatable to many
Republicans.
Democrats will compromise on drilling if there is a substantial increase in alternative
energy
Mandaro, July 14, 2008 (Laura, staff-writer for MarketWatch, The Wall Street Journal)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bush-lifts-executive-ban-
offshore/story.aspx?guid=%7B11A84451-D6F5-428E-95CE-
44DE805540AD%7D&dist=msr_51
The executive branch's restrictions have been cleared away," said Bush in a news conference, which was
broadcast. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court." Reversing the executive branch's moratorium,
which was widely expected, won't have much impact unless Congress heeds Bush's call to change existing
legislation. Much of the Democratic-controlled Congress is opposed to such drilling. Shortly following
the president's 1:30 p.m. EDT speech, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Congress should
focus instead on curbing the role financial investors have played in driving up oil prices. "We need to crack
down on excessive speculation," said Reid in a press conference, which was broadcast. By Wednesday, he
said his Democratic colleagues planned to introduce a bill that would target oil speculation. He also pushed
the Bush administration to start using oil from its emergency stockpiles and advocated more investing in
alternative energy.
Democrats will give in to off-shore drilling if we increase incentives for alternative energy
Grim and Lovley, July 10, 2008 (staff writers, Politico, Ryan and Erica)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11649.html
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he sensed there were enough votes from his Democratic colleagues to
expand offshore drilling into new areas — and that the eastern Gulf of Mexico “should be one of the first
places we should look.” Although Senate Democrats are slowly easing away from opposition to offshore
drilling, it’s clear that the majority party is not giving it away for nothing. One idea floated by Reid
would require that whatever oil is drilled in newly opened areas would need to be sold in the United States.
Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a
crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already
leased for exploration.
The plan is a grand compromise that will cause the Democrats to give in on drilling

Schumer said both sides need to move past knee-jerk reactions to their opponents' plans - suggesting
Democrats might need to be open to offshore drilling but only if its paired with investments in energy
efficiency. "We do have to come up with sort of the grand compromise here - where Democrats sort of
hold their nose a little bit and figure out ways to increase supply," Schumer said.
Democrats are pushing for innovation into renewable energy – the plan will spark a
compromise that allows drilling
Lautenberg, April 26, 2008, [Frank, Senator of New Jersey,http.democrats.senate.gov

"Lautenberg: Democrats Fighting For Alternative Energy Sources As Gas Prices Continue
To Shatter Records And Hurt Families", July 16, 2008]
It’s long past time to change our national priorities. We know there’s little hope that President Bush will
suddenly wake up and see the light. But unfortunately, his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand
by his side, with the oil and energy companies – for the status quo and against the American people.
“Democrats are fighting hard for change, and we have made real progress. We passed a new energy bill
that begins to turn the tide by improving gas mileage for cars and trucks, investing in clean, renewable fuels
and other smart energy steps, such as improving the energy efficiency of our buildings.“But we also face the
problem of market speculation – and manipulation. We need to rein in traders who keep bidding oil prices
higher and higher, leaving the American people to foot the bill. “On top of these short-term solutions, we also
need to20face the long-term problem of oil consumption. Our country burns 21 million gallons of oil every
day. Two-thirds of that oil is imported from unstable regions of the world, run by governments who are not
our friends.“The long-term solution to our energy crisis lies in alternative fuels and efficiency. If we=2
0aggressively promote innovation in solar, wind, biofuels and geothermal power, we can help lower
energy prices, turn the tide on global warming and strengthen our national security. And while we’re
doing all that, we will be creating hundreds of thousands of good new jobs right here in America.
Link Ext’s – Alternative Fuels
Democrats strongly support alternative fuels – the plan will spark a compromise
KCRG News 2008, (May 7, (http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=18745804,

7-16-08)
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill pushed a new energy package Wednesday, calling for action in
alleviating gas prices by suspending new purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, promoting
research into alternative fuels and placing incentives on energy saving models for cars, buildings and
appliances. The Bush Administration has so far come out against calls to suspend oil purchases for the
SPR, and has made increasing domestic petroleum exploration and production, including drilling in the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the cornerstone for a new energy policy. Bush has agreed with the need to
develop alternative fuels, but has also come out strongly in favor of new nuclear power plants and against
mandates like fuel economy for the auto industry. “Drill, veto, drill, veto, drill veto,” said House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of the Bush Administration’s response to Democratic overtures. Senator Chuck
Schumer (D-NY) said the Administration was “strangling” any attempts to make serious investments
at alternative energy over the last seven years and that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would “take
ten years and reduce the price of oil by a penny.”
Democrats strong support incentives for alternative fuels
DNC 2006 (Democratic National Committee, Sept. 29,

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/bushs_energy_po.php, 7-16-08)
Democrats will promote an Apollo Project-like initiative to invest federal research and development
dollars in advanced energy technology would create millions of new highly-skilled, high-wage jobs.
Democrats want to develop a vibrant domestic biofuels and alternative fuels industry. A vibrant domestic
biofuels and alternative fuels industry would create thousands of new jobs and stimulate investment in
homegrown technologies. The small renewable fuel standard in law now will generate more than 200,000
jobs and displace more than $10 billion worth of crude oil. Improvements in infrastructure and electricity
options and standards will also encourage much greater use of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles.
Democrats want to make energy more affordable for residential and manufacturing use. A national
commitment to efficiency, renewably-generated electricity, and a massive investment in advanced energy
technology would reduce consumers’ electricity and fuel bills by more than $60 billion per year by 2020.
Finally, extending energy efficiency and renewable incentives would lower the demand for natural gas and
free up natural gas for other uses. Democrats are offering the American people a new direction when it
comes to our national energy policy. [Senate Democrats]
Link Ext’s – Air Power/CLW
Democrats support the use of liquefied coal in the Air force
Andrew 2007, June 13 [Edmund L., New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/washington/

13energy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=democrats%20like%20liquefied%20coal&st=cse&oref=slogin, 07/16/08]
Coal-state lawmakers are pushing for a wide array of government assistance to jump-start the industry. In the
House, Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, has drafted a bill that would insulate coal-to-
liquid plants from gyrations in energy prices by providing loans if oil prices dropped too low to make coal-based
liquids profitable. Other lawmakers have proposed letting the Air Force sign 20-year contracts to buy vast
amounts of coal-based jet fuel at fixed prices. Still others have proposed including coal-based liquids in a
government mandate to greatly expand production of alternative fuels.
Democrats support liquefied coal
Andrew 2007, June 13, [Edmund L., New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/washington/
13energy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=democrats%20like%20liquefied%20coal&st=cse&oref=slogin, 07/16/08]
As the Senate began debate Tuesday on a sprawling bill to reduce oil consumption, top Democrats were
circulating a proposal to provide $10 billion in loans for plants that make diesel fuel from coal.
Democrats are pushing for the DOD to use more energy efficient fuels
Southern Maryland Online. May 9, 2006. [Democrats Push For Alternative Energy In
the Military, http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/3742.shtml, July 16, 2008.]
In an effort to move the nation towards greater energy independence, House Democratic Whip Hoyer,
House Science Committee Ranking Democrat Rep. Bart Gordon and House Armed Services Committee
Member Rep. Mark Udall submitted an amendment today to the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Defense
Authorization Bill that would increase the use of alternative fuels in the military. The Department of
Defense is the largest single buyer of fuel in America and must be a part of any energy independence effort.
"Energy independence is clearly a national security issue," said Hoyer. "Right now, America is forced to take
into account the price of oil when making national security decisions - that is a dangerous position for our
country. The recent spike in gas prices and global demand, as well as political instability in oil producing
nations, must serve as a wake-up call. We must invest in alternative fuels immediately, and the Defense
Department, as the single largest buyer of fuel in the U.S., has to be a significant part of that effort. I
am hopeful that the Rules Committee will make this amendment in order so that the full House may debate
and support this important initiative." "The federal government must be a leader in energy efficiency and
independence. As it stands now, our nation's dependence on foreign energy is a threat to our national security
and our global competitiveness. By boosting alternative energy programs at the Department of Defense and
bridging the gap between innovative energy research and practical application, we can drastically reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. I am hopeful that Congress will put aside partisan politics and approve this
amendment," said Gordon. "To improve real national security, we must improve our energy security. This
amendment takes steps in that direction by boosting funds for advanced energy technologies and for
alternative fuel infrastructure at military bases. As the single largest buyer of fuel in the U.S., the Defense
Department has an opportunity - even an obligation - to lead the way in diversifying our energy portfolio.
And no time could be better than the present. America's addiction to oil from any source means that our
security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look beyond the gas pump," said
Udall. The three Members submitted the amendment to the House Rules Committee today and Whip Hoyer
is testifying before the Committee today. The amendment would shift more than $300 million in excess funds
from the $9.1 billion proposed for ballistic missile defense programs. The amendment would authorize $250
million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). Located in the Department of
Energy, ARPA-E would encourage and support America's best and brightest researchers and scientists to
develop the cutting-edge technology necessary to make America energy independent. As embodied in a bill
by Rep. Gordon [H.R. 4435] and the Democrats' Innovation Agenda, ARPA-E would reduce energy imports
from foreign sources by 20% within 10 years. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of National Intelligence, to study and to report
to Congress on the strategic implications of the nation's increasing demand on foreign oil on national
security. Finally, the amendment would include provisions offered by Rep. Udall in the Armed Services
committee markup last week, and rejected by Republicans, that increase the funds available for the Defense
Energy Support Center (DESC), which buys and manages oil and other energy supplies for the military
services, and to the Advanced Power Technology Office, which promotes the increased use of fuel cells,
electric hybrids, batteries, advanced engines, and hydrogen for military and homeland defense vehicles and
equipment.
Democrats support the use Liquified coal
Mufson 7 [Steven, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061202127.html accessed July 16, 2008]
Democrats Push Coal-to-Liquids Energy Plan
Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Page D01
A group of Senate Democrats from coal-rich states is drafting an amendment to proposed energy
legislation that would provide as much as $10 billion in federal loans to pay for capturing and storing
greenhouse gases produced by plants that would turn coal into liquid transportation fuels or chemicals.
Concerned about the growing likelihood that a majority of senators will back a coal-to-liquids
program to satisfy the powerful coal industry and to reduce U.S. reliance on oil imports, Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has pressed colleagues to ensure that
such a program would address not only energy security, but also climate change concerns. Bingaman, who
opposed a coal-to-liquids measure that Republicans proposed in committee, "has been very clear that he is
unwilling to look at one without looking at the other," a committee spokesman said. Environmental groups
oppose coal-to-liquids programs because, they say, such technology produces twice as much greenhouse gas
as conventional petroleum-based motor fuels, and because they say it would greatly expand destructive coal
mining.
Link Ext’s – Brownfields
The democratically controlled Congress strongly favors Brownfields cleanup and funding
Eisinger 2001.(Chris, GAP Intern for The Professional Geologist, a publication of the
American Institute of Professional Geologists, November)
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/tpg_ce.html, July 16, 2008.]
On April 25th, the Senate passed a brownfields bill (S. 350) by a 99-0 vote, and throughout the summer
the House has been holding its own legislative hearings. Although cleaning up contaminated sites is a
priority for both parties, contentious areas still remain. These include liability clarification that would
protect potential developers and nearby property owners; direct funding support, such as grants to states and
cities; tax incentives, including tax credits and tax-exempt financing; and state versus federal authority on
certain process-related initiatives. Defining the proper levels of state and federal control is most prominent.
Not surprisingly, Republicans favor more state authority, while Democrats want to make sure the federal
government does not lose its ability to intervene in state-supervised brownfield cleanups. House
Republicans, in a recent legislative draft, have also proposed to both expand the states' authority to define
brownfield sites for funding purposes and to eliminate the requirement for federal permits in states where
authority has not been delegated. Further, great concern is being expressed over a state's ability to defer sites
from being listed on the Superfund's National Priority List. Only after these issues are addressed will the
House likely pass a brownfields bill. Another avenue through which federal legislation can help brownfield
programs is to increase funding for community development programs at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Economic Development Administration, and the Small Business Administration.
Currently, two bills in the Senate (S. 1078 and S. 1079) and one in the House (H.R. 2064) authorize
brownfields funding for these agencies. In March of this year, two House Subcommittees held hearings on
state-federal brownfield partnerships. At both these hearings, many success stories illustrated the
environmental and economic benefits of brownfields reclamation. They also reminded Congress that in order
for future brownfields projects to be successful, federal funding and management cooperation are crucial.
The 107th Congress appears poised to address this need and make passing a brownfields bill a top
priority.
Key democrats support Brownfields rejuvenation
Stauffer, December 31, 2002. [Molly, Committee Director, Environment and Natural
Resources Committee, National Conference of State Legislature,
http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/brwnfdIB.htm, July 16, 2008.]
The week of March 5, the Senate EPW Committee, chaired by New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith,
marked up and voted in favor (15-3) of a bipartisan bill ( S. 350) to promote the clean up of
revitalization of contaminated industrial sites. Concerns over the finality language-terms under which the
Environmental Protection Agency could require additional cleanup-still exists among some members, and is
likely to be further debated by the full Senate later this week. In a March 7, 2001 letter from Representative
Joe Hackney (D-NC), chair of NCSL's Environment Committee, urged the Senate committee "to
reexamine the power of the administrator with a view towards according the states the appropriate
deference prior to initiation of an enforcement action." NCSL staff has been informed that the committee
will offer a manager's amendment on the Senate floor spearheaded by Senator Voinovich (R-OH), to make
the finality provision more "state friendly."
Link Ext’s – Cap and Trade
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT CAP AND TRADE
McCarter 7 [Mickey, Washington journalist, editor, and content specialist for government
agencies like the US Navy's Bureau of Naval Personnel and the Defense Contract Management
Agency; ICIS http://www.icis.com/Articles/2007/11/19/9079241/us-democrats-seek-cap-and-
trade-legislation-to-curb-emissions-similar-to-the-kyoto-protocol.html accessed July 16, 2008]
November 19 2007
The Democrats look to cap-and-trade legislation as alead into the November 2008 presidential election
Mickey McCarter/Washington DC EVER SINCE President George Bush announced his opposition to the Kyoto
Protocol in March 2001, US legislators have been debating alternative measures that would put the US on the path
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions within a national, if not global, framework. Supporters of emission reduction
laws have gained ground recently, as several states have passed their own laws to reduce emissions in the past few
years. Former Vice President Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his efforts to raise awareness
about climate change has added to the momentum. The current reigning proposal - America's Climate Security
Act (S 2191) - would follow in the footsteps of the Kyoto Protocol by capping emissions at the level of 1990 by
2015, but also by permitting companies to trade emission allowances should businesses prove unable to stay within
their share of the cap. A cap-and-trade law would set a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that
US businesses could emit, with further cuts in the future. The America's Climate Security Act, introduced by
Senators Joseph Lieberman (independent, Connecticut), and John Warner (Republican, Virginia), would cap US
emissions at 1990 levels by 2015, and at 70% below 1990 levels by 2050. US businesses would receive emissions
allowances to use up as they generate greenhouse gases over the period of a year. The emissions allowances would
regulate pollutants such as carbon dioxide generated by industries that burn fossil fuels. Businesses that face
exceeding their share of the cap on greenhouse gases would have the ability to purchase the unused emissions
allowances of other businesses. Despite strong Democratic support, the bill contains some provisions that may
keep it from gaining the 60 votes it would likely need to pass through a divided Senate's wrangling. And given
Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that he would veto any cap-and-trade on the grounds that it
would hurt the US economy. Prospects for a cap-and-trade law could improve significantly, however, should a
Democratic win the election in 2008. Presidential Debate The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), a non-profit
organization devoted to environmental causes, has published an online scorecard of how the presidential candidates
rate, regarding their positions on environmental concerns. Democrats rated much higher than Republicans,
according to the LCV scorecard, which awarded candidates up to 100 points for their strong support of pro-
environment legislation over their political "lifetime". Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona), the highest
Republican scored, received only 26 points despite introducing more modest cap-and-trade rules with Lieberman in
2003. The scorecard awarded Senator Hillary Clinton- (Democrat, New York), a lifetime rating of 90 out of 100
points and Senator Barak Obama (Democrat, Illinois), 96 points. John Edwards received a relatively weak 59 points.
Clinton declares her support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the levels of 1990 by 2050 on her
campaign website. The site also cites her intent to implement a cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon emissions
if she were elected president. The campaign claims that cap-and-trade policies would reduce emissions and prompt
the development of clean technologies to meet reduction goals. It also claims that cap-and-trade would create a
market for storing carbon dioxide, a contentious concept that suggests carbon emissions could be stored until
technology had advanced enough to clean it up. Clinton supports auctioning off some of the emissions allowances
to raise federal funds to help pay for cap-and-trade, but a Clinton White House would back distributing some of the
allowances in another fashion, according to her campaign advisors. Obama publicly revealed his cap-and-trade
proposal in a speech in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on October 9. His proposal calls for a system that would
reduce carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Obama called for the auction of pollution allowances,
which companies would buy to cover their greenhouse gas emissions.
Link Ext’s – Cap and Trade
HOUSE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT CAP AND TRADE
Dillon 7 [Robert, award-winning Washington reporter, editor, CNN and NPR;

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7141334/Democrats-release-blueprint-for-
cap.html#abstract accessed July 16, 2008] Publication: The Oil Daily Publication Date: 05-
OCT-07 Delivery: Immediate Online Access Author: Dillon, Robert
Key House Democrats released a blueprint Wednesday for an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that would
target petroleum producers and refiners to substantially reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.
Environmental groups reacted skeptically to the plan, saying a strong program to limit emissions is needed but that
the source of the proposal raises doubts about its seriousness. House Energy and Commerce Committee
Chairman John Dingell and Rick Boucher, chairman of the House energy and air quality subcommittee,
released a 21-page policy paper calling for a mandatory limit on emissions across every sector of the economy.
.
DEMOCRATS FAVOR CAP AND TRADE AND CARBON TAX
Samuelsohn 07 [Darren, senior reporter for Greenwire and Environment & Energy Daily in
Washington D.C, http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=262 accessed July 16, 2008] July 3 2007
Six months into their majority, congressional Democrats have made it clear global warming belongs among
their top-tier legislative items. On both ends of the Capitol, Democratic leaders promise to reassert the United
States’ authority in international negotiations to curb heat-trapping pollution. And advocates brag of their success in
committees and on the floor, pointing to votes on automobile fuel efficiency standards and measures that require
climate change to be factored in U.S. national security and intelligence planning. Now, Democrats want the
biggest prize of all: a cap-and-trade bill that reduces emissions across the U.S. economy. As Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee members discussed details of a cap-and-trade policy at a hearing last
week, David Hawkins, who heads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center, said, “It’s gratifying that
the committee is meeting to discuss how to develop protective climate legislation, not whether.” The chairman of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), floated a proposal two weeks ago
that would have been unthinkable a few months earlier. The lawmaker said he would consider establishing a
“carbon emissions fee” — which some see as a carbon tax. Dingell answered critics on his left last week when
he said he would aim to move legislation this fall calling for between 60 percent and 80 percent cuts in U.S.
emissions. And bridging the partisan divide, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) opened up negotiations on a global
warming bill with Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) that could be ready by the fall.
Link Ext’s – Native Americans
Democrats are strong proponents of policies supportive of Native Americans
The Democratic Party, 2008 [The Democratic Party “Ten Reasons Why Native Americans,
Alaskan Natives and Native Hawai‛ians are Democrats.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/reasons_for_ind.php Accessed July 16, 2008]
Democrats stand for the issues important to American Indians. Tribal governments know what it means to
meet the unmet needs of their citizens with unmet resources -- providing care and services to those less
fortunate.
• Democrats support and respect tribal sovereignty
• Democrats stand for the protection of families and communities
• Democrats stand for working families who pay their fare share, not just those few born into wealth
• Democrats support full funding of programs that are critical to Native Americans crucial health care
and education programs
• Democrats have historically fought for and continue to fight for the same things that Indian Tribes believe
in: providing for our children, our elderly, our veterans and those less fortunate
• Democrats believe in the protection of the environment and preservation of our natural resources.
The Democratic Party respects tribes as the original stewards of the environment
• Democrats support federal assistance for public safety programs in tribal communities
• Democrats understand the federal government has a fiduciary trust responsibility to tribes that must
be managed openly, honestly and responsibly and support a resolution of the trust fund case affecting
thousands of Native citizens
• The Democratic Party focuses on policies that promote the economic development strides that
strengthen tribal governments in Indian Country
• Like Tribes the Democratic Party knows the value of community Democrats are about "We" Not "Me."
Link Ext’s – Nuclear Power
Democrats Support Nuclear Power
Hoare, February 2007 [James, author in Environment and Climate News, The Heritage
Foundation http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?theType=artId&theID=20509
Accessed July 16, 2008]
Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according
to an October 2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC).The report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air
quality concerns. "Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for America," the report states. "It
produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change." Key to the DLC's support for nuclear power
are technological advances that substantially improve on an already impressive safety and environmental record. "New plant designs promise to
produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities," the report explains. "For example, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has certified three new designs that would use significantly fewer pumps, pipes, valves, and cables than first-generation
facilities.”That will reduce the plants' complexity, making them easier to inspect and maintain," the report continues. "From a safety perspective,
the new plants rely on natural forces such as gravity, natural circulation, and condensation, assuring safe shutdown even in the event of an
accident." The report also notes further advances in nuclear plant design."In addition to these three new approved designs," the report adds, "at
least four other designs may soon win NRC approval. Among these is the promising modular, 'pebble bed' reactor design. As the name suggests,
these smaller plants would use hundreds of thousands of uranium pebbles rather than large cores to generate power. As researchers at MIT
recently concluded, these pebbles burn more completely than their traditional counterparts. "The report stresses, however, that technological
advances such as pebble bed reactors require a great deal of time to navigate through regulatory processes and actually get built.
As a result,
the report encourages Democrats to take action now to remove regulatory hurdles that slow the development and
construction process. "It will take time to bring these next-generation facilities online. Progressives should support efforts to expedite the
process," the report urges. "We certainly welcome the Progressive Policy Institute support," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes
said. "It
reflects the fact that there is considerable bipartisan support for nuclear energy and there has been such
support for a long time. "We anticipate this report will have a positive impact among Democrats and among
citizens as a whole," Kerekes added. "Support for clean, safe, and economical nuclear power continues to build all across America."The
DLC's support for nuclear power may undermine efforts by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to block completion of the Yucca
Mountain storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.
There is increasing Bipartisan Support for Nuclear Energy
Cohen, June 1st, 2006 [Bonner R., author in Environment and Climate News, The Heritage
Foundation http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19123 accessed July 16, 2008]
According to the Gallup poll, fully 55 percent of Americans support expanding the
use of nuclear energy. The embrace of nuclear power transcends political party
affiliation, with 62 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats responding to
the Gallup survey voicing their support for more nuclear energy. Not a single nuclear
facility has been built since the late 1970s, but nuclear power is once again becoming
a public favorite. The nation's 103 remaining nuclear facilities have continued to be a
reliable source of clean fuel, supplying about 20 percent of the nation's electricity needs
today. In addition, nuclear energy is relatively inexpensive, costing about 2 cents per
kilowatt-hour, or roughly the same as coal or hydroelectric. With the U.S. Department of
Energy predicting demand for electricity will increase by more than 50 percent by 2025,
nuclear energy is re-entering the American energy picture in a big way. In a March report
cited in the New York Times on April 10, 2006, the global finance rating company Fitch
Ratings said, "It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear
plants in the industry's future. Now, the discussion has shifted to how many, where
and when."
Link Ext’s – RPS
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT RPS
Davenport 07 [Coral, news reporter for the Congressional Quarterly,

http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002519747.html accessed July 16, 2008] May
25 2007
Key Senate Democrats, believing the politics have shifted in their favor, are renewing their effort to
require electric utilities to produce more power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. Such
measures have passed the Senate three times in years past but died in a GOP-controlled House. Now that the
Democrats are running the House, and fears about dependence on foreign oil and global warming are
foremost in many minds, Senate leaders like Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., think the timing
might finally be right. Supporters say a national “renewable portfolio standard” requiring 10 percent to
20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables could go far toward lessening U.S. fossil fuel
dependence. Less than 5 percent of the nation’s electricity now comes from renewable sources other than
hydroelectricity. Twenty-two states have enacted renewable standards. On Thursday, a diverse group of 186
signatories — including some of the biggest names in industry, manufacturing and electric utilities, along
with environmental groups — sent a letter to congressional leaders urging passage of a national renewable
portfolio standard. “It’s the broadest ever, it’s the biggest ever” range of support seen for pushing the
renewable standard, said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker of the spectrum of signatories, which includes
General Electric, BP America, Google and the Edison Electric Electric Institute, which represents investor-
owned utilities. Wicker called the effort “a very powerful endorsement” that could go far toward persuading
lawmakers to support a renewable electricity standard. The Boucher Argument But there will be at least one
big hurdle: While many House Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell of
Michigan, are on record supporting a renewable standard, one key player strongly opposes it. Democrat
Rick Boucher, who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia, has consistently opposed a renewable electricity
standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged with crafting energy and climate
change legislation, and he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable portfolio standard
in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July. Boucher traditionally has fought any
measure that could threaten his district’s coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to
introduce legislation aimed at curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions — a tough pill
to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top priority, and adding the pressure of renewable energy
sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to take, Boucher says.
Link Ext’s – Wind Power
Democrats strongly support projects involving wind energy
AWEA, November 13th, 2007 [American Wind Energy Association (national trade
association of the U.S. wind energy industry)
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html
Accessed July 16, 2008]
A new poll of potential 2008 voters by Zogby International found that Americans across the political
spectrum support a new national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than
20 states. The poll, commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for
renewable energy and growing concern about energy independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008
voters.
Highlights of the survey include:
93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority”;
77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-
identified conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats
agreed that the Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least
some of their electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar; and
64 percent of those polled disagree with the proposition that the federal government is doing enough to promote
clean renewable energy.
“This demonstrates the tremendous level of bipartisan support across our nation for a renewable electricity standard”
commented Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the renewable electricity standard provision approved
by the House of Representatives earlier this year. “It is crystal clear the public wants Congressional action to
increase the role of clean domestic energy, like wind and solar power, in meeting America’s electricity needs. The
House took an important step towards that goal in August, and it is critical that a renewable electricity standard be
included in any final energy package that comes to the floor.”
Internal Link – Dems are willing to Compromise
Democrats are willing to compromise on off-shore drilling due to public pressure – the plan
provides them the political cover to do so
Raju and Soraghan, July 9, 2008 (Staff writers, The Hill, Manu and Mike)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-signal-they-could-be-open-to-compromise-on-
offshore-drilling-2008-07-09.html
As the price of gasoline has shot above $4 a gallon, the two parties have increasingly deflected the blame in
order to avoid a backlash from voters. But as the issue tops the list of public concerns, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the two sides need to appear to be trying to solve the problem in order to avoid
voter backlash in November.
Senate Republican leadership has floated a plan they say is a compromise, dropping a provision calling
for drilling in Alaska and adding conservation measures like incentives for more fuel-efficient cars. Senate
Democrats, meanwhile, continued to craft a bill that targets market speculation on oil futures, but on
Wednesday suggested they might be open to adding supply-side provisions that Republicans have long
supported. Adding to the pressure to craft a compromise is a bipartisan group of more than 10 senators
seeking middle ground. Public opinion polls have shown a shift towards support of expanded offshore
drilling, putting Democrats in the tough spot of jettisoning their longstanding concerns about the damaging
environmental effects of the practice.
Democrats are looking to compromise on off-shore drilling
Myers and Hulse, July 14, 2008 (Staff writers, The New York Times, Steven & Carl)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14drillcnd.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
But Mr. Reid is facing an increasing uneasiness among his own senators who have talked more
receptively about increased drilling in recent weeks as a result of public anger over rising gas prices. A
bipartisan group of senators is trying to develop a compromise energy plan and the leaders of the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee have scheduled a workshop for Thursday for lawmakers and other experts
to appear and offer their ideas about how to respond to the climb in oil prices.
Democrats are looking for a compromise – they fear a public backlash in November
Jessup, July 15, 2008 (CBN News Washington Correspondent, John)

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/409463.aspx
Now, there is a growing contingent of lawmakers open to the idea of offshore drilling.
Especially after the President scrapped an executive ban and put the ball directly in hands of Congress. "It's
been almost a month since I urged Congress to act, and they've done nothing. They've not moved any
legislation. And as the Democrat controlled Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase.
Failure to act is unacceptable," Bush said. With voters headed to the polls in less than four months, a few
senior Democratic lawmakers have expressed they're willing to compromise in exchange for responsible
production. Recent polling shows more Americans support the idea of offshore oil drilling, and think it would
bring relief from the pain at the pump. It's a change in sentiment that reaches from the public square -
and apparently to halls of Capitol Hill.
Democrats in Congress are open to a compromise on offshore drilling,
Grist, July 9, 08 (Grist News, 07/16/08)

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/07/09/TickleMeElvis/index.html
Some key Democrats in Congress have said they're willing to work out a compromise deal to open
some offshore areas in U.S. waters to oil and gas drilling. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Whip Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.) said he's "open to drilling and responsible production." He also said that Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid might also support limited offshore expansion. Though opening offshore
areas to production wouldn't actually lower oil or gasoline prices until about 2030 (and even then only
slightly), Congress folk are under heavy pressure from constituents to do something (or even just look like
they're doing something) to lower energy prices. "It's very clear that people [in Congress] heard during their
break at home this is the dominant issue," said Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), another Democrat willing to
compromise on offshore drilling. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she opposes new
efforts to drill offshore, she too is under pressure to address rising energy prices and has called for releasing
some of the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to that end.
Internal Link – Democrats Key to OCS Drilling
Democrats are key – they are blocking off-shore drilling in the present system
The time for action is now,” Mr. Bush said as he announced in the White House Rose Garden that he was lifting an
executive order, which was first issued by his father in 1990 and was renewed by Bill Clinton.
By itself, the move will have little impact, because Congress enacted a moratorium in 1982 that remains in
place. But the step underscores the rising political pressure to address high oil and gasoline prices in the middle of
an election year.
“Failure to act is unacceptable,” the president said, asserting that obstructionists in the Democratic-controlled
Congress have been blocking progress on energy exploration and that “now, Americans are paying at the pump.”
Now is the Key Time
Now is the only time a compromise is possible – waiting guarantees no drilling – this is the
worst time to pass the plan
Reuters, July 9, 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN09255652
As a result, McConnell said more Democrats are now willing to support expanding domestic drilling.
While there are many more senators who want to join the group, Corker said it will remain small "until
we can get some legislation actually ready to flush out, and then expand it to some level." The problem
now facing lawmakers is the legislation time clock, which is ticking down fast. Lawmakers will be
leaving town again in a few weeks, this time for their August recess. After that, the focus will be on the
November presidential and congressional elections, when controversial legislation normally is pushed
aside.
Congress is key – No Drilling Without their Support
Congress is key – there will be no drilling without their consent
The Chattanoogan July 16, 2008

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_131455.asp
“Lifting the executive ban won’t produce one drop of oil on its own, but the president’s actions are an important
first step in a two-step process to produce more energy here in the U.S., lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and
lower prices at the pump.
“In order for the President’s announcement to have any significant impact, Congress must act and pass
legislation like the Gas Price Reduction Act that frees up domestic oil production in the U.S., while encouraging
a strong sense of urgency in developing new technologies.
Congress is key – there will no drilling without legislative action

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today responded to
President Bush’s announcement that he will lift the executive ban on offshore oil exploration and production
on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Corker said the President’s announcement alone will not allow exploration and production on the OCS
to occur and that "Congress must act to remove the ban on most of the OCS that has been imposed
every year for over two decades."
Uniq – No Compromise in the Present System
No compromise now – current discussions are stalled
CNN July 17, 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/gas.prices/
The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy Republicans and promote conservation and
alternative energy sources to satisfy Democrats, several lawmakers said.
The group in the Senate says its plan probably would allow drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf, an
idea vehemently opposed by Democratic leaders. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his party's leadership by
supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators advocating the deal are "people who are all seriously
concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to involve compromise." "Somebody
around here's got to do it," said another member of the group, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia. "We think the Senate
can vote in the majority for energy proposals that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the pressure
on gas prices." The Senate group met behind closed doors in the Capitol on Wednesday, hoping to forge legislation
that could be introduced after the August recess. Talks were to continue later in the week, according to one senator
who attended the meeting. Both that plan and one from the House are expected to include language to curb
excessive oil-market speculation, which many lawmakers believe has artificially caused a spike in oil prices.
Several senators pointed to an energy bill scheduled for Senate debate Thursday as a prime example of why a
compromise is needed. The Democratic-authored bill is meant to rein in speculators. However, the bill probably
will stall, with most Republicans expected to withhold support unless they are allowed to offer amendments to
increase drilling. Democrats, who control the chamber, privately say that's not something they are likely to
allow. Such a standoff would likely kill the bill, aides and lawmakers said.
Bush won’t compromise in the present system – only the plan will resolve the impasse and
lead to drilling
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/15bush.html
A bipartisan group of senators is trying to develop a compromise energy plan, and the leaders of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee have scheduled a workshop for Thursday where lawmakers and other experts will
offer ideas on how to respond to the climb in oil prices. The White House, for its part, signaled little interest in
other measures that would stop short of expanding offshore drilling and supporting production in Alaska and
new technologies to extract oil from shale. Opening the outer continental shelf, Mr. Bush said, could eventually
produce nearly 10 years’ worth of the amount of oil the United States now produces. “With this action, the executive
branch’s restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away,” he said Monday. “This means that the only thing
standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.”
Uniq – Recent Energy Bills Don’t Deal with OCS
Oil Drilling is not on the new energy bill – there would need to another proposal to make it
legal – the plan establishes this opportunity
Higgins, July 16, 2008 (Sean, reporter of Investor’s Business Daily 7/16/08
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20080716)
"There is not offshore drilling" in the bill, the Maryland Democrat said. Drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is similarly off-limits. Instead it focuses on drilling in already-leased areas. Hoyer's
announcement follows a similar one by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Monday. "We want
oil and gas companies to drill on the leases they've been given," Reid said. While Democratic leaders
have made rhetorical concessions to oil drilling in the face of record pump prices, they are digging in against
any significant expansion of domestic exploration. They are gambling they can hold their increasingly
anxious caucuses together when Congress debates energy legislation. The decision has Republicans like Sen.
Wayne Allard of Colorado almost gleeful, convinced they have the upper hand on the energy debate. He
predicted Democrats will defect when Congress takes up legislation. "Reid has blocked all attempts to
include more production," said a smiling Allard. "I think more and more, many Democrats are hearing that
message." Moderate Democrats who favor drilling, such as Rep. Gene Green of Texas, are trying to persuade
their leaders to come around. "We did have a meeting with the speaker yesterday," Green told IBD. "We're
trying to come up with language that will help, but we're not there yet." Chris Thorne, spokesman for Sen.
Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who is trying to broker a deal on the Senate side, could only say that Reid was talking
to dissenters. "We may have something by the end of the week or early next week," Thorne said. No details
on any deal are likely to be released until the last minute, he added. The Interior Department said last week
that 18 billion barrels of oil lie off the U.S. coast, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Going after
those deposits is a rare issue where the GOP leads in the polls. A recent IBD survey found that 64% of adults
favor offshore drilling. Hoyer said the Democratic energy bill will focus on forcing oil companies to explore
areas already leased for exploration through a "use it or lose it" provision. That's about 88 million acres,
including areas in Alaska outside of ANWR. Industry experts say Democrats are wrong that the leases are not
being used. Many leased areas are under evaluation and development to find out if they have any oil, a
process that can take years, says the American Petroleum Institute. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, dismissed
Democrats' arguments about drilling on already leased areas as a smoke screen. "If that would solve our
problems, we'd be moving in that direction," he said. "If you think this is some grand conspiracy to lock up
the oil, that's just illogical." Democrats also will push the White House to release oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. "This is oil that we now have," Hoyer said. "This is the quickest possible (way). This is
not drilling, this is not exploring." New, potentially oil-rich regions like the Outer Continental Shelf will
remain off-limits.
Drilling Bad – Destroys the Ocean
Best scientific studies prove OCS drilling will harm the environment

Science should guide future Congressional decisions about coastal drilling

The prestigious nonpartisan National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) issued a peer-reviewed finding in 1991, after a year-long study conducted by this body at the request
of former president George Herbert Walker Bush, Sr. The NAS found that there is insufficient scientific
data available to permit leasing in the moratorium areas and ensure that the environment can be
protected. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) Environmental Studies Program has done virtually no
new work to fill these identified data gaps found within the OCS moratorium areas since the NAS study, in
spite of the fact that the Congressional moratorium does not preclude this type of scientific research by the
MMS Environmental Studies Program. Current concerns about the cumulative impacts of ongoing
routine marine discharges of spent drilling muds, cuttings, and produced waters were highlighted by
the recent late-2004 report of the President's own US Commission on Ocean Policy as a primary priority
topic needing serious scientific evaluation.
Oil Drilling Rigs Leak Toxic Mercury, Endangering Human and Animal Life
Tamminen, 2006 [Terry, author, Lives Per Gallon: The True Cost of Our Oil Addiction,
published 2006, Island Press, page 30, 31]
By itself, mercury is known to cause reproductive harms and learning impairment. It is found in
increasing concentrations in fish that are routinely eaten by both humans and marine animals. Because small
doses build up over time and are stored in our body (bioaccumulation), mercury is one of the more
dangerous constituents of drilling muds. In the Santa Barbara Channel, waters that are home to migrating
gray whales and hundreds of other species of fish and marine mammals, oil rigs discharge nearly 3 billion
barrels of drilling fluids and cutting, including 985 pounds of mercury every single year. Finally,
drilling rigs onshore and offshore dump tons of nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide
into the air through on-site burning of vented gases and waste products. They also add 35 million tons
of carbon dioxide and 12 million tons of methane (two primary greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere
worldwide every year, along with smoke and soot that cover land and water, contributing to the rising
acidity of rainfall.
Drilling in the OCS will lead to pipelines that cause massive water pollution that crush
biodiversity

Onshore damage: The onshore infrastructure associated with offshore oil or gas causes significant harm
to the coastal zone. For example, OCS pipelines crossing coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico are
estimated to have destroyed more coastal salt marsh than can be found in the stretch of coastal land
running from New Jersey through Maine.
Water pollution: Drilling muds are used to lubricate drill bits, maintain downhole pressure, and serve other
functions. Drill cuttings are pieces of rock ground by the bit and brought up from the well along with used
mud. Massive amounts of waste muds and cuttings are generated by drilling operations - an average of
180,000 gallons per well. Most of this waste is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling
muds contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead and cadmium. Significant concentrations of these
metals have been observed around drilling sites.
A second major polluting discharge is "produced water," the water brought up from a well along with oil and
gas. Offshore operations generate large amounts of produced water. The Minerals Management Service
estimates that each platform discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of produced water every day.
Produced water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead,
naphthalene, zinc and toluene, and can contain varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major
field research programs investigating the fate and effects of produced water discharges have detected
petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals and radium in the water column down-current from the discharge.
More Oil rigs will destroy the environment regardless of whether they spill oil
Weiss June 30, 2008 (Daniel, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for
American Progress Action Fund, Politico)
Offshore oil drilling is dirty business. Despite contrary claims by McCain, the Coast Guard estimated
that oil rigs hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita spilled more than 7 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.
Rigs routinely discharge thousands of pounds of mercury, lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals into
the water.
Offshore drilling will cause coastal erosion and petrochemical pollution destroying
ecosystems
USA Today July 13, 2008

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
The biggest environmental impact has been the estimated 10,000 miles of canals dug by the oil and gas
companies to transport oil and lay pipelines. The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands of Louisiana and have
contributed to coastal erosion, says Mark Davis of Tulane University. Environmentalists say the canals and lack
of marshland removed an important natural buffer against storms and amplified Hurricane Katrina's
damage.
Offshore drilling also draws bustling ports, pipelines, petrochemical plants and other infrastructure that can
disrupt natural coastal ecosystems. "Where you have oil and gas, you have petrochemical plants," says Cynthia
Sarthou of the Gulf Restoration Network. "I haven't seen one come without the other."
Drilling Bad – Oceans Key to Survival
Oceans are key to human survival
Earle 04 [Dr. Sylvia. Our oceans, ourselves. October, 2004. Earth and Sky. <http://www.earthsky.org/article/sylvia-
earle-interview> Accessed: July 16, 2008 10:59 PM]
Earle: The ocean is our life–support system. It’s the source of most of the oxygen in the atmosphere.
With every breath we take, we should be grateful that there is an ocean out there. For every drop of water that
we consume, we should be grateful that there is an ocean out there, because 97% of Earth’s water is in the
ocean. What falls on the land and sea as rain, and sleet and snow, ultimately originates, largely, out
there in the sea. So, if we want to take care of ourselves, we need to start by taking care of the ocean.
Salazar: You’ve spent a great deal of your life studying the oceans. What are some of the changes you’ve
seen in that time? Earle: In my lifetime, since the time that I was a little girl living along the shores of the
Gulf of Mexico, I personally have witnessed the decline of coral reefs, of sea grass meadows, of the kinds of
systems that really lend a good health to the ocean. I’ve also seen the disappearance of many things that once
were common – things such as nassau groupers, pink conch, and a lot of small creatures that once abounded
in near shore waters that are simply gone. These are not signs of good health. In fact, we’ve seen in 50 years,
the loss or serious decline of half the coral reefs around the world. We’ve seen the loss of 90% of the big
fish – they’re simply gone – in 50 years, as a direct consequence of both how many we’re taking, and the
destructive techniques that disrupt the places that fish require to recover. Not just fish, but shrimp and lobster
and the whole suite of organisms that we tend to like to eat. Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t figure out
ways to basically have our fish and eat them too. But we’re not doing it now. We need to be much more
assertive about protecting broad areas of the ocean that fish and other marine life require, that the ocean itself
requires in order to maintain integrity, the health of the systems. Right now, most of the ocean is up for
grabs. It’s being over–fished, it’s being over–polluted, and the consequences are not just a matter of
concern if you care about dolphins and whales and things. But, it should be a fundamental concern to
everybody on the planet, no matter where they live, because the ocean is the cornerstone of what
makes this blue planet function as it does. Anyone who looks over the shoulders of astronauts considers
the world from afar, Those images from space show that this planet is mostly ocean. Without oceans,
consider what we would have instead, a planet much like Mars, where people may someday set up
housekeeping, but not six billion of us, and not anytime soon. Water is fundamentally the cornerstone, the
key. But it’s life in the ocean that drives the way the world works. It generates the oxygen, absorbs
carbon dioxide that shapes the chemistry of the planet itself. Without life in the ocean, Earth would
still be a fairly barren place. There was plenty of life a billion years ago, entirely microbial. It’s only in the
last half billion years or so that Earth has become hospitable to the likes of us, when enough oxygen was
generated to make the planet a place that we can simply enjoy, without special space suits or spacecraft, or
habitations that are protected from the outside, whatever it is. Earth owes its existence as we know it, the
congenial, healthy, friendly atmosphere, because there is an ocean, and it is filled with life.
Oceanic biodiversity loss could be devastating to humans
Novacek & Cleland 01 [Michael J. Novacek American Museum of Natural History, New York and Elsa E.
Cleland, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University. The current biodiversity extinction event:
Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. May 8, 2001. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 8; 98(10): 5466–5470.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33235 Accessed: July 16, 2008 8:49 PM]
The devastating impact of the current biodiversity crisis moves us to consider the possibilities for the
recovery of the biota. Here, there are several options. First, a rebound could occur from a natural
reversal in trends. Such a pattern would, however, require an unacceptably long timescale; recoveries
from mass extinction in the fossil record are measured in millions or tens of millions of years (10).
Second, recovery could result from unacceptably Malthusian compensation—namely, marked
reduction in the world population of human consumers. Third, some degree of recovery could result from
a policy that protects key habitats even with minimal protection of ecosystems already altered or encroached
on by human activity (i.e., protecting “hotspots”).
Drilling Bad – Oceans Key to Survival
Healthy oceans are key to human survival; oceans provide us with food and wealth, and
moderate our climate.
The Ocean Foundation 05 [The Ocean Foundation. We are the Ocean Planet. 2005.
<http://www.oceanfdn.org/index.php?tg=articles&topics=32> Accessed: July 16, 2008 11:27
PM]
The health of the ocean is essential to human survival. The ocean is a major source of food, medicine,
and jobs. Fish from the ocean currently are the primary source of protein for one in six people on
earth. And, nearly a million people in the US have jobs that directly depend on the ocean and that add
$12 billion to our GDP. However, while the ocean supports the greatest diversity of life and ecosystems on
our planet, it is largely unexplored.
The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate. In fact it is the ocean that makes our planet
habitable. Without the ocean as a heat sink, our days would be unbearably hot, and our nights would
be freezing cold. The ocean naturally recycles our water and our air, constantly cleaning it for us to use
over and again 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In fact, 86% of the water we drink comes from the
ocean; and the ocean produces more oxygen than the rainforests. It even absorbs 48% of the carbon
that we humans put into the atmosphere. The ocean is the best protection we could hope for. We must
be good stewards of this part of our living world.
The overarching threat to the ocean is of course climate change. We cannot stop climate change, but we can
reduce the amount by which the planet warms. Aside from the threat of climate change, the biggest direct
threat to the ocean is overexploitation of its resources. The public has not yet caught up with these realities
and 87% view pollution, and oil spills in particular, as the most challenging threats to the ocean.
The ocean touches everyone and everything. It is essential to life and human survival. We all have a
strong, personal connection to the ocean (whether we realize it or not). Protecting the ocean protects
our health, our economy, and our children’s future.
Biodiversity has intrinsic value – its best to err on the side of the negative
MarineBio 08 [MarineBio, inc. Biodiversity. 2008.

<http://marinebio.org/Oceans/Conservation/biodiversity.asp> Accessed: July 16, 2008 11:56 PM]
All species are an integral part of their ecosystem by performing specific functions that are often essential
to their ecosystems and often to human survival as well. Some of the functions different species provide
are to: Capture and store energy, Produce organic material, Decompose organic material, Cycle water
and nutrients, Control erosion or pests, [and] Help regulate climate and atmospheric gases.
Ecosystem diversity is important for primary production in terms of: Soil fertility, Plant pollination,
Predator control, Waste decomposition, [and] Removing species from ecosystems removes those
important functions. Therefore, the greater the diversity of an ecosystem the better it can maintain
balance and productivity and withstand environmental stressors. Biodiversity is important
economically in terms of: Food resources: agriculture, livestock, fish and seafood, Biomedical research:
coral reefs are home to thousands of species that may be developed into pharmaceuticals to maintain
human health and to treat and cure disease, Industry: textiles, building materials, cosmetics, etc., [and]
Tourism and recreation: Beaches, forests, parks, ecotourism.
Biodiversity has an intrinsic value because all species: Provide value beyond their economic, scientific,
and ecological contributions, Are part of our cultural and spiritual heritage, Are valuable simply for
their beauty and individuality, [and] Have a right to exist on this planet. We have an ethical
responsibility to protect biodiversity. Biodiversity is important to science because it helps us understand
how life evolved and continues to evolve. It also provides an understanding on how ecosystems work and
how we can help maintain them for our own benefit.
Drilling Bad – Kills Coral Reefs
New off-shore drilling threatens deep-water reefs worldwide
Charlotte Observer July 3, 2008

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1461650/offshore_drilling_threatens_deepwater_coral_re
efs/
Scientists are just beginning to explore deep-water coral reefs, possibly millions of years old, that
stretch from North Carolina to Florida. They form pristine oases, alive with fish, crabs and weird
creatures that one researcher says "look like Dr. Seuss went crazy down there." The discoveries have caught
the attention of the Bush administration, which is reported to be interested in protecting 25,000 square miles
of reefs off the Southeast as a national monument. President Bush also called last month for more offshore
oil and gas exploration. A federal moratorium now prohibits drilling along most of the U.S. coastline until
2012, and political opposition in North Carolina remains strong. But momentum to lift the ban is growing
with the price of gasoline. Scientists say drilling, and to a greater extent deep-sea trawling, threaten deep-
water corals worldwide.
Deep water reefs are extremely fragile – they won’t recover if harmed by drilling
Charlotte Observer July 3, 2008

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1461650/offshore_drilling_threatens_deepwater_coral_re
efs/
In less than a decade, researchers have documented individual corals 2,500 years old, making them the oldest
animals on Earth. They've found dozens of new species, from eels to sea stars. Cancer-fighting and anti-
inflammatory drugs extracted from deep-sea sponges and other reef animals are under development,
and researchers expect to find more medicinal uses. Scientists preoccupied with mapping the bottom and
recording species are still trying to learn what larger role the coral reefs play in the oceans. Among the reefs'
most promising uses: as a living history of the seas. Some long-lived coral species form growth rings the
way trees do. Their skeletons can reveal centuries of past water temperatures, pollutants and currents. Deep-
ocean currents have a profound effect on the world's climate. Understanding past patterns, researchers say,
could provide insights into the future of a warming world. Experts also know that deep reefs are fragile. The
skeletons of dead corals, which can form mounds up to 1,000 feet tall, are hard but brittle. They grow
slowly and don't recover easily, if at all, from disturbance.
Drilling Bad – Kills Coral Reefs
Drilling cleanup of inevitable oil spills will wipeout coral reef systems
Science Daily 07 ['http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730172426.htm, accessed

on 7/16/08/]
In a setback for efforts to protect endangered coral reefs from oil spills, researchers in Israel report that
oil dispersants -- the best tool for treating oil spills in tropical areas --are significantly more toxic to
coral than the oil they are used to clean up. Their study, which urges caution in the use of these materials,
is scheduled for the August 1 issue of ACS' Environmental Science & Technology.Called the 'rainforests of
the sea,' coral reefs are an endangered ecosystem and are disappearing at an alarming rate due to numerous
threats, including over-fishing, global warming and pollution, particularly oil spills. Besides hosting a rich
diversity of marine organisms, these habitats are also potential sources of life-saving medicines and food for
humans. Scientists looking for better ways to protect this important habitat have recently focused on the
environmental impact of oil dispersants, detergents used break down oil spills into smaller, less harmful
droplets.In the new report, Shai Shafir and colleagues evaluated the effects of both crude oil and six
commercial oil dispersants under laboratory conditions on the growth and survival of two important species
of reef corals. The dispersants and dispersed oil droplets were significantly more toxic to the coral than the
crude oil itself, the scientists report. The dispersants caused "significant harm," including rapid,
widespread death and delay in growth rates, to the coral colonies tested even at doses recommended by
the manufacturers, they add."Decision-making authorities should carefully consider these results when
evaluating possible use of oil dispersants as a mitigation tool against oil pollution near coral reef areas," the
report said.
EPA studies prove drilling will kill reefs
Donatoni ’02. [Matthew, Expert on oil drilling at Santa Clara University,

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/MDonatoni/ResearchPaper.htm, July 16, 2008]
Does the federal government have the right to say it is okay to take marine life in order to set up an offshore drilling
rig and drill for oil and gas? The federal government seems to feel that our well being is more important than
marine life, so they allows companies to drill for oil beneath the ocean floor. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) performed a test, which produced results showing how drilling fluids had an effect on coral. It
is ironic that a governmental agency, such as the EPA has done tests showing how disastrous offshore oil rigs
can be, yet the federal government still allows the drilling to take place.
Drilling Bad – Reefs Key to Biodiversity
Increasing the destructions of coral reefs would be a huge hit to global biodiversity
SANDELL 2008 (Clayton, Government Report Says Pollution and Climate Changes Threaten
Coral Reefs July 7, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5321360&page=2
Coral reefs [is] a key element in ocean ecosystems that provide not only coastline protection but billions of dollars in benefits from tourism,
as well as ingredients used in cutting-edge medicines — are increasingly threatened from the effects of global warming and other hazards, according to a new U.S.
government report. First, warmer ocean temperatures cause corals to expel the colorful living algae in their tissues, leaving them with a "bleached" white look. "It
really stresses out the coral and makes them more susceptible to things like disease," Waddell said.
A major bleaching and disease event in 2005 devastated coral reefs across the Caribbean. In the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, scientists say an average of 50
percent of the coral was lost. Some areas lost 90 percent of their coral. Another problem for corals is that human-induced climate change is altering the chemistry of
the oceans, making them more acidic. It happens as fossil fuels are burned, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much of that carbon dioxide is absorbed by
the ocean, which becomes more corrosive. "If the ocean continues to acidify, it's possible that it would preclude corals from
growing, because they won't be able to draw the nutrients and elements out of the water that they need to create the structures that they produce as coral
colonies," Waddell said. "It's also possible that ocean acidification may become so extreme that it may begin to dissolve the corals that already exist, which
would spell disaster for coastal communities." A 1997 report in the science journal Nature estimated that the resources and economic benefits derived from
coral reefs are worth $375 billion a year. "Coral reefs only cover about one percent of the world's surface, but they are a very diverse and important environment
or ecosystem," said Mark Monaco, a marine biologist with NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. "They provide us fisheries, they provide us
culture from the cultural resources, they provide us pharmaceuticals, and they provide us protection from storm events," he told ABC News. In areas that have been hit
by severe tsunamis, experts point out that damage is usually less severe in places with intact coral reefs just offshore. Scientists who study the medical benefits of
coral reefs say there are about 20 compounds in clinical trials derived from the corals themselves or the many organisms that depend on them. "That biodiversity is
holding the key to treatment of diseases current and future," said William Gerwick, a professor of oceanography and pharmaceutical sciences who holds a dual
appointment at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the University of California San Diego Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.
"Disturbing the biodiversity, and reducing the species' richness we change that equation dramatically," said SandelOUnited
Nations Environment Programme estimates that one square kilometer of coral reef holds a value of up to $600,000 per year by drawing tourists, supporting fisheries,
and helping mitigate beach erosion by breaking waves.ften called the rainforests of the sea,
coral reefs are the ocean's most biologically
diverse ecosystems, supporting roughly 25 percent of marine life and more than 4,000 species of fish. The Coral
reef destruction represents a huge economic and biodiversity loss.
Coral Reefs Key to Ocean Biodiversity

Yeh, 2007. [Jennifer, Author "Endangered Species: Must They Disappear?" http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-
Bi/Biodiversity.html, July 16, 2008]
Coral reef habitats also have extremely high biodiversity; nearly a quarter of all known marine species are
found in coral reefs. The Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of Australia, is the largest coral reef system in the world. It supports over 700
species of coral, in addition to 1,600 fish species and 4,000 species of mollusks. In the Antarctic Ocean, on the other hand, only 120 fish species
are found. These species possess special molecular, biochemical "antifreeze" properties to deal with the cold water temperatures. However,
Antarctic habitats nonetheless support many unique aquatic groups, such as the albatross, penguin, and large numbers of marine mammals such
as the whale and seal.* Many fresh-water habitats also harbor a high proportion of unique species. This is due to the fact that, unlike oceans,
fresh-water habitats often are isolated from one another, with natural barriers between them that are difficult to cross. This results in the evolution
of distinct species in different fresh-water habitats. The preservation of fresh-water habitats therefore is particularly critical to conserving aquatic
biodiversity. The value of biodiversity is an issue that has caused considerable debate, given that the preservation of habitats often conflicts with
the desires of developers. Yet there are several reasons for valuing biodiversity. First, biodiversity is essential to the
functioning of ecosystems. Each species plays a unique role within an ecosystem, and every species is dependent on others for food,
shelter, or other resources. The loss of a single species therefore can have profound effects for the ecosystem as a
whole. Second, all species are potential sources of genetic variation for the development of new types of agricultural crops, as well as of
medical drugs for treatment of human diseases. Third, biota (living organisms) have scientific and educational value. Finally, species have
aesthetic and recreational value—consider, for example, the popularity of activities such as snorkeling, scuba diving, and hiking. Scientists
have shown that habitats with greater biodiversity are more resilient—that is, they are better able to adjust to and recover
from various disturbances. Because different species may perform overlapping functions in a biologically diverse ecosystem, a disturbance that
affects one species may have lesser impact on the ecosystem as a whole. Habitats with little diversity are more vulnerable, because a
disturbance affecting one species may cause the entire network of interactions to collapse. Ecosystems approaches to
natural resource management address interactions among species and among food webs, as well as the cycling of resources such as carbon, water,
and nitrogen. These ecosystems approaches focus not on single species, but on the preservation of complex sets of interactions among species.
Preservation of large, intact areas of habitat is necessary for the continued functioning of ecosystems.
Drilling Bad – Reefs Key to Biodiversity
Coral reefs are key sources of biodiversity
UN 2007 (Atlas of the Ocean, “Biodiversity and Coral Reefs” 20 June)

http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0zMTc5NCY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a
29z
Coral reefs are among the most biologically rich ecosystems on earth. About 4,000 species of fish and
800 species of reef-building corals have been described to date. However, experts have barely begun to
catalog the total number of species found within these habitats. Coral reefs have often been described as the
Rainforests of the Sea. Coral reefs resemble tropical rainforests in two ways: both thrive under
nutrient-poor conditions (where nutrients are largely tied up in living matter), yet
support rich communities through incredibly efficient recycling processes. Additionally,
both exhibit very high levels of species diversity. Coral reefs and other marine ecosystems, however,
contain more varied life forms than do land habitats. All but one of the world's 33 phyla (major
kinds of organisms) are found in marine environments-15 exclusively so.
Coral reefs are essential to sustain marine biodiversity
Paine '04 [Robert, Editor of The National Academy of Sciences,

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/21/8251.abstract, July 16, 2008]
The worldwide decline in coral cover has serious implications for the health of coral reefs. But what is the
future of reef fish assemblages? Marine reserves can protect fish from exploitation, but do they protect fish
biodiversity in degrading environments? The answer appears to be no, as indicated by our 8-year study in Papua
New Guinea. A devastating decline in coral cover caused a parallel decline in fish biodiversity, both in marine
reserves and in areas open to fishing. Over 75% of reef fish species declined in abundance, and 50% declined
to less than half of their original numbers. The greater the dependence species have on living coral as juvenile
recruitment sites, the greater the observed decline in abundance. Several rare coral-specialists became locally
extinct. We suggest that fish biodiversity is threatened wherever permanent reef degradation occurs and warn
that marine reserves will not always be sufficient to ensure their survival.
Coral Reefs are critical for biodiversity and food security
US AID 2000 “Towards a Water Secure Future: USAID’s Obligations In Water Resources
management For FY 2000 In Parts I and II”
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/water/tech_pubs/towards_water_secure
.obligations.pdf
Coral reefs play a critical but often underalued role in the sustainable development options for coastal
residents throughout the world. Coastal protection from waves and storm surges, alternative
livelihoods based on tourism, and significant contributions to food security are but a few of the many
ecological services and values of coral reefs. It is estimated that, if properly managed, reefs can yield an
annual average of 15 tons of fish and seafood per square kilometer. Coral reefs contribute an average of
one-quarter of the total fish catch in developing countries, providing food for 1 billion people in
Asia alone (Bryant et al., 1998). Reefs are renown for their biodiversity, sheltering more than
4,000 species of fishes, as well as crustaceans, mollusks, and other edible
invertebrates. The beauty and diversity of coral reefs are contributing to one of the fastest growing
sectors of the global economy—coastal tourism. More than 100 countries could benefit from the
sustainable management of coral reefs for the tourist trade.
Drilling Bad – One Accident =’s Our Impacts
It only takes one big leak from drilling to destroy ocean biodiversity
Cohn, 2002 (Jeffrey, author of history of the Endangered Species Act)

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/fall_2002/biodiversity_offshore_oil_p
eril.php
Environmentalists are not so sure. They fear that if a large blowout similar to one in 1969 off the California
coast near Santa Barbara occurred off Alaska’s North Slope, it could trap oil for months under sea ice, where
it would be difficult for cleanup crews to reach. The oil could also collect around the edges of ice sheets and
breathing holes used by seals, bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Further, offshore operations
require onshore facilities to process the oil and gas and to house workers. They also require networks
of roads, pipelines, waste disposal sites and runways, all of which disrupt the environment and wildlife.
Orr says the chances of a blowout are slim, given improved technology. Industry and MMS claim some
success in testing cleanup methods in icy conditions, but most environmentalists remain skeptical that small-
scale tests are sufficient if a full-blown spill occurred. Martin Robards, marine ecologist and The Ocean
Conservancy’s program manager for Alaska, says the odds may be small, “but all it has to happen is just
once" for devastating results to occur. Even a relatively small leak in the pipelines that carry oil and
gas from offshore rigs to onshore facilities could leave hundreds of miles of coastline on Alaska’s North
Slope awash in oil.
Drilling Bad – Biodiversity Impacts
Preserving ocean biodiversity is key to prevent extinction
Craig 2003 (Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law [Robin Kundis, “Taking
Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection”, McGeorge Law Review, Winter, 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155, p. 264-266, LN]
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for
terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides
significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral
reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the
reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that
intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global
geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real
and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows
that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its
biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly
dependent on their biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This
implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that
many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the
ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive
preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be
"the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we
know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has
traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans,
but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about
how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be
preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively
pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know
this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is
almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb
jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless,
wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a
microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills,
industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea
weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not
be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological
stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to
respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts
of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as
enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems
wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
Drilling Bad – Increases Air Pollution
OCS drilling will lead to a massive increase in air pollution

Air pollution: Drilling an average exploration well for oil or gas generates some 50 tons of nitrogen
oxides (NOx), 13 tons of carbon monoxide, 6 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 5 tons of volatile organic
hydrocarbons. Each OCS platform generates more than 50 tons per year of NOx, 11 tons of carbon
monoxide, 8 tons of sulfur dioxide and 38 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbons every year.
Drilling Bad – Increases Warming
OCS drilling will lead to the release of methane hydrates which destroy biodiversity and
spur quick warming

Global Warming pollution: Methane hydrates are ice-like structures formed from frozen water and methane.
These structures are found in Arctic permafrost and beneath the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf where water
depths are greater than 500 feet. The Congressional Research Service reports that "safety problems related to gas
hydrates may be anticipated. Oil and gas operators have recorded numerous drilling and production problems
attributed to the presence of gas hydrates, including uncontrolled gas releases during drilling, collapse of well
casings, and gas leakage to the surface." The report continues that methane hydrates easily become unstable,
potentially triggering seafloor subsidence and catastrophic landslides. In addition, a single unit of methane
hydrate can release 160 times its own volume in gas. As methane is a greenhouse gas more than twenty times
more potent than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming, this volume of gas release would be
extremely dangerous.
Releasing methane hydrates guarantees rapid warming and climatic instability
Dillon, 1990 (Dr. William, US Geological Survey, 07/16/08 http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-

hydrates/title.html)
Hydrates store immense amounts of methane, with major implications for energy resources and climate, but the
natural controls on hydrates and their impacts on the environment are very poorly understood. Gas hydrates occur abundantly in nature, both in
Arctic regions and in marine sediments. Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a
cage of water molecules. It looks very much like water ice. Methane hydrate is stable in ocean floor sediments at water depths greater than 300
meters, and where it occurs, it is known to cement loose sediments in a surface layer several hundred meters thick. The worldwide
amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to
be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth. This estimate is made with minimal information from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and other studies. Extraction of methane from hydrates could provide an enormous energy and petroleum feedstock resource. Additionally,
conventional gas resources appear to be trapped beneath methane hydrate layers in ocean sediments. Recent mapping conducted by the USGS off
North Carolina and South Carolina shows large accumulations of methane hydrates. A pair of relatively small areas, each about the size of the State of
Rhode Island, shows intense concentrations of gas hydrates. USGS scientists estimate that these areas contain more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of methane gas, an
amount representing more than 70 times the 1989 gas consumption of the United States. Some of the gas was formed by bacteria in the sediments, but some may be
derived from deep strata of the Carolina Trough. The Carolina Trough is a significant offshore oil and gas frontier area where no wells have been drilled. It is a very
large basin, about the size of the State of South Carolina, that has accumulated a great thickness of sediment, perhaps more than 13 kilometers. Salt diapirs, reefs, and
faults, in addition to hydrate gas, may provide greater potential for conventional oil and gas traps than is present in other east coast basins. The immense volumes of
gas and the richness of the deposits may make methane hydrates a strong candidate for development as an energy resource. Because the gas is held in a crystal
structure, gas molecules are more densely packed than in conventional or other unconventional gas traps. Gas-hydrate-cemented strata also act as seals for trapped free
gas. These traps provide potential resources, but they can also represent hazards to drilling, and therefore must be well understood. Production of gas from hydrate-
sealed traps may be an easy way to extract hydrate gas because the reduction of pressure caused by production can initiate a breakdown of hydrates and a recharging
of the trap with gas. USGS investigations indicate that gas hydrates may cause landslides on the continental slope. Seafloor slopes of 5 degrees and less should be
stable on the Atlantic continental margin, yet many landslide scars are present. The depth of the top of these scars is near the top of the hydrate zone, and seismic
profiles indicate less hydrate in the sediment beneath slide scars. Evidence available suggests a link between hydrate instability and occurrence of landslides on the
continental margin. A likely mechanism for initiation of landsliding involves a breakdown of hydrates at the base of the hydrate layer. The effect
would be a change from a semi-cemented zone to one that is gas-charged and has little strength, thus facilitating sliding. The cause of the
breakdown might be a reduction in pressure on the hydrates due to a sea-level drop, such as occurred during glacial periods when ocean water
became isolated on land in great ice sheets. Methane, a "greenhouse" gas, is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide
in causing climate warming. Methane bound in hydrates amounts to approximately 3,000 times the volume of
methane in the atmosphere. There is insufficient information to judge what geological processes might most affect
the stability of hydrates in sediments and the possible release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane released as
a result of landslides caused by a sea-level fall would warm the Earth, as would methane released from gas
hydrates in Arctic sediments as they become warmed during a sea-level rise. This global warming might counteract
cooling trends and thereby stabilize climatic fluctuation, or it could exacerbate climatic warming and thereby
destabilize the climate.
Drilling Bad – Increases Warming
Releasing methane hydrates will spark quick and devastating climate change
Dickens 04, (Gerald. oceanographer and associate professor at Rice University, 07/16/08
http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/feature_climate.html#authors)
Buildup of free gas within sediment might then cause local pressures to exceed those of overlying sediment
— thus releasing methane from the seafloor through venting or sediment failure. The capacitor concept brings
some essential elements to discussions of gas hydrates and climate change. Perhaps most important to note is that widely accepted
models for the global carbon cycle invariably omit gas hydrates and seafloor methane fluxes. These models remain accurate portrayals
of carbon cycling when a small carbon input to gas hydrates roughly balances a small carbon output, which probably describes the
present-day situation, but not necessarily the conditions of past time periods. Additionally, sedimentary strata suggest that organic carbon
has accumulated in relatively cold deep waters (less than 15 degrees Celsius) throughout the geologic record. Thus, methane production
and gas hydrates have likely been ubiquitous phenomena over time. Lastly, sea level has dropped and bottom-water temperature has
warmed in the past, sometimes abruptly. Large amounts of carbon-13-depleted methane might escape the seafloor during these intervals,
potentially leading to a warming in the atmosphere. Substantial oxidation of methane in the ocean, however, would also affect the
environment, principally by removing dissolved oxygen from seawater and dissolving carbonate on the seafloor. Thus, irrespective
of whether methane burst into the atmosphere or ocean, the methane would ultimately convert to carbon
dioxide, which would propagate throughout the ocean, atmosphere and terrestrial biomass. A massive
release of carbon-13-depleted methane would, therefore, decrease the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 across
Earth’s surface — a ratio geologists can measure for different time periods in the past. Pronounced drops in
the carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio of carbonate and organic matter mark several ancient events of extreme
global environmental change. During the Phanerozoic, these times include the Permian/Triassic boundary,
250 million years ago; multiple episodes of the Mesozoic, particularly 183 and 120 million years ago; and the
Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55 million years ago. For each time period, researchers
suggest that a massive release of methane from marine gas hydrates is an important ingredient of geologic
change. Several researchers have also speculated that marine gas hydrates have influenced Quaternary
climate. Evidence for tremendous methane outgassing from gas hydrates is most compelling for the
PETM, a brief interval that happens to coincide with a prominent deep marine extinction, extreme global
warming and extraordinary mammal diversification. At least 50 different stable isotope records, constructed using
carbonate and organic matter from both marine and terrestrial environments, show a prominent decrease in the ratio of carbon-13 to
carbon-12 across the PETM. This truly global isotope excursion begins as an abrupt drop over about 20,000 years, followed by a more
gradual return over about 200,000 years. The drop marks a rapid and massive addition of carbon depleted in carbon-13, while the return
indicates its subsequent sequestering into the rock cycle. The best explanation for this carbon input is a massive release of methane into
the ocean or atmosphere, given the signature’s abruptness and magnitude. Equally important, oxygen isotope records from fossilized sea
life suggest a sudden rise in deep-ocean temperatures, perhaps by 6 degrees Celsius. This temperature change would have affected the
distribution of gas hydrate dramatically. Deep-marine sequences also indicate a substantial drop in dissolved oxygen and pronounced
dissolution of carbonate, consistent with release and oxidation of methane from dissociation of hydrates. Even for the PETM, however,
at least three major problems face the notion of massive release of methane from gas hydrates. First, deep-ocean waters averaged 10
degrees Celsius before the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. This temperature means that the GHSZ on continental margins was much
smaller than it is today. To cause the observed isotope excursion, gas hydrates must have been more abundant within the GHSZ during
the Paleocene than at present-day levels. Second, widespread methane release from the seafloor should have left
physical traces, such as vent structures or sediment slumps. Although seismic profiles have documented
numerous mud volcanoes, apparently formed during the PETM in the North Atlantic, these features vented in
relatively shallow water depths, so they cannot signify methane escape from gas hydrate systems. Lastly,
methane release from gas hydrates during the PETM requires that bottom-water warming preceded, at least
in part, carbon input. But, evidence for this remains elusive because of intrinsic difficulties in determining the
relative timing of rapid environmental changes in ancient strata. Over the last 90 million years, pressure and
temperature conditions affecting gas hydrate stability were most perturbed during the PETM. This event also
has the hallmark geologic signatures expected for a massive methane release from the seafloor. Until new
evidence emerges, however, gas-hydrate-driven climate change during the PETM or other time intervals
remains a fascinating but unproven idea. Conceivably, we live in a world with an enormous amount of gas
hydrate and free gas that affects climate and global systems over time. Most current models for global
carbon cycling and climate change, however, have continued to omit the large and dynamic seafloor methane
cycle. We may be sitting on the brink of a major shift in thinking about the carbon cycle and climate
change, one that would permeate throughout the broad geoscience community. Hopefully, over the next few
years, an appropriate understanding will come through new drilling of gas-hydrate-bearing sequences, new
carbon cycle models incorporating gas hydrates and free gas, and new records to pinpoint past seafloor
methane release.
Drilling Bad – OCS = Drill in ANWR
Allowing drilling in the OCS will lead to drilling everywhere

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/coasts/virginia/
The oil and gas industries and their allies at all levels of government, particularly in Virginia, are hard at
work trying to dismantle decades of important coastal protections. The push to open up America's coasts is
part of a much broader agenda that demands no place be put off-limits to the oil and gas industry. It is
increasingly clear that the oil and gas industries are bidding for unchecked access to some of America's
most treasured places -- including our coasts -- even as they rake in billions of dollars in record profits
while consumers suffer high gas and home heating prices. The oil and gas industry has specifically
targeted Virginia as the first step in chipping away at nationwide coastal protections, hoping that the
state will be the first in a series of dominoes that will open up significant chunks of the remaining
protected areas along America's coastline.
Proposed drilling will not be contained as has been claimed by proponents.
Associated Press 06 [<http://news.carjunky.com/environmental/arctic-national-wildlife-reserve-

abc1242.shtml> 7/16/08- date accessed]
Contrary to statements offered by those that would disturb the last of America’s intact ecological environments,
drilling would not be confined to a mere 2,000 acres. Instead, widespread drilling to access what research has
shown to be scattered pockets of oil would result in devastating and irreparable harm to the environment and
its inhabitants. It is naïve to imagine that a centralized drilling location exists. If the ANWR is not protected, this
pristine land will give way to well pads, pipelines, housing and other contaminants that will drive far reaching
change for the climate as well as wildlife culture.
Drilling Bad – ANWR Impacts
ANWR drilling threatens key species
Abend 01 [Paula, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SciRC?locID=boi50177&bi=SU&bt=ANWR+drilling&c=
3&t=2&ste=22&docNum=A74488803&st=b&tc=18&tf=2> 7/16/08- date accessed]
A George W. Bush's administration prepares to govern, one wildlife issue is sure to spark intense debate: opening up
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling and development.
First set aside by President Eisenhower 40 years ago, this unbroken landscape of arctic and subarctic habitat is home
to such a wealth of wildlife that it has been dubbed "America's Serengeti." Polar and grizzly bear, caribou,
musk ox, Dall sheep, wolf, arctic fox, and more than 100 species of migratory birds use the land. Twenty-one
species of marine mammals live in the waters off the refuge.
But in 1980, when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed and formally established the refuge,
oil interests and environmentalists were already battling over the land. Unable to resolve the debate, Congress
exempted the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain from the wilderness protection afforded the rest of the original refuge.
Yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the "biological heart" of the refuge, a critical area of
wildlife activity. The migratory, 130,000-member Porcupine caribou herd depends on the coastal plain to calve and
raise its young. It is also an important onshore denning area for polar bears.
Oil-drilling proponents claim that disruptions to wildlife would be minimal. But a group of 250 scientists recently
joined forces to warn that the risks to wildlife are substantial (see NewsScan, page 2). Studies of caribou living
near Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields show decreased birth rates, altered migration patterns, and poorer
overall condition. Polar-bear mothers have been known to abandon dens when disturbed, an event that may
prove fatal to cubs. Huge water reservoirs that will be dug along rivers will permanently scar habitat vital to
musk ox and other wildlife. And the roads, pipelines, power plants, airports, living quarters, and other
supporting infrastructure would industrialize a priceless wilderness. Despite claims of better technology, there
are currently between 500 and 1,000 oil spills a year in Prudhoe Bay.
ANWR drilling won’t increase the economy

It has been suggested that drilling in the ANWR will reduce gas prices as well as U.S. dependence on foreign
oil. That is simply not true. Countless studies and more than 1,000 scientists from the United States and Canada
in a 2005 letter to George W. Bush dispute these claims while advocating for the more responsible needs of
renewable energy sources and more fuel efficient vehicles. Indeed, focused attention on these goals will yield more
productive solutions than the oil that might be recovered from the ANWR. It is simply unconscionable to risk this
delicate ecosystem – it becomes even more objectionable when we understand that such drilling will worsen the
problem of global warming and disturb the wildlife that depends on the Reserve for its very survival only to
increase oil reserves by a mere 0.3 percent. That pittance is unlikely to be ready for market in less than ten years.
Rolling in record profits, big oil has no legitimate reason to avoid short-sighted and irresponsible tactics. If they will
not act with integrity, it is up to us to hold their feet to the fire.
Arctic Drilling harms wildlife and endangered species
Van Noopen 07 [Trip Van Noopen, April 18, 2007, President of Earthjustice foundation a
nonprofit environmental law firm, http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/arctic-ocean-oil-
drilling-challenged.html]
Native group and five conservation organizations filed challenges Monday to a federal agency's recent decision
allowing Shell Offshore Inc. to drill oil wells in the Beaufort Sea near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge beginning
in June. Despite the threat oil drilling poses to the sensitive Arctic ecosystem, the federal Minerals Management
Service (MMS) approved the plan through a rushed process without fully analyzing the potential impacts, and
without conducting a public process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). MMS refused, for
example, to consider the potential for an accidental spill of crude oil. "Given the resources at stake and the
potentially devastating effects this drilling could have on bowhead whales, seals, birds and fish, it is unacceptable
for the government to rush this through without a thorough public review of the impacts. The subsistence rights of
the communities are being ignored and Shell's plans will violate their rights," said Faith Gemmill of REDOIL
(Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands). "REDOIL members living in the villages of Nuiqsut,
Kaktovik, and Barrow depend on the Beaufort Sea for their livelihood. Why did MMS disregard this?" "As a
mother and a grandmother, I am concerned that the Arctic Inupiat whaling culture is at risk because the MMS insists
rushing ahead with offshore oil plans. The government of the people, in helping the industry drill for oil at all costs,
is disregarding the future of the Arctic people. They are doing this with an outdated Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and without proper input from the public. The Arctic community revolves around the whaling way
of life; there is not one facet of the ecosystem of the Arctic that does not concern the catching of the
whale. Considering the movement of the ocean ice, there is too big of a risk that an oil spill will occur, therefore
creating a risk of destroying the Inupiat culture," said Doreen Simmonds, Inupiat resident of Barrow and REDOIL
member. Not only did MMS completely fail to analyze potentially devastating oil spills, its rushed process did
not include a full analysis of the significant harms that can be caused by routine drilling operations in the
Arctic environment. The drilling involves two massive drill ships accompanied by ice breakers, support
vessels, and air support. This level of industrial activity in the Beaufort threatens the endangered bowhead
whale, polar bears and birds, including threatened Steller's and spectacled eiders. Additionally, the constant air
traffic associated with drilling can disturb caribou and interfere with the subsistence hunt.
Drilling will bring irreparable harm to the delicate environment and its inhabitants.

Allowed to go forward, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, also called the 1002 area, might
result in a few months’ supply of oil, but will cause certain, irreversible damage to an environment that
nurtures more than 45 types of mammals, nearly 40 types of fish and almost 200 species of birds.
The ill effects will not be limited to animals. Indigenous people, such as the Gwich’in Indians, who depend
upon the Porcupine Caribou Herd for their very existence, will suffer irreparable harm as well. Along
with the musk ox (once nearly extinct) and grizzly, the Porcupine Caribou Herd owes its growth and survival
to the delicate ecosystem of the ANWR that sustains them.
The Refuge provides a habitat for the Porcupine Caribou Herd, thought to be among the largest in the world
and a critical link to survival for the region's indigenous inhabitants. Like the Gwich’in, many in Alaska
make their living hunting and fishing and depend on a clean environment to find success in these areas.
Drilling is a threat to the Caribou calving grounds and akin to threatening the Gwich’in, who call this
precious area “the sacred place where life begins.” Sadly, drilling will make this a sacred place no more,
and life as its inhabitants know it will be forever over.
Other inhabitants, such as polar bears, depend upon the area for feeding and denning needs that support
their survival. Snow geese, also indigenous to the area, are known to be particularly sensitive to any
disturbances and with very few feeding habitats other than the AWNR are unlikely to survive displacement.
Arctic Drilling is hazardous for the environment and workers.
Laestadius 08 [Lars Laestadius ph.d, July 8, 2008 senior associate for World Resources Institute, Former
researcher for the European Commision DG XII, http://www.wri.org/stories/2008/07/could-arctic-oil-exploration-
be-made-safe, accessed July 16, 2008]
Surging energy prices are renewing calls to open highly sensitive Arctic areas to oil exploration. One condition
of access should be greater public oversight.
When it comes to environmental protection, the energy industry likes to operate on the Titanic principle–accidents
can’t happen, but if they do, we know how to manage them. But accidents can and do happen. The 2002 Gaz
Diamond spill in Puget Sound, the Louisiana spill of 2000, the one in Rhode Island in 1996, and the Tampa Bay
barge collision in 1993 are just a few examples of accidents in the U.S. alone.
Sometimes the impacts and the management of spills are disastrous: for example, the Black Sea spill of 2007, or the
Prestige spill off the coast of Spain in 2002. And of course there is the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, which alone cost
Exxon $3.5 billion in fines and penalties, another half-a-billion in punitive damages, to say nothing of the damage to
its reputation.
Oil spills in icy seas of the north are difficult to spot, difficult to contain, difficult to clean up and difficult for
nature to heal. In the Arctic, the hazards are especially severe. Visibility may be zero, ice is everywhere,
storms blow often, and oil workers are frequently exhausted from the harsh conditions
Drilling Bad – Kills Tourism
Inevitable oil spills from drilling will destroy coastal US economies

Environmentalist Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund says smaller spills are still too common.
"This is a dirty, polluting industry," he says. "I've seen it with my own eyes, stepped in it with my own feet." The
biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil back to shore — by pipeline, barge
or tanker.
The 2002 National Research Council report found that marine transportation was responsible for one-third of
worldwide petroleum spillage, about eight times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines. Still, the
Minerals Management Service projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico
over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it says, a spill of at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. If that hit
a beach in western Florida once every four years, I think people would care," says Michael Gravitz of
Environment America. "Those communities live and die by having clean beaches."
OCS drilling will destroy tourism and crush coastal economies collapsing the economy

Drilling in the OCS could have damaging effects on local economies.

The industrial character of offshore oil and gas development is often at odds with the existing economic
base of the affected coastal communities, many of which rely on tourism, coastal recreation and fishing.
In Dare Country, NC, the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau has been fighting efforts to lift the ban on coastal
drilling precisely because it realizes what a crushing effect coastal drilling could have on the Outer Banks'
tourist economy. Carolyn McCormick, managing director of the Visitors' Bureau, was quoted in the Virginian
Pilot last month saying, "If there's one spill or one disaster, you could destroy us for a very long time." In
Virginia Beach, the Hotel-Motel Association has supported the mayor's request to veto the recent bill to lift
the drilling moratorium.
In addition to potentially catastrophic effects on the tourism industry, drilling for gas and oil off our
coasts could have significant negative impacts on commercial fishing. In a Norweigan study conducted in
the central Berents Sea, seismic shooting severely affected fish distribution, local abundance, and catch rates
over a large geographic area. In this study, catch of cod and haddock fell precipitously within a 38-nautical-
mile by 38-nautical-mile area, and remained depressed for at least five days following the conclusion of
seismic survey activities. In addition, the Canadian T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and the
United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union - CAW recently weighed in on the Canadian Statement of
Practice on the Mitigation of Seismic noise, citing their concern for the B.C. marine-based industries, which
employ over 20,000 and contribute over $2 billion in revenues and $600,000 in total GDP. These groups
point to mortalities in fish eggs, fish and shellfish larvae, and adult fish with swim bladders; trawl catch
declines from 50 to 70% and longline catch declines by 44% for 5 days after cessation of seismic shooting;
and the particular concern about seismic activity during salmon migration or herring spawning. Salmon are
of particular concern because of the endangered status of some populations off the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts, and because of their apparent inability to detect and avoid low-frequency sound until damaging levels
are reached.
Drilling Bad – Tourism Key to the Economy
Travel Business Roundtable 07 [Tourism Industry Group, “Tourism key to U.S. metro
economies”. March 12, http://www.tbr.org/newsroom/pr_2002/pr_atlanta.htm. Accessed 7/16/08]
Mayors, Industry Leaders Propose Plan to Help Boost Travel Atlanta - "As tourism goes, so goes the
economic well-being of our communities. We cannot and will not leave it to chance. This task force will
be very aggressive in pursuing the implementation of our ten-point action plan to boost travel and tourism."
The report, developed by DRI-WEFA, an economic research firm, is accessible at www.usmayors.org. Key
findings include: In 2000, travel and tourism was a $263.4 billion industry in the nation’s top 100 metro
areas, including $17.6 billion in New York, $14 billion in Chicago, $13.6 billion in Los Angeles-Long Beach,
$11.2 billion in Atlanta, $3.5 billion in Pittsburgh, and more than $1 billion in Colorado Springs. Travel and
tourism is the largest share of the gross metropolitan economy in Las Vegas (14.4%), Honolulu (13.9%), and
Orlando (12.3%). In 2000, tourism supported 3.9 million jobs in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas,
including Chicago (207,436 jobs), New York 9(198,998), Los Angeles-Long Beach (177,264), Atlanta
(172,954), Washington (152,891), Dallas (140,661), Detroit (76,775), and Salt Lake City (45,175). A
significant travel slowdown, the result of the weak economy and 9/11, has hit metro economies
disproportionately hard, cutting more than 536,000 tourism-related jobs in the top 100 metro areas through
2002. Tourism job losses have been particularly severe in Phoenix (-27.2%), Orlando (-24.5%), San Diego
(-23.8%), Lancaster (-22.9%), and Houston (-22.7%). A reduction in international visitors will cost metro
areas more than $22.6 billion in lost economic activity in 2001 and 2002, of which more than $12.5 billion is
attributed to 9/11. Losses were largest in New York ($5.9 billion of which $3.3 billion is attributed to 9/11),
San Francisco ($2.1 billion of which $1.2 billion is attributed to 9/11), Los Angeles ($1.75 billion of which
$970 million is attributed to 9/11), and Miami ($1.6 billion of which $861 million is attributed to 9/11).
International visits to the United States are not expected to recover soon without aggressive efforts by the
public and private sectors. The report projects that the nation could achieve an additional $100 billion in
international tourism spending from 2003 to 2007 if key strategic and policy decisions were made to foster
the recovery and growth of key tourism export markets. "The United States is losing tourism market share,
and with it jobs and tax revenue, to our foreign competitors who are spending vast sums of money to promote
their countries," said Jonathan Tisch, Chairman of the Travel Business Roundtable and Chairman & CEO of
Loews Hotels. "We are the only developed nation in the world that does not make a strategic federal
investment to promote our country as an international destination. In fact, the U.S. is now the third most
visited country, behind France and Spain. The public and private sectors must work together to reverse this
trend." Summit participants endorsed a ten-point action plan that recommends: Establishing a Presidential
Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism; Creating a destination marketing pilot program, which would
provide funding to specific cities and states to undertake individual destination marketing initiatives;
Increasing funding for the Market Development Cooperator Program, a $2 million Commerce Department
matching grants program that would help cities and convention and visitors bureaus promote their
destinations overseas; Enacting the American Travel Promotion Act, pending legislation to provide $100
million in matching grants to stimulate the tourism industry; and Seeking restoration of tax incentives to spur
business travel and urge Congress to make permanent the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work
Tax Credit, powerful tools to help unskilled and disadvantaged workers receive job training for employment
in the travel and tourism industries."Tourism is the economic engine that drives communities across our
country both large and small," said Michael Gehrisch, President & CEO of the International Association of
Convention and Visitor Bureaus. "Armed with this new data, we can work together as an industry like never
before to give that engine a powerful jumpstart."
Drilling Bad – Won’t Decreases Oil Prices
Drilling won’t reduce gas prices – its too long-term
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the president was “deluding the American public into
believing that new offshore drilling is a quick fix to $4 per gallon gasoline.” Like others, she noted that drilling
offshore would have no immediate effect. “Even if new offshore drilling were allowed off the coast of
California and along the outer continental shelf, which I wholly and resolutely oppose,” she said, “it won’t
produce oil in time to solve the gas price emergency American consumers are facing right now.”
OCS reserves are minimal – it will have zero impact on oil prices

Much of it, he says, lacks enough oil to make drilling economical. About 70% of the oil found in the Gulf last
year was in deep water, where it's more expensive to drill.
The central and western Gulf "is an area that we've picked over a lot," says Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser at
the American Petroleum Institute. Some critics of offshore drilling say companies want to stockpile leases before
Bush, a former oil company executive, leaves office. "They want to put inventory on the shelf," Gravitz says. The
nation's coastal shelf runs from Maine to Texas and from California to Alaska, but geologists are most interested in
untapped waters west of Florida and southern California. Proponents of drilling also have hopes for the northern
Atlantic. Even the Department of Energy says oil from those areas won't arrive anytime soon.
It projected last year that with the ban in place until 2012, new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in
2030, and the impact on oil prices would be "insignificant."
Increasing drilling won’t effect oil prices – its all hype
Grim and Lovley, July 10, 2008 (staff writers, Politico, Ryan and Erica)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11649_Page2.html
“The bottom line is, politicians who are trying to sell offshore drilling as a quick fix are not looking at
the core of the problem — years of failed energy policy,” said Greenpeace senior legislative coordinator
Kate Smolski. Friends of the Earth is sending a similar message — the world’s demand for oil is already
so great, the group says, that opening offshore drilling won’t make a dent in pump prices.
Drilling Bad – Won’t Decreases Oil Prices
More drilling won’t decrease oil prices – its empirically false
First, let’s examine the claim that more drilling can lower gasoline prices. Between 1999 and 2007, permits for
drilling in onshore and offshore public lands “increased by more than 361 percent, yet gasoline prices have
also risen dramatically,” the House Natural Resources Committee reported in a new analysis. “There is simply no
correlation between the two.”
Indeed, lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would not reduce oil prices for years, notes the United States
Energy Information Administration. It found that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would not
have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.”
Drilling is not a short term solution to the energy crisis

To be sure, market forces - including increased worldwide demand, supply interruptions in unstable areas like
Nigeria and the weak dollar - play a major role in the high prices. For that reason, few of the ideas being debated
in Congress have much chance of impacting gas prices in the short run - even if they could pass, experts say.
"There is little Congress can do that would have any impact in the short term," said Thomas Mann of the
Brookings Institution.
Drilling Bad – Stops Transition to Alternative Energy
Drilling will only keep the US addicted to oil – its crushes the solvency of the affirmative’s
incentive
In 2006, President Bush declared, “America is addicted to oil.” Unfortunately, the president and the presumptive
Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), share Big Oil’s belief that the United States can lower gas prices
by oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf — despite all evidence to the contrary.
Expansion of offshore drilling into protected areas will worsen our oil addiction. It is akin to an alcoholic
seeking treatment at a new saloon. Instead, we need to slash oil demand to cut our gasoline bills, strengthen our
national security and reduce pollution.
Off-shore drilling will prevent the transition to alternative energy and continue a failed
energy policy
Mandaro, July 14, 2008 (Laura, staff-writer for MarketWatch, The Wall Street Journal)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bush-lifts-executive-ban-
offshore/story.aspx?guid=%7B11A84451-D6F5-428E-95CE-
44DE805540AD%7D&dist=msr_51
On Monday, the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said offshore drilling "would
merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."
"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy
independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within
the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither," said the senator's campaign staff in a statement released
before Bush's news conference.
Drilling Bad – Stops Transition to Alternative Energy

Drilling will stop the transition to alternative energy
Revesz and Livermore, July 15, 2008 (Richard and Michael, dean of New York University
School of Law and executive director of the Institute for the Study of Regulation at New York
University School of Law)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/15/04841/6594/
Given the massive risks of offshore oil drilling it is hard to believe that Bush or McCain -- who has also supported
new drilling -- could produce a credible cost-benefit analysis showing that it makes economic sense. The value of
the oil would have to offset threats to natural resources and the large value that Americans place on unspoiled
wilderness and unharmed ecosystems.
Even aside from the risk of drilling, bringing more oil into the economy will produce little long-term benefit.
While it might reduce the price of gas in the short run, it will also reduce incentives to develop more fuel
efficient cars and alternative energy sources. Supply-side strategies like offshore oil drilling are ultimately
doomed to fail. The result will be more pollution -- threatening public health and contributing to global warming --
with little tangible benefit to show for it.
Drilling Bad -- New Tech Doesn’t Solve
Even with tech increasing drilling will destroy the ocean

Today's technology is much better at routine drilling, at avoiding the kinds of seepages that were common a
generation ago," says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen. Even so, there are still risks. When oil is brought up
from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead
can be discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic
and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can
harm sea mammals. "Basically, oil and water don't mix," says Melanie Duchin of the environmental group
Greenpeace, who lives in Alaska and still sees pollution from the 11 million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill of 1989,
which supplanted Santa Barbara as the nation's worst. "Oil smothers wildlife."
Even new tech fails – the best evidence proves drilling will destroy ocean bio-diversity in 3
devastating ways

"Dart Core" Seabed sample extractions:

"Dart core" sampling, another survey technique, consists of dropping large hollow metal tubes from ships
to vertically puncture the seafloor. The samples are retrieved and analyzed for information about subsea rock
structures. This technique is extremely destructive to seafloor benthic organisms and fish habitat,
discharging silt plumes that are transported on ocean currents and smothering nearby life on the
seabed.
Seafloor "Grab samples":
"Grab samples" are retrieved from the seafloor sediments with large hinged "buckets" dropped from the
shipboard into the seafloor to analyze silt, rocks, and seabed sediments and seafloor organisms. These
buckets damage benthic organisms at the seafloor and cause silt plumes.
Directional Drilling:
Directional drilling has been used to access oil and gas reserves under our National Parks, the Great Lakes,
and the Gulf of Mexico. In the case of drilling off shore, the well head is on shore while the bottom of the
well may be thousands of feet offshore. In 1997, Governor Engler of Michigan directed the Michigan
Environmental Science Board to study the impacts of directional drilling on environmental and human
activities. This study concluded impacts from directional drilling could result in the contamination of
groundwater aquifers and loss of habitat while also increasing noise levels, odor, and congestion,
impacting recreation and tourism.
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Cuban Drilling
China is not drilling off the coast of Cuba -- the republicans are lying about it
DCCC June 12, 08 [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. House Republicans’ False Claim about Chinese Oil
Drilling Off Cuba Called “Urban Legend, Miami Herald,
http://dccc.org/blog/archives/house_republicans_false_claim_about_chinese_oil_drilling_off_cuba_called_ur/ Accessed: July 16,
2008 5:51 PM]
What do the following Republicans have in common? Vice President Dick Cheney,Representative Michele
Bachmann (MN-06),Candidate Brian Davis (MN-01),Candidate John Gard (WI-08),Representative Sam
Graves (MO-06),Candidate Melissa Hart (PA-04),Candidate Luke Puckett (IN-02),Representative Jean
Schmidt (OH-02), andRepresentative Tim Walberg (MI-07)
They're all making the same false claim that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida in Cuban
waters. "Americans are paying an average of $4.08 for a gallon of gas and all they're getting are lies and ‘urban legends' from
Republicans," Jennifer Crider, Communications Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "If Republican
Members and Republican candidates can't be trusted to tell the truth about where oil is being drilled, they certainly can't be trusted to do
anything meaningful to lower the price of gas. Americans struggling to afford to fill their gas tanks deserve better than fear mongering
and lies about gas prices from Republicans." Vice President Cheney's office was forced to issue a correction after
Cheney made this claim. Even Republican Senator Mel Martinez, former Chairman of the Republican
National Committee, stated that "Any talk of using some fabricated Cuba-China connection as an
argument to change U.S. policy has no merit." He also said, "Reports to the contrary are simply false.
They are akin to urban legends."
Claims that China is drilling in Cuba are false –
Faris 08 [David. Chinese Take Out? Clueless Cheney tries to scare us into drilling everything.
Jun 25, 2008. http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2008/06/26/chinese Accessed: July 16, 2008]
With gas prices hovering over $4 a gallon across the U.S., the doyens of petrophilia are pulling out all the
stops in an effort to get the U.S. to lift all environmental restrictions on drilling for oil. The latest salvo came
when the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, repeated a claim by columnist George Will that
the Chinese are drilling for crude in conjunction with Cuba off the coast of Florida
What we were meant to think, of course, was OMG the Red Chinese are near Miami Beach! Someone get
Dean Rusk and Bobby Kennedy in a room together and blockade Cuba!
Will and Cheney's utterly fabricated (and now retracted) allegation rolls two big wingnut bugaboos
into one — an irrational fear of Cuba, a country whose geopolitical power couldn't light up an ice-
fishing shack — and anger at The Left, which cares more about dolphins than it does about filling the
tanks of Lincoln Navigators. Add a dollop of official China Paranoia and you have not only the recipe
for a manufactured strategic crisis right out of the Gulf of Tonkin playbook but also a ready-made
electoral issue that John McCain immediately pounced on.
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Cuban Drilling
Turn – Portraying China as a threat will create a self-fulfilling prophecy and lead us into
conflict with China
Gholz 2007 (Eugene, an assistant professor of public affairs at University of Texas at

Austin and Daryl Press, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth University, April 5)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa589.pdf
Furthermore, Chinese efforts to lock up supplies with long-term contracts will at worst be economically
neutral for the United States and may even be advantageous. The main danger stemming from China’s
energy policy is that current U.S. fears may become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Sino-U.S. conflict. Finally,
political instability in the Persian Gulf poses surprisingly few energy security dangers, and U.S. military presence
there actually exacerbates problems rather than helps to solve them.
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Resource Wars
Global resources are increasing – no risk of conflict
Gholz 2007 (Eugene, an assistant professor of public affairs at University of Texas at

Austin and Daryl Press, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth University, April 5)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa589.pdf
The pessimistic claims about peaking oil supplies should be treated with skepticism.
For decades, analysts have argued that oil supplies were dwindling and that the peak rate of production would soon
been reached. In fact, the most eminent advocate of that argument today once predicted that the global production
peak would occur in 1989, but since then global crude oil production has grown by 23 percent, and oil supply (crude
oil and other petroleum liquids) has grown by more than 28 percent.24 More telling, the world’s ultimately
recoverable resources (URR) have been growing over time, largely because many fields contain substantially more
oil than was originally believed.
OCS can’t solve resource wars – even if we tap all the oil there its only 1% of US
consumption.
Cesarotti 2008 [Brian. Smash the Mirror: Thoughts on Geopolitical, Energy, Economic Issues
and Other Whatnot. http://smashthemirror.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/why-reserve-estimates-
are-an-irrelevant-statistic-outer-continental-shelf/]
Not so fast. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, when production in the OCS gets
fully online in 2030, it will give a boost of about 200,000 barrels/day. This is the equivalent of 1% of
today’s U.S. daily consumption, 7% of projected offshore crude oil production in 2030 and 3% of total
domestic production. According to the report linked above, the impact on global oil prices would ultimately
be insignificant. Natural gas prices would be affected by roughly $.13 per thousand cubic feet as an increase
of 18% in offshore production and 3% increase in total domestic production would be achieved in 2030. The
point demonstrated here is that whenever reserve estimates are referenced, it is always better to
question at what rate the oil can be produced. We can see with this data that the OCS, along with many
other proposed “solutions”, are not a panacea and would realistically have little impact. Without
factoring environmental concerns, it can be safe to conclude that it would be better to promote alternative
sources of energy and methods for lowering our energy intensity.
Drilling Bad -- A/T – Tanker Spills Turn
Offshore drilling won’t decrease tanker use – it leads to a net increase in links

Environmentalist Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund says smaller spills are still too common.
"This is a dirty, polluting industry," he says. "I've seen it with my own eyes, stepped in it with my own feet." The
biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil back to shore — by pipeline, barge
or tanker.
The 2002 National Research Council report found that marine transportation was responsible for one-third
of worldwide petroleum spillage, about eight times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines.
Aff – No Link – Dems want Compromise on Other Issues
Dems want to compromise on Strategic Oil Reserve and current leases– not the plan
Tally and Power, July 9, 2008 (Staff Writers, Wall Street Journal, Ian and Stephen)
Faced with mounting pressure from voters to respond to record gasoline prices, some senior Democratic lawmakers
Tuesday opened the door to a compromise with Republicans that would open more land on and offshore to oil and
gas exploration and production. Separately Tuesday, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called on the
Bush administration to draw down "a small portion" of oil held in the government's emergency petroleum stockpile
in an effort to boost available supplies and reduce oil prices. The White House has repeatedly said it is opposed to
tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to moderate prices. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Senate Majority Whip
Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), said "I'm open to drilling and responsible production," adding that he and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, (D., Nev.), could support a modest expansion of offshore production. Sen. Durbin said any
compromise on drilling, however, would be contingent at a minimum on a requirement that oil and gas
companies sitting on existing acreage either produce oil on those areas within a specified period or return the
leases to the government. Lawmakers are also keen to curb what many on Capitol Hill believe is excessive
speculation in the energy futures markets.
Aff – Compromise Impossible
Compromise is impossible – neither side wants anything to be done before the election
Raju and Soraghan, June 23, 2008 (Manu and Mike, staff writers, The Hill)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bipartisan-spirit-on-hill-has-yet-to-land-energy-deal-2008-
06-23.html
The maneuvering on both sides shows that Democrats and Republicans are still in the taunt-and-blame stage
when it comes to what to do about energy and gas prices.
And that may be for good reason. Even if Congress approved energy legislation that President Bush signed into law,
near-term gas prices would almost certainly continue to rise, according to energy analysts. That may not be worth
the risks of passing legislation before November. “Anyone who is honest about energy policy knows there is
no quick fix,” said a Senate Democratic aide, “which means that even if one side or the other passed their
solution, and hailed it as a great victory, it would not actually have a tremendous enough impact on gas prices
in time for the election. “So one perspective you could take is that success can almost hurt you – if you do pass
something,” the aide said.
Compromise on energy issues is impossible
06-23.html
Lawmakers and congressional aides say a House-Senate compromise in this area is unlikely, despite a recent
breakthrough between the two parties on other contentious topics. Being vulnerable this fall put members from
both parties in a deal-making mood. Republicans in both chambers are concerned about major losses in November.
In the Senate, just one Democrat faces a tough reelection, so the pressure may come from the more than 30 House
Democrats facing tough reelections. Those dynamics helped push Congress to clear the decks on an Iraq-funding
measure, an extension of unemployment benefits, funding for military veterans’ education, an electronic surveillance
bill and likely on housing-rescue legislation. But it hasn’t extended to gas prices. “I don’t think there’s a lot of
movement,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who has emerged as a lead negotiator between the two
parties, said in an interview Monday. In addition, he noted that the elements of last week’s deals on the electronic
surveillance and Iraq bills were on the table for weeks or months before the deals were cut. On energy, Democrats
and Republicans can’t even agree on what the table is.
Aff – Compromise Impossible
Democrats won’t compromise – they are insulated from the energy price fallout
06-23.html
With no compromise in sight, gas prices and oil has become hot fodder for the presidential
campaign. Senate Republicans are expected to hold news conferences to criticize Sen. Barack
Obama (D-Ill.) this week, claiming he made statements endorsing higher gasoline prices. They
also plan to unveil their latest energy proposal. With presidential candidate John McCain (R-
Ariz.) now behind offshore drilling, the GOP sees an advantage in attacking Democrats over
limiting access to suppliers.
Senate Democrats also plan to push more energy votes this summer on variations of a broad bill
that failed 51-43 and a tax-incentive package Republicans have blocked, in an attempt to show
that the GOP sides with oil companies and Wall Street.
Aff – Drilling is Safe
Drilling is safe – new technologies solve
William L. Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the United States
Chamber of Commerce, said the ban on drilling on the outer shelf reflected an environmental concern that
was now outdated. “The drilling, plus the technology, is much safer than it was 15 years ago,” he said.
Drilling is safe – environmental groups agree
Cline, July 12, 2008 (Andrew, Editor for the New Hampshire Union Leader, in the Wall Street
Journal)
When an environmental group formed for the sole purpose of opposing offshore oil drilling warmly embraces
a plan to drill off its own coast, you know something important has changed in our culture: Americans have
recognized that offshore oil drilling is largely safe. Since 1975, drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone (within
200 miles of the U.S. coast) has had a 99.999% safety record, according to the Energy Information
Administration, which reports that "only .001 percent of the oil produced has been spilled." Thanks to
technological advances, large spills are rare. Most spills are tiny, only a few feet in diameter. Large tanker
spills, such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989, are so infrequent they account for a very small fraction of the oil that
winds up in the sea.
Aff – Drilling is Safe
New drilling technology is sweet – there’s no impact

Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and government oversight have made
routine drilling safe. State and federal laws regulate how much of each chemical can be discharged into the
water; most are at insignificant levels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The mercury that's
generated cannot be absorbed by fish tissue, officials say, avoiding the food chain. "The best fishing in the Gulf is
where the rigs are," says Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a leading proponent of offshore drilling. Spills from platforms
have become far less frequent over recent decades, federal data show. A report by the National Research Council
found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2% of the petroleum in North America's
oceans, compared with 63% from natural seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard
reports show that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than
500,000 in the 1990s. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only
insignificant amounts of oil spilled, says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator.
There was significant pollution — 8 million to 10 million gallons of oil spilled, mostly from tanks and pipelines on
land and from tankers striking submerged drilling platforms — but less than 10% of that came from federal offshore
operations. Today's technology, such as automatic shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices
that can prevent blowouts caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced the risk of oil
spills. "Offshore drilling is the safest way to go," Guidry says. "Those guys don't spill oil."
No risk of oil leaks from off-shore drilling – oil pollution is inevitable from other sources
anyway
Journal)
A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more
oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage
from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other
hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.
The vast majority of the oil that finds its way into the sea comes from dry land, NASA found. Runoff from cities,
roads, industrial sites and garages deposits 363 million gallons into the sea, making runoff by far the single largest
source of oil pollution in the oceans. "Every year oily road runoff from a city of 5 million could contain as much oil
as one large tanker spill," notes the Smithsonian exhibit, "Ocean Planet."
The second-largest source of ocean oil pollution was routine ship maintenance, accountable for 137 million gallons a
year, NASA found -- more than 2.5 times the amount that comes from tanker spills and offshore drilling combined.
But no one is proposing that we ban cargo and cruise ships. The public may be aware that offshore drilling
accidents are infrequent and pose little threat to the environment; this awareness is probably part of the reason
why growing numbers of Americans support drilling in formerly protected portions of our coastal waters. Last
month, a Zogby poll found 74% of Americans support offshore drilling. That's up from 57% in May, according to a
Gallup poll. Even a majority of Democrats support offshore drilling, according to a Rasmussen poll last month.
Aff – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs
Off-shore drilling won’t harm reefs and solves oil dependency
Mr. Bush said some experts believe that drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf could yield a decade’s worth of
oil for the United States, and that exploiting it could be done unobtrusively, without damaging coral reefs or
creating spills. He said Congress was “the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil
resources.”
Drilling improves marine ecosystems and coral reefs
Hallman 06 [John, director of FreedomWorks,

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2753 accessed July 16,
2008] November 3 2006
Most Americans understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and provide the extra supply of oil and
natural gas to lower our energy costs. The Mineral Management Services (MMS), an agency of the Department of
Interior, estimates that the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) contains enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for
60 years or enough oil to replace current Persian Gulf imports for 59 years. Unfortunately the federal government
has held back 80% of the country's OCS from oil and gas exploration and production. But despite these findings,
there are those from radical environmental groups that oppose critical access to domestic oil and natural gas,
claiming they are protecting the environment.
Actually the facts tell us that offshore rigs and platforms can be beneficial to marine wildlife. Once in place, the
platform's substructure acts as an "artificial reef," providing hard surfaces for encrusting organisms such as
spiny oysters, barnacles, sponges, and corals.
These creatures are the basis of the food chain in what becomes a new marine ecosystem for numerous types of fish,
sharks, sea turtles, spiny lobsters, and sea urchins, so basically speaking,the rigs create critical two factors for
marine life: Shelter and food. The food chain begins with the formation of barnacles on these structures below the
waterline. This sets the stage for small fish seeking shelter and food that the steel legs provide. Many local
Gulf coast scuba divers enjoy underwater visits to Gulf platforms to sight-see tropical fish and organisms
normally associated with natural reef systems located in the Caribbean and far away places. Local divers call
these trips "Rig Diving" because the word rig is commonly used in place of platform.
Aff – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs
Coral reef destruction inevitable in the quo b/c of alternative causes
Environmental Defense Fund ’01. [Partner with business to find environmental solutions,
http://www.edf.org/documents/37_May01.pdf, July 16, 2008]
Coral reefs contain one-quarter of all marine species, many of which may have medical benefits. Reefs have
been around for 225 million years, but if the present rate of destruction continues, 70 percent of the world’s
reefs could be dead within 40 years. Sedimentation, eutrophication from sewage and bleaching from global
warming are the main culprits. In the Philippines, reefs are dynamited for their fish. Cuba’s reefs, on the other
hand, are relatively untouched. Our scientist Dr. Ken Lindeman has been helping design marine reserves. Our goal is
to improve habitat protection around coral reefs and reduce overfishing before it is too late.
Aff – Environmental Impacts Exaggerated
Impact is exaggerated – even big spills don’t only do limited damage
Journal)
Big oil spills can do long-term ecological damage. But the long-term effects seem to be on the micro rather
than the macro scale. In Alaska and Cape Cod, where long-ago oil spills coated the shoreline, the aftereffects
are visible only if one goes digging for them. Small creatures such as crabs and shellfish still suffer negative
ramifications. But the ecological decimation predicted by environmental groups has not materialized.
Aff – Drilling Won’t Stop the Transition to Alternative Energy

Off-shore drilling won’t stop the transition to alternative energy

“The reality is that we cannot make the transition to alternative energy overnight, and while we’re getting
there, does it not make sense to use our own oil reserves rather than shipping billions and trillions of dollars overseas
to countries that would do us harm? I support environmentally friendly offshore oil production because I believe it
is a bridge to the future while we invest in alternative energy technology. We simply don’t have the luxury of
relying on a silver bullet to meet our energy needs, so our bill encourages several approaches that include
alternative vehicle technologies and domestic resources.”
Drilling will not ensure oil dependency – it can be used to fund alternative energy
development
Medlock, July 12, 2008 (Kenneth, fellow in Energy Studies at Rice University's James A Baker
III Institute for Public Policy and an adjunct assistant professor in the Economics Department at
Rice, Houston Chronicle)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5884425.html
Another point often raised in objections to more drilling offshore is the concern that it will only further our nation's
"addiction to oil," New oil supplies should be considered as an interim solution that is part of a portfolio of
options designed to move us toward an economy that is not so dependent on oil and gas.
One option would be to earmark royalties from all new developments in the OCS into a fund that is explicitly
for research and development in alternative energy. Then, these domestic resources would indeed serve only
as a bridge to a new energy future.
Aff – Drilling Good – Seepage Turn
No impact and turn – drilling is safe and will reduce oil pressure decreasing natural oil
seepage
Ryden, July 17, 2008 (John, Engineer with a background in Finance and Economics, Seattle
Examiner)
http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2008m7d16-Rankandfile-
lawmakers-plan-to-open-offshore-to-drilling
Many claim the risk of oil spills might pollute their beaches and ruin their tourist business. There was a large
oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969 caused by a blowout of a well. 80,000 barrels of oil were released into the
ocean. This resulted in new regulations requiring safety devices to prevent blowouts and oil spills in
offshore drilling. Since that time, the industry record on oil spills from offshore drilling has been
excellent. California already has naturally occurring oil seepage into the ocean from oil and gas seeps. One
large known seep offshore Coal Oil Point is estimated to release 150 to 170 barrels of oil per day into the
ocean. There are at least 2,000 active oil and gas seeps offshore California. Oil is part of the natural
environmental. Drilling into undersea oil reserves may actually clean up oil seeps in California as
extracting oil from a reservoir will decrease pressure and may stop some of the natural seepage.
Aff – Drilling Good – Cuban Drilling Turn
Turn -- Off-shore drilling is inevitable by Cuba – allowing US drilling is key to protect the
environment
PR Newswire July 15, 2008

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ata-applauds-bush-decision-
lift/story.aspx?guid=%7BF8AEC24D-C871-4AA4-B0DF-E28480864769%7D&dist=hppr
U.S. companies are seeking permission to drill for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, 100
miles off the U.S. coast. The government of Cuba, meanwhile, has already granted leases to foreign
corporations for oil exploration just 60 miles off Florida. If the United States were to develop these resources,
U.S. technology and U.S. environmental regulations will ensure that the environment is protected.
Aff – Drilling Good – Tanker Spills Turn
Drilling is safe and protects the environment by decreasing the risk of tanker spills
A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences reports that in the last 15 years there were zero platform spills
greater than 1,000 barrels. Compared to worldwide tanker spill rates, outer continental shelf operations are
more than five times safer. Imports present an environmental risk of spills about 13 times greater than
domestic production. In fact, annual natural seeps account for 150-175 times more oil in the ocean than OCS oil and
gas operations." (http://www.mms.gov/5-year/WhatIs5YearProgram.htm)
Interestingly, given the fact that tanker spill rates are higher than platform spill rates, by not allowing more
domestic production and thus encouraging more imports, we are, in fact, utilizing a more environ-mentally
damaging option.
Aff – Drilling Good – Resource Wars Turn

No impact and turn – drilling won’t harm the environment and it prevents resource wars
which are worse
Petrowski, July 10, 2008 (Joseph, President of Gulf Oil, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless
drillers will fear tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on
leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there
are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline – and war induced by basic resource struggles – are
greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases the US Economy
Off-shore drilling is critical to sustaining the US economy

Other resource rich areas, however, remain under moratoria, preventing exploration and production off most
of the U.S. coastline. These restrictions deny American consumers access to vast domestic energy supplies.
Expanding access to new areas would ensure adequate domestic energy supplies because areas currently
restricted contain large, untapped resources of oil and natural gas, which are critical to sustaining U.S.
economic growth.
Off-shore drilling is key to boost the US economy

The American Trucking Associations today praised the Bush Administration for lifting the executive moratorium on
offshore drilling. ATA also urged Congress to follow suit and lift its ban on offshore drilling as part of a long-
term strategy to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and curb skyrocketing fuel prices.
"We need the ability to explore new, untapped areas for domestic energy supplies," said ATA President and CEO Bill
Graves. "The U.S. has an opportunity to improve our energy situation and continue to support economic
growth, while providing consumers and businesses with the essential energy they need."
Aff -- Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices
Drilling will solve the energy crisis in the short-term
Petrowski, July 10, 2008 (Joseph, President of Gulf Oil, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer – and
will thus have no effect on prices today – is incorrect. Unlike past oil crises, where the spot
price of oil (that is, today's price) rose more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in
2012 is trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a clear price signal that our
problem is in the future – because we do not have the will to curb demand or increase
supply. How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the
price would not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices that fuels the mania. The oil
market, however, has more than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal.
This is a key component of the added $25-$40 per barrel in current oil prices. Congressional
hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop that. Demonstrate the national will to
address the supply and demand issues now and it will. As forward prices decline, watch
how quickly the spot price comes down.
Drilling will send a key signal to the market decreasing energy price speculation
Mr. Bush’s decision was welcomed by industry representatives. Brian J. Kennedy of the Institute for Energy
Research in Washington, which favors opening the shelf, said lifting the presidential ban would focus attention
on the need for Congress to act, easing the speculative pressure driving up the cost of oil. “This would send a
very strong signal to the global market that the United States is finally getting serious about producing its
own energy resources,” he said.
Aff -- Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices
Allowing drilling will ease the market reducing oil prices and minimizing the current
energy crisis
Of course, opening the OCS will not bring immediate supplies because it would take time to organize the lease sales
and then develop the supply delivery infrastructure. However, as development progressed, the expected growth in
supply would have an effect on market sentiment and eventually prices. Thus, opening the OCS should be
viewed as a relevant part of a larger strategy to help ease prices over time because an increase in activity in
the OCS would generally improve expectations about future oil supplies.
Aff -- Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy
Failure to combat high energy prices in the US will collapse the global economy
Irwin and Faiola July 16, 2008 (Neil and Anthony, Staff writers, Washington Post, Lexis)
But others have argued that soaring energy prices, rising inflation and a weakening dollar are already zapping the
strength out of the world economy, with a full blown U.S. recession likely to take the wind out of the sails of global
growth.
"The rest of the world has accumulated U.S. assets, and if these prices go down, the rest of the world suffers," said
Alex Patelis, head of international economics for Merrill Lynch in London.
The US economy is on the brink of collapse – reducing energy prices is critical to

safeguarding the economy
Lightman and Pugh July 16, 2008 (David and Tony, staff-writers, Miami Herald)
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/605892.html
With no decline in gross domestic product, economists aren't ready to declare a recession, but Mark Vitner, senior
economist at Wachovia, won't rule it out.
"If oil prices don't go below $130 by the end of the summer, it'll be hard for the economy to avoid a recession in the
fourth quarter," he said.
seemed most concerned about inflation, suggesting that rising energy prices soon would be felt throughout the
economy.
But Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at Global Insight, said the economic upheaval should trump all
other financial concerns for policymakers, even inflation.
"There's no question that this is the cusp of a major financial crisis and the Fed needs to get ahead of the curve,"
Bethune said.
The stock market's performance has added to investors' concerns about rising gasoline and food prices, mounting
home foreclosures and upcoming earnings reports from financial institutions. Vitner said nervous investors might be
suffering from information overload.
"There's just so much going on in so many parts of the economy that investors have been torn between whether
things are finding a bottom or whether we've got more pain ahead of us," Vitner said.
America is headed toward an economic crisis due to energy problems
Leeb 06 [Stephen, PhD, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TSD/is_2_5/ai_n25012656>

7/17/08- date accessed]
An economic crisis is near at hand in America today, the kind of dramatic, earth-shattering crisis that
periodically threatens the very survival of civilization. More specifically, it is an energy crisis brought about
by the conflict between rising global demand for energy and our growing inability to increase energy
production." Such doom and gloom is the tone for 13 of the book's 15 chapters. At times Dr. Leeb, a PhD in
Psychology, assures us that skyrocketing oil prices can be avoided by bold action by our leaders with a momentous
investment in alternative energy. Despite the stirring language of the book title, if you are searching for an
investment book with definitive suggestions on where to put your money, or if you are well versed in oil peak
production, you will be disappointed in the lack of diligence by Dr. Leeb. If on the other hand you are a general
investment reader looking for a light book with ideas about a possible future investment landscape and a few ideas
to maximize returns in an inflationary environment, this is a great book to read.
Aff -- Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy
High energy prices will crush the US economy
Investors Business Daily, July 11, 2008 (Lexis)
U.S. recession risks rise

The Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey found that 55% of economists polled say the U.S. will enter into a
recession this year or already has due to higher energy prices, a weakening labor market and falling stock prices.
That's up from 47% in the prior month. Respondents raised their Q2 GDP growth estimates to 1.2% from 0.4% due
to tax rebate checks. But the outlook has worsened. Rising inflation risks will spur the Fed to hike rates, perhaps this
fall, the survey found.
Continued dependence on foreign oil will collapse the US and global economy
Okata & Sato 08 [shigeru & Yuji reporters

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&refer=energy&sid=am42p9xBTXh4>
7/17/08- date accessed]
The global economy would collapse if oil hit $200 a barrel, said the top energy analyst at Germany's largest bank.
Two-hundred dollar oil would break the back of the global economy,'' Deutsche Bank AG's Chief Energy Economist
Adam Sieminski said in an interview today in Tokyo. ``Next step after $200 would be global recession and bad
news for everybody.'' Sieminski's comments come after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. forecast oil may rise to
between $150 and $200 within two years as supply growth, especially from producers outside the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries, fails to keep pace with demand. Deutsche Bank is due to release its oil-price
forecast on June 27. Oil doubled in the past year, touching a record $139.89 a barrel on June 16. Crude oil for
August delivery was at $136.84 a barrel, down 16 cents, at 7:08 p.m. Tokyo time in after-hours trading on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. Russia, a non-OPEC producer and the world's biggest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia,
faces its first annual decline in production in a decade. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pledged to reduce taxation on
the industry to stimulate investment in aging fields and new regions. Output fell 0.9 percent to 9.76 million barrels a
day in the first five months of the year. Growth last quarter fell on a year-on-year basis, and this has to do with the
policies implemented over the prior year to raise taxes on oil industries,'' Sieminski said. ``This made it difficult for
foreign capital to come in. If Russia could reverse some of these policies and get their own oil industry back on, this
will help very much.''
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases Trucking
Off-shore drilling is key to US trucking

The U.S. trucking industry depends upon sufficient and affordable diesel fuel supplies to haul 11 billion tons of
freight every year. Given current fuel prices, the industry is on pace to spend an unprecedented $170 billion on
fuel this year. Environmentally sound expansion of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program will help
ensure that the U.S. trucking industry has enough diesel fuel at affordable prices so that it can continue to
deliver the American economy. Restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf contain at least 18 billion barrels
of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that can be recovered using environmentally safe technology. This is
enough oil to power 40 million cars and to heat 2 million households for 15 years and enough natural gas to heat 60
million households for almost 20 years.
Aff – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy
Robust trucking key to prevent current economic slowdown from destroying the US
economy
ATA 2006 (American Truck Associations, Reports, “When Trucks Stop, America Stops”,
http://www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/5E2BCA15-7C12-43CA-9F82-
154A5A7A2F3C/0/WhenTrucksStopAmericaStops.pdf) 7/16/08 by Au-Yeung
Commercial truck traffic is vital to our nation’s economic prosperity and plays a significant role in
mitigating adverse economic effects during a national or regional emergency. Our economy depends on
trucks to deliver ten billion tons of virtually every commodity consumed—or nearly 70 percent of all
freight transported annually in the U.S. In the U.S. alone, this accounts for $671 billion worth of goods
transported by truck. Add $295 billion in truck trade with Canada and $195.6 billion in truck trade with
Mexico and it becomes apparent that any disruption in truck traffic will lead to rapid economic
instability. The unimpeded flow of trucks is critical to the safety and well-being of all Americans. However,
it is entirely possible that well-intended public officials may instinctively halt or severely restrict truck traffic
in response to an incident of national or regional significance. Recent history has shown us the consequences
that result from a major disruption in truck travel. Immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
significant truck delays at the Canadian border crossings shut down several auto manufacturing plants in
Michigan because just-in-time parts were not delivered. The economic cost to these companies was
enormous. Following Hurricane Katrina, trucks loaded with emergency goods were rerouted, creating
lengthy delays in delivering urgently needed supplies to the stricken areas. Although in the face of an
elevated threat level, a terrorist attack, or a pandemic, halting truck traffic may appear to be the best defense,
it actually puts citizens at risk. Officials at every level of government must recognize that a decision to halt or
severely curb truck traffic following a national or regional emergency will produce unintended health and
economic consequences not only for the community they seek to protect, but for the entire nation. The
American Trucking Associations researched seven key consumer industries to quantify the potential
consequences of restricting or halting truck traffic in response to a national or regional emergency.
Trucking industry is key to the economic structure of the United States
ATA 2006 (American Truck Associations, Reports, “When Trucks Stop, America Stops”,
http://www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/5E2BCA15-7C12-43CA-9F82-
154A5A7A2F3C/0/WhenTrucksStopAmericaStops.pdf) 7/16/08 by Au-Yeung
Banking & Finance

Even with today’s high-tech electronic exchange of currency and information, trucks play a critical role in
transporting hard copies of financial documents and currency. Disruption of truck deliveries to banks and
ATMs will paralyze the banking industry, affecting both consumers and businesses. The bottom-line: cash is
still heavily used as legal tender.
• ATM and branch bank cash resources will be exhausted quicky. In today’s fastpaced, high-technology economy,
consumers access cash 24/7 from 370,000 ATMs nationwide. JP Morgan Chase, the nation’s second largest
consumer bank, replenishes its 6,600 ATMs via armored truck delivery every two to three days. Given the increase
in ATM activity that occurs before and after any type of crisis,ATMs would run out of cash much sooner.
• Small and medium-size businesses will lose access to cash. Banks provide daily cash and coin deliveries to
thousands of small and medium-size businesses via armored trucks. According to JP Morgan Chase, without these
daily deliveries and collections, the ability of businesses to carry out normal commercial transactions will
be disrupted and eventually cease.
Aff – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy
Trucking slowdown occurring now – its key to the overall economy – we need to drill to
safeguard the economy
Smith 08 [Eric, Memphis Daily News staff writer. “Trucking industry in for ‘lackluster ’08.” January 9,
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=35130. Accessed 7/16/08]
The national trucking industry received mixed reviews as 2007 drew to a close. While it posted solid
numbers in November, the business otherwise finished with a lackluster year, according to the most recent
report by the Arlington, Va.-based American Trucking Associations (ATA). How much that paralleled the
local trucking industry remains unclear.The ATA's local affiliate, Nashville-based Tennessee Trucking
Association (TTA), represents more than 500 trucking companies and industry vendors in the state. TTA
president and CEO Dave Huneryager said the organization doesn't break down trucking figures to the state
level. But, he added, the state's truckload (TL) carrier members seem to be doing better than the less-than-
truckload (LTL) members that he speaks with regularly. "Those less-than-truckload carriers are more reliant
on a bunch of small shippers to give them shipments, which they can then consolidate and take across the
country and then distribute them somewhere else," Huneryager said. "(LTL carriers) are, I think, more
impacted by fuel costs and the impact on manufacturing and retailing than the truckload carriers are."Put a
load on Indeed, the rise of fuel prices - Oil reached a record high of $100.09 per barrel last week before
dropping to $95.21 per barrel Monday - has been a major factor for trucking. Since trucks haul almost 70
percent of manufactured and retail goods in the U.S., fuel costs will continue to serve as a bellwether
for trucking - and vice versa. "Our industry is a really good indicator for economic prosperity, decline
or recovery," Huneryager said. "What the LTLs are feeling right now is an indication of what happened over
the last six to eight months - the economy's slowing down. It's been impacted not only by fuel, but primarily
housing." The residential housing slump has affected trucking negatively. TL carriers haven't felt the slump
quite as badly because they haul goods in bulk, but the LTL carriers that carry a variety of appliances,
furniture or other goods needed for new homes have been struggling. "That's where the LTL guys make their
money, and when there are not a lot of houses moving, not a lot of houses being built, it impacts our industry
big-time," Huneryager said. 'Lackluster freight volumes' Total goods shipped by truck in the U.S. rose 3.3
percent in November compared to November 2006. It was only the second year-over-year increase in eight
months but the biggest increase from year-ago levels since January 2005, according to ATA. However,
through the first 11 months of 2007, the seasonally adjusted index was 1.7 percent below the previous year's
levels. The tonnage index measures the weight of freight hauled by U.S. truckers based on membership
surveys. Furthermore, the trucking industry's trade association projected a gloomy 2008 as volumes are
expected to be soft throughout the year. "Based on the latest economic data and the expected slowdown in
the economy over the next few quarters, we anticipate lackluster freight volumes at least through the first
half of 2008," said ATA economist Tavio Headley in a prepared statement.
Aff – Drilling Good – Increases Tourism
Drilling increases tourism – encourages rig diving
Hallman 6 [John, director of FreedomWorks,

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2753 accessed July 16,
2008] November 3 2006
The areas of the Gulf Coast that have access to the platforms have seen increased business due to the popularity of “rig”
diving, that means the platforms are not only beneficial to the environment but also good for local economies, attracting
new tourist to Gulf Coast towns. Also new technologies make platforms safer from oil leaks, automatic well-head cut-off
valves keep oil under the seabed if the rig or platform breaks away. Investigations showed that there was no significant
environmental damage from the offshore platforms despite two Category 5 hurricanes last year in the Gulf. Actually, the
only oil spills after the hurricanes came from beached oil tankers damaged from the storms and not from the platform
pipes themselves. Also, all proposed drilling areas would have platforms very far from the field of vision from coastal
beaches as not to have any impact people enjoying their “day at the beach.”
Allowing greater access to the outer continental shelf for new oil and natural gas exploration is a win-win for Americans;
less dependence on dangerous foreign dictators holding us hostage with oil prices, and creating beneficial artificial reefs
for marine wildlife.

OCS Drilling - Politics DA - Hester

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCS Drilling - Politics DA - Hester

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Bormann, Hester, Stevenson Politics DA – OCS Drilling

Lorber, June 29, 2008 (Janie, staff writer, Newsday)

FYI -- (sop means to pacify in this context)

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

Maintaining Biodiversity is critical to prevent human extinction

Lorber, June 29, 2008 (Janie, staff writer, Newsday)

Lautenberg, April 26, 2008, [Frank, Senator of New Jersey,http.democrats.senate.gov

KCRG News 2008, (May 7, (http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=18745804,

Democrats strong support incentives for alternative fuels

DNC 2006 (Democratic National Committee, Sept. 29,

Andrew 2007, June 13 [Edmund L., New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/washington/

Democrats support liquefied coal

Mufson 7 [Steven, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

Key democrats support Brownfields rejuvenation

Dillon 7 [Robert, award-winning Washington reporter, editor, CNN and NPR;

DEMOCRATS FAVOR CAP AND TRADE AND CARBON TAX

There is increasing Bipartisan Support for Nuclear Energy

Davenport 07 [Coral, news reporter for the Congressional Quarterly,

Democrats are looking to compromise on off-shore drilling

Jessup, July 15, 2008 (CBN News Washington Correspondent, John)

Grist, July 9, 08 (Grist News, 07/16/08)

Reuters, July 9, 2008

The Chattanoogan July 16, 2008

Congress is key – there will no drilling without legislative action

The Chattanoogan July 16, 2008

CNN July 17, 2008

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

Science should guide future Congressional decisions about coastal drilling

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

USA Today July 13, 2008

Oceanic biodiversity loss could be devastating to humans

MarineBio 08 [MarineBio, inc. Biodiversity. 2008.

Charlotte Observer July 3, 2008

Charlotte Observer July 3, 2008

Science Daily 07 ['http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730172426.htm, accessed

EPA studies prove drilling will kill reefs

Donatoni ’02. [Matthew, Expert on oil drilling at Santa Clara University,

Coral Reefs Key to Ocean Biodiversity

UN 2007 (Atlas of the Ocean, “Biodiversity and Coral Reefs” 20 June)

Coral reefs are essential to sustain marine biodiversity

Paine '04 [Robert, Editor of The National Academy of Sciences,

Coral Reefs are critical for biodiversity and food security

Cohn, 2002 (Jeffrey, author of history of the Endangered Species Act)

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

Releasing methane hydrates guarantees rapid warming and climatic instability

Dillon, 1990 (Dr. William, US Geological Survey, 07/16/08 http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-

Sierra Club, April 7, 2006

Proposed drilling will not be contained as has been claimed by proponents.

Associated Press 06 [<http://news.carjunky.com/environmental/arctic-national-wildlife-reserve-

Abend 01 [Paula, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

ANWR drilling won’t increase the economy

Associated Press 06 [<http://news.carjunky.com/environmental/arctic-national-wildlife-reserve-

Associated Press 06 [<http://news.carjunky.com/environmental/arctic-national-wildlife-reserve-

USA Today July 13, 2008

Sierra Club, April 19, 2005

Drilling in the OCS could have damaging effects on local economies.

USA Today July 13, 2008

Increasing drilling won’t effect oil prices – its all hype

Drilling is not a short term solution to the energy crisis

Lorber, June 29, 2008 (Janie, staff writer, Newsday)

Drilling Bad – Stops Transition to Alternative Energy

Even with tech increasing drilling will destroy the ocean